Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 1

Due to past discussions in the comment section of the blog, I've decided to delve into the century old debate about the nature of morality. Although there are many differing opinions, they can best be categorized into the following two:

1. Universalist
2. Relativist

I don't care much for the official terminology on the subject  because it only serves to confuse the layman and alienate this important discussion to the upper echelons of the philosophical profession. For those without a background here's a description of the two:

1. Universalist: One who believes that all human beings have similar and "universal" moral values that can be adhered to regardless of the culture, race, gender, etc. 
2. Relativist: One who believes that each society, culture, or religion has its own unique moral system that they can adhere to. They have no higher moral standard to aim for because our morals are "relative."

The most notable supporters of moral universalism are theists (I say this un-connected to the questions I have about my own belief). They hold the idea that there is a higher being that establishes what is moral and what is immoral. The followers are acting justly and those who don't listen to the teachings are acting incorrectly and will be punished in one way or another. Even if you believe that all religions lead to the same mountain peak, you would still concede that there is a divine being that teaches us right from wrong.

Of course, there are some deists who believe that the universe was created by a higher being, but it doesn't really care much past its initial creation; from this point, one can support moral universalism or relativism.

Finally, in the agnostic and atheist groups, there is far more differing opinions about the nature of morality. Although they didn't deal with the same question per se, and many dealt with very specific inquiries of morals, ethics, happiness and death, their opinions can be summarized best below: 

Ancient:

1. Socrates: Knowledge is the highest source of morality. Self-knowledge will get people to act morally; immoral action is due to ignorance. (This isn't so far off from some more modern stances.)
2. Aristotle: "Nature does nothing in vain" and so everyone should act within nature to attain happiness and good deeds. Self-realization and developing one's talent to become a "person" is surest sign of a moral life. Moderation was recommended from the extremes. 
3. Aristippus:  "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die." Take advantage of every pleasure regardless of how short lived. 
4. Epicurus: Rejected the teachings of Aristippus believing some pleasures are bad for humans. Summum bonum or the "greatest good" for the person was essential. Above all, overcoming the fear of death was extremely important because it would help one lead a happier life. 
5. Epictetus: Peace of mind was the highest value one could attain. Controlling one's desires and emotions would lead to spiritual peace. They must have the "will" to be independent. 

Not-Ancient but Not-Modern:

1. Consequentialism: Here I can't categorize by a single person because there are so many kinds of consequentialism. In general, this standpoint holds firm that an act is determined as moral or immoral by the consequences of the action. Although I don't think it is necessarily accurate, it is often described with the aphorism "The ends justify the means." Jeremy Bentham is one of the best known consequentialists. 
2. Deontology: For this, the name isn't too important. More important is the man behind it: Immaneul Kant. Rather than judge an act by its consequences, Kant believes that an act is moral if it is 'intrinsically good,' or doesn't make the situation worse. The act must be good, per se. 

As you might concur, most of these can be universal or relative, however, I am of the opinion that morality is universal in nature; furthermore, I ascribe to a specific type of consequentialism but allow me to expound on the former first.

Morals are universal regardless of where you come from, what your culture is, or your way of life. Allow me to explain it this way. 

There are actions that can be considered immoral in all societies; take, for example, murder. Of course there are the exceptions for defense and it is worth noting that murder refers to the killing of innocence so it can't be applied to war zones where militants fight other militants.  I can't think of a society where random or serial murder on citizens is considered a social or cultural norm. Even in the most violent of places in the world, "murder" wasn't a moral value and never could be. So we can confidently say that murder is an immoral value held by all people around the world throughout history. 

When you concede that there is at least one thing that is considered universally immoral, it becomes clear that there must be more: Rape, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there must be actions that are considered universally moral (although it isn't predicated on the former). 

Admittedly, the discussion about the source of this universal moral standard is still hotly debated. Theists believe that a divine being dictates those morals while others (some theists included) say that universal moral standards don't require a higher up. I'll talk about what I believe a moral system should be based on in Part 3 of the series. 

And so, with a universal set of morals every society on Earth has a duty to meet them. That's why we have laws: to maintain the peace, and seek justice. It is the reason why parents teach their kids not to lie to or bully others. 

So what's wrong with relativism? A lot, to say the least. The most disturbing of them all is that, if morals are relative to one's society, those morals would be based on the teachings of tradition, or that society's God/s or even secularly taught values. The problem is, some societies have horribly disturbing practices. 

Let's take Female Genital Mutilation. I'm well aware of the differing terminology, but to me, it's nothing less than mutilation, not comparable with male circumcision (although I don't support that either). Health leaders can call it "cutting", and "mutilation" may seem extremely judgmental, but I AM being judgmental of the practice. This video will tell you more about it:

Is this custom moral? Of course not. It's disgusting. Yet relativists would tell us that this act isn't immoral because we can not judge another culture's actions since we have differing moral systems. Our morals are relative to our culture and theirs to theirs.

Are the women right to celebrate as little girls are forced to have their clitoris and (sometimes) labias cut off? Absolutely not! Anyone who supports such as practice is supporting nothing less than the mutilation of millions of screaming girls throughout history. The fact is, there are acts that societies deem moral, yet we know for a fact that they aren't right. Yes, there are some in the regions where this is practiced who are fighting to change it, however, the relativist stance establishes that whatever a society believes is moral, is in fact moral. 

This is perhaps it's largest fallacy. The word "belief" doesn't imply the word "is." I may "believe" that killing is moral, but that doesn't mean that it "is." Likewise, they may "believe" that FGM is moral, but that doesn't mean that it "is." Surely, relativism is not a proper moral ideology. 

And so we reach an important milestone: morals are NOT determined by public opinion. One hundred years ago, it wasn't immoral to enslave someone, but today we know better than that. So if not determined by public opinion, what should morals be based on?

I'll cover this in Part 2 of this series. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!