Conventionalism is Dead - Society does NOT determine what is moral.

Good, good, good. Drawing some lines. Societies do produce moral CODES I think, which subsequent behaviours are defined by. According to a particular moral code something is either bad or good.My main problem is that codes change; what was once bad is now good. What was once good was now bad. But that is soooo weird to me. On a surface level it appears true.Can we really say slavery was once moral, or only that it was once acceptable in some moral code? I don't think it was ever moral.Can we say the Inquistion was once moral? Can we say that imprisoning homosexuals and scientists was once moral?Sure, it was acceptable as per that society's code, but I don't think we can view morality as limited by any code. It is something bigger, to me, at least.So, to be blunt, society creates moral codes, obviously, and they are based on the greatest common denominators in that society's path to whatever is 'better'. I believe we can go backwards when we start denying what is already accepted as moral. Or we can go forwards. It just seems so obvious to me that if we keep looking for something better we have acknowledged an ideal. The 'ideal' can be God, or just a natural assessment of the failures of the current code. It is not a huge big deal to get into the origins of what is better, or whether or not an ideal absolute can be achieved, but morality in general is simply doing what is best according to what we DO know.

There doesn't have to be any difference, unless you accept or agree with my delineation of one.Morality changes, yes.I don't see it, say, like changing the color of your shirt from red to green. I see it more like changing from sack cloth to Gucci. It gets to the point where you can't be received in society while wearing sack-cloth. But even if sack-cloth came back into fashion, and stranger things have happened, would it be 'ok' if slavery did? I think most people would say no. Doesn't mean it never would...but for right now there it seems that we aren't really looking for change, but for 'better'.Not an exact science at all;What is better than Gucci? Anything, as long as it is in fashion.What is better than not keeping slaves? Just keeping a few? Treating them well? Or only making slaves of 'inferior' people? Yeah right, but we used to think that was the best we could do.So, you don't have to agree, but maybe you can understand more what I mean.

No, but I wouldn't use any analogies of over-fishing or pollution. We already acknowledge that they are undesirables. In order for morality to change, really change, future generations would have to hold us culpable for not polluting enough. This is why I did delineate between 'acceptable' and moral. Change happens, of course, but I think morality evolves, rather than substitues interchangeable ideas.So, instead of 'what once was good is now bad', it is more, what once we THOUGHT was good we now know is not. How can anyone convince others without first discovering an alternative? That is what I mean by morality not being limited to a society's rules. It is often hindered by the rules, the same as science or technology. But someone, somehow, has to 'discover' a better idea, and begin the tough process of convincing others. I think that is what the light at the end of the tunnel story was all about. Of course not, and neither did they discover the instructions for the first electric refridgerator. But think about pollution. We had to evolve through the lower processes first to 'discover' the harm of pollution. It was all a battle for making things better; more productivity, faster machines, bigger factories, all good. No one thought before all of this to NOT progress because pollution would result. People were prefectly moral in their actions because they just didnt know any better at the time. We now do, and it will now be immoral forever to burn any toxic chemicals, to use asbestos, to improperly dump waste, etc.So, I say, morality is defined by society's current knowledge, but not limited to it. We just changer our collective minds, sure, but someone had to do the discovering and the convincing that something was better. And, of course, some people will always fight tooth and nail to hold onto their immoral behaviour, becuase it benefits them. Nice and preachy, but seriously, how many news stories do you see about illegal dumping?

Interesting, but because this correlates what I have been saying about 'hard-wired' morality, and is the naturalistic explanation for what I would say is 'from God', as in, God hard-wired it. I would expect an alternate theory to be out there which explains obvious tendencies, sans God. And I am not being sarcastic or disdainful, I really do think our collective urge to 'get better' must be hard-wired somehow.As far as the other point, interesting too. Even if I believe that God is the creator and programmer of morality, it is certainly possible that any over-acceptance of what religions teach could be a hinderance to self-analysis, reason, knowledge, and conformity with natural tendencies. Of course, natural tendencies also include very immoral behaviour, maybe........Example; we seem to not like super-promiscuous behavior, or marital infidelity. At the same time, we love it. We like variety, and freedom, and opportunity, and choice. So, are we secretly hard-wired as monogomous animals, like birds, or opportunistic as cats? Haha, we 'secretly' have a choice, and that is what the Bible and morality and religion is all about; using our other skills, like empathy and intelligence, to 'discover' what is hard-wired already. Weird. Now we try to abandon pre-fab ideas to allow ourselves to be 'natural' and we still have no idea if we are naturally this or that, because we still have a choice. Dualism...sorry, I am seeing some humour for some reason. Good point, though.

I see a difference but it is only in context.Try again; slavery was never moral, but it was acceptable because we didn't know any better. Therefore, many of those who kept slaves were probably moral people. Who can tell? If the Israelites knew they didn't like being slaves, they should probably know they shouldn't like keeping slaves. I don't think anyone thought like that back then; equality was more physical. The Isrealites wanted to be equal to those who had possessions and good fortune, and this included having slaves. 'Casting' people in roles is still not abolished, but we are much more focused on the equality of people regardless of possessions. Sure, but it would be flying in the face of all that we do know, choosing to go back to the horse and buggy and destroying all evidence of the automobile.

I think we are completely on a different page communication-wise. My apologies. What I was saying was exactly the first sentence you said; these things still go on even though we know better. It takes awhile to convince society, and awhile longer to come up with a course of action that puts an end to pollution. My point is that since we know better, we can't go back to when we didn't. The same way; moral evolution, progress, etc. Even the Jews who live now and follow the OT don't think slavery is moral, and it is still in the Bible. Good, so what is moral doesn't really change, does it? But whether it is acceptable to act immorally does. No, society defines morality, not morals. I will try to be clearer;What a society thinks is moral, determines whether it views a particular citizen as moral. As opposed to; what a society THINKS is moral determines what IS moral. That is just my opinion, so you do not have to agree.

But of course we have a tendency to backslide! That is the nature of a dualist philosophy...human versus divine, good versus evil, whatever. We are sipposed to keep reminding ourselves not to backslide, and you know how it goes, landslide effect. I don't know if it will happen again. I know that it will never again be ok even if does happen. I know that even if the last anti-slavery advocate passed away, it would still not be ok. It is an uphill battle, sliding back down a tunnel doesn't give us an excuse to forget about the light, and even if we DID forget about it, that doesn't mean it is not there.

Morality is objective. Morals are of course subject in how close they come to absolute morality.

I am really not sure what the purpose of this question is, or how it contributes to the topic.

My point, is that we just don't know this. For example, there could be a god, or even just a natural hard-wired moral code that has nothing to do with god. If it turns out that some actions are 'really' wrong, and some are 'really' good, it would be accurate to say that slavery was always wrong, is now, and always will be. We just didn't KNOW it.Funny, tho. There is some saying; God was, is, and ever shall be...and an opposite saying about Satan's rule, that what once was, now is not, and again will be. This is not exact, and not something I want to dwell on, but it has something to do with the confusion and temporary state of the world compared to the natural order of God.

Yeah, I know. I think that there is an absolute morality, which is just my belief, kind of Platonic in nature, and loosely substantiated by the progress we seem to be making towards equality of others, etc.I think we now 'know' that doing good to others is moral. We quibble about why, when, how, and who...but you know the drill. If in the year 3054 we start thinking that being evil to others is moral, I still insist it wouldn't be.

Sure, my objective for instance is serving God.Can I tell how well I've done? Only in relation to what I know now, and how hard I have worked to get better.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

But there is no point. What the heck is the point in bringing the 'n' word into a conversation where I have clearly said that I don't think certain things were ever moral or ever will be?Fine, tho, if you want an answer; if some group of Asians colonizes a corner of New York and suddenly takes a notion that they like the word, it will be very moral to call them that. Does that mean that morality changes? No! As long as some poeple don't like the word, it will be wrong to call them that, because the moral is to treat others well.

Didn't you even read the Time Out and the Admins?

And didn't you even read the rest of my post where I said that I am quite aware of how the use of the word can be moral depending on how a person feels about it?And the rest, where I said that the moral is about doing good to others?Since we know better now, it will never be ok, and has never been ok, to call anyone anything that is derogatory and/or makes them feel sub-human. Even if that includes calling them pussy-cat, love-bug, or whatever. You can tell me...will it ever be moral to call someone a name while knowing that it hurts their feelings?