Sharpe's Opinion
Thursday, 19th Feb, 2009
Fascinating article by Steven Pinker in the New York Times last month, considering the perception of morality. Choice quote (among many):
Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?
Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago. Does God have a good reason for designating certain acts as moral and others as immoral? If not — if his dictates are divine whims — why should we take them seriously? Suppose that God commanded us to torture a child. Would that make it all right, or would some other standard give us reasons to resist? And if, on the other hand, God was forced by moral reasons to issue some dictates and not others — if a command to torture a child was never an option — then why not appeal to those reasons directly?
I still say that morality is only what we collectively decide it is – just like the value of currency is nothing more than the average value that our society as a whole ascribes to it.
That’s why homosexuality now is not a morality issue, where 200 years ago it was utterly sinful. Homosexuality itself has not changed in the meantime: morality has.
Comments
Well, there’s still culture and tradition to put in the mix. That homosexuality is considered a religious sin in most parts of the world will have more or less impact according to the tolerance accorded by the gvt to the people.
With this example, are you suggesting that government or religion is the arbiter of morality?
Good subject.
Culture and tradition inform our decision making process.
There is no ‘arbiter of morality’. The people collectively influence the lawmakers towards morality decisions that they agree with. The support given to the suffragettes by the people influenced the lawmakers to realise that society viewed the suppression of women as wrong. As with homosexuality – the people collectively (which is to say the average voter) don’t view homosexuality to be sinful. If the church were the arbiter of morality then homosexuality would be sinful.
Other examples abound. Being told to head for the dining table, though, so shall have to leave it there for now.
Bugger. Just lost my comment. Quick precis:
Culture does not necessarily inform correctly.
Suffragettes: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_and_Mouse_Act . Compare with Maze prison. You really want to keep going on this?
Lawmakers are not influenced by the masses but ipso facto by those who can influence (and/or have enough money).
The average voter does not follow their ‘given’ religion and would not know the difference between a sin and an illegal act.
Piers Morgan seems to think a 13yr old (alleged) father is immoral (Question Time tonight) – um, no.
Hope dinner was as good as mine.
Interesting, I am mulling a post on morality!! Nearly did it earlier!!
Blue Eyes
February 19, 2009 at 5:27 pm