[coberst]

Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

[pachyderm]

I cannot specify any books or publications on the matter, but I have read some non-religion-based discussions on the derivation of the sense of "morality" from "what advances the common good" -- kind of an ethic based on social values. Makes sense to me. And it does not deny the existence of uncertainties and values in possible conflict.

[SeptemberMorn]

And who's going to be the judge of what is moral and what isn't?

I think we already have something indisputable that gives us that answer. But if you're looking for something non-religious, try what they are teaching in public schools; The Humanist Manifestos I & II and Values Clarification.

May I say that I'm against these ideas wholeheartedly? Again, I ask; who is going to have the final authority on what is right and what isn't?

[gimmeice]

Hello coberst, it's nice to meet you, welcome to psychcentral.
Morality is an interesting subject but I am not sure there can be an universal form of morality, everybody is different and inperfection is universal, that is the beauty of being human I guess.
I hope you find this website as helpful as I have.

[nowheretorun]

hi coberst, great topic and great thoughts by all.. these are matters that as citizens we might feel an obligation to consider.. i have done my best to do so always... morality is something that many have attempted to teach and it is a most difficult subject to an unwilling mass... morality is something that requires review and maintenance for an evolving body to receive its best benefit... historically, morality has been under review as long as humans have been alive and still, there is much for humans to learn and understand...

morality serves to guide us into a more healthy state of mind, one that cares for itself and in doing so, recognizes a need to care for others as well...

what then happens is that an individual may grant each perspective (mine and theirs) equal favor.. by doing this a community can establish a healthy average... the degree of health a community might strive to achieve is decided by the community and that is what might become the current acceptable morality...

at times it is healthy to review and update these general considerations so the environment in which the community exists has optimum opportunity for healthy growth..

this might create tension and anxiety because changes in patterns disturb some... for the health of the whole, all must be considered as equally important, even those who choose to retain a less healthy habit... morality is the thing which says we should consider all regardless...

just my thoughts about morality, kind wishes for all

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by SeptemberMorn

who is going to have the final authority on what is right and what isn't?

Whoever/whatever it is, we humans only have our ideas to work with; everything is filtered through us -- even writings, about whoever/whatever, are created by us, and thus subject to imperfection. Thus for us, there is no final authority I think, except the verdict of experience.

[SeptemberMorn]

Pachy, if we follow the greatest commandment ever given, there shouldn't be any trouble with morality. But alas, we don't even know how to love ourselves so how are we to love our neighbor? Human love has so many interpretations, strings attached, etc.

As long as this world has been in existance, you'd think someone would have come up with a "science." But science is a study of whose laws are capable of accurate quantitative expression. Too many variables when you deal with humans. Behavioral science deals with human action and seeks to generalize about human behavior in society. There's your variable. I think our human laws already provide that, at least in the US and most of Europe. Even so, cultures are so diverse that it's almost impossible, if not completely impossible to even being to generalize throughout the civilized world.

IMHO, only a "one world govenrment" could you even begin to establish something like a generalized behavioral science that would dictate what is moral and what isn't; never mind establishing a set of laws that the populace of the whole world would abide by! And as far as a "one world govenrment" goes, I'm outta here! Unless you know my personal beliefs, I'm sure you'll miss the humor behind "I'm outta here!"

[coberst]

We have inherited certain moral instincts from our non human animal ancestors. These moral impulses are essential for our social harmony and for our survival as a species. We have allowed religion to take command of these matters and have failed to focus our rational abilities on these matters. A study of our history shows the disaster that has resulted. We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.

We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.

The human brain is capable of a systematic and disciplined study of any domain of knowledge. One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters beyond what they learned in Sunday school or from their parents who are ignorant of such matters also. Religion is not morality. We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.

[(JD)]

"When man is allowed to see himself as only an animal, controlled by inborn or acquired instincts, he becomes self-centered and power oriented. Everything becomes an issue of power to be what he wants to be, and we either seek to create our own reality and purpose in life as the existentialist would do, or we slump into the despair of the postmodernist who says nothing makes any difference, and it really doesn't matter what we do." Ray Cotton.

[SeptemberMorn]

We have inherited certain moral instincts from our non human animal ancestors.

MORAL instincts from animals?? To kill or be killed, to eat or be eaten, to steal or be stolen from? To freely mate with any or all of the species? And the list goes on. Just exactly what "moral" instincts are you talking about here? Humans have souls which are eternal and judgable, animals do not. Humans can reason and reach conclusions, animals cannot.

I agree with what Sky quoted; "When man is allowed to see himself as only an animal, controlled by inborn or acquired instincts, he becomes self-centered and power oriented." Isn't that pretty much what "man" has been doing ever since time began? Look where it's gotten us!

[pachyderm]

You mean the actions of the other animals are worse than those of man?

On behalf of the other animals, I protest.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by SeptemberMorn

MORAL instincts from animals?? To kill or be killed, to eat or be eaten, to steal or be stolen from? To freely mate with any or all of the species? And the list goes on. Just exactly what "moral" instincts are you talking about here? Humans have souls which are eternal and judgable, animals do not. Humans can reason and reach conclusions, animals cannot.

I agree with what Sky quoted; "When man is allowed to see himself as only an animal, controlled by inborn or acquired instincts, he becomes self-centered and power oriented." Isn't that pretty much what "man" has been doing ever since time began? Look where it's gotten us!

We have certain moral instincts that are required for social animals. We see monkeys grooming one another as an example. Morality is about interrelationships.

[coberst]

Septembermorn

Social animals require moral instincts. Morality is about inter relationships.

[SeptemberMorn]

Originally Posted by coberst

Septembermorn

Social animals require moral instincts. Morality is about inter relationships.

Humans are above the animals and just a little less than the angels, coberst!

[(JD)]

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

How so? Without a supreme Being who is perfect, who's to say that one human is treating another human so terribly? What is the reference point of "not" terribly and how is it determined?

[SeptemberMorn]

According to Webster; a doctrine or system of moral conduct: particular moral principles or rules of conduct

Taken from allaboutphilosophy.com

"Morality Defined

Morality speaks of a system of behavior in regards to standards of right or wrong behavior. The word carries the concepts of: (1) moral standards, with regard to behavior; (2) moral responsibility, referring to our conscience; and (3) a moral identity, or one who is capable of right or wrong action. Common synonyms include ethics, principles, virtue, and goodness. Morality has become a complicated issue in the multi-cultural world we live in today.

Morality as it relates to our behavior is important on three levels. Renowned thinker, scholar and author C.S. Lewis defines them as: (1) to ensure fair play and harmony between individuals; (2) to help make us good people in order to have a good society; and (3) to keep us in a good relationship with the power that created us. Based on this definition, it's clear that our beliefs are critical to our moral behavior.

On Point 1, Professor Lewis says most reasonable people agree. By Point 2, however, we begin to see problems occurring. Consider the popular philosophy "I'm not hurting anyone but myself," frequently used to excuse bad personal choices. How can we be the good people we need to be if we persist in making these choices, and how will that result not affect the rest of our society? Bad personal choices do hurt others. Point 3 is where most disagreement surfaces. While the majority of the world's population believes in God, or at least in a god, the question of Creation, as a theory of origins, is definitely hotly debated in today's society.

A recent report in Psychology Today concluded: "The most significant predictor of a person's moral behavior may be religious commitment. People who consider themselves very religious were least likely to report deceiving their friends, having extramarital affairs, cheating on their expenses accounts, or even parking illegally." Based on this finding, what we believe about Creation has a decided effect on our moral thinking and our behavior. Without belief in a Creator, the only option that seems to be left is to adhere to moral standards we make up for ourselves. Unless we live in a dictatorial society, we are free to choose our own personal moral code. But where does that freedom come from? The view of many who do not adhere to Creation is that morality is a creation of humanity, designed to meet the need of stable societies. All kinds of life are in a process of deciding between life and death, choosing what to do with power and/or authority. This ultimately leads to a system of virtues and values. The question is: what happens when our choices conflict with each other? What if something I believe I need in order for my life to continue results in death for you? If we do not have an absolute standard of truth, chaos and conflict will result as we are all left to our own devices and desires. "

Again, I ask, who will be the ultimate authority for what is moral and what isn't?

[kimmydawn]

I appreciate the very thoughtful responses here in this discussion.

I do feel the need to place a reminder that, while I recognize it might be very difficult to do, the discussion of religion within this topic must remain limited (i.e. specific religious belief references).

There is one reason, and one reason only, that certain topics need to be limited on the public forum. That reason is that such topics are very dear to us, often becoming extremely passionate and often heated.

I appreciate the cooperation with this.

KD

[Rapunzel]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralE...tml#conclusion

Development of morality is scientifically studied. See Piaget, Kohlberg, etc.

One idea in at least some of these theories of moral development is that it matters less what moral decisions are reached as how one reaches those decisions. Kohlberg outlines a stage theory in which children or individuals at lower stages choose based on there being a rule which one may be punished for breaking. Progressing through the stages, one begins to consider potential benefits or costs, reciprocity, social value ("being good"), social norms, social impact, and finally one's sense of higher values. Each theory has implications for education - focus on teaching values vs. teaching fairness and problem-solving.

For many people, religion is part of how values and morality are developed. The argument can be made that everyone has values and religion of some kind, although they may call it something else, and not everybody has the same values and religion. Everyone develops a way of living based on a set of values, whatever they may be.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by _Sky

How so? Without a supreme Being who is perfect, who's to say that one human is treating another human so terribly? What is the reference point of "not" terribly and how is it determined?
[/size][/font]

I would say that killing one another because there is a disagreement about which god is bigger is a sign of a problem.

Not terrible would begin with developing a science of morality and taking morality out of the hands of priests, rabbis, and preachers.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by SeptemberMorn

Again, I ask, who will be the ultimate authority for what is moral and what isn't?

We each are the ultimate authority for our self as regards moral matters. We must make such judgments constantly and that is why it is so necessary that we teach our self CT (Critical Thinking), i.e. the art and science of good judgment.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:

• Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
• CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
• CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
• Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
• I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
• Can our democracy survive that long?
• I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
• I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

[(JD)]

I am interested not just in the physical evidences to the realities of life, but in the metaphysical evidences as well. Therefore I believe I must not allow the reductionism of this present age to eliminate the metaphysical in ethical dialogue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by _Sky
How so? Without a supreme Being who is perfect, who's to say that one human is treating another human so terribly? What is the reference point of "not" terribly and how is it determined?
[/size][/font]

I would say that killing one another because there is a disagreement about which god is bigger is a sign of a problem.

Not terrible would begin with developing a science of morality and taking morality out of the hands of priests, rabbis, and preachers.

But you haven't answered my question, have you? I'm not interested in discussing individual choices, such as the death penalty etc.

I am interested in knowing where you would find your base for what is right or wrong. What would be your bright-line test? And how would you "logically" impose that same bright-line on everyone else?

People don't all agree on everything, yet many of us all do have a bright-rule that is provided to us by our God. This is the base of our logical determinations of what is good and right, and what crosses the line to what is not good and not right.

[Lenny]

Originally Posted by coberst

We each are the ultimate authority for our self as regards moral matters.

All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

Hi coberst and welcome to PC...

We have not had a chance to get to know you..it seems you began here with your thoughts on morality. Not complaining, mind you, but as we are a support community with a focus on mental health,,it might seem you came in a side door...

It is a resonable discussion and you are obviously capable and have received some wonderfull responses..This community is Graced by some caring and competent minds..

I have two comments..that you might consider..

Yes,,we are the ultimate authority on our choices,,but not on the consensus of those choices. That is left to whatever our community(society) dictates. What is moral for me in my attitudes about women is blasphemy for another,,say in Iraq...for example...Historical culture forms social attitudes...

Your focus seems to dictate a direct correlation to moral thinking is derived from pointed study. I find this very limiting. Some of the most moral men and women I have ever met have seldom opened a book or embarked upon a conversation such as the one you began here...

Poets have spoke of Love for centuries,,trying to explain the paradox of its pain and joy...but each human experiences its miraculous gifts in our own personal vaccum...

Morality too, is an ever constant flux of energies between appetite and conscience...the latter being engrained by consequence...and example.

But these are only my opinions...

I would like to learn more about you and how we can help,,when you have a moment...

Lenny

[pegasus]

Science of Morality, anyone? >>>>>>>>>> Principles of behaviour with respect to right and wrong.

Usually using rules and regulations.

Hope this answers your question.

Welcome to Psych Central!

[coberst]

Originally Posted by _Sky

I am interested not just in the physical evidences to the realities of life, but in the metaphysical evidences as well. Therefore I believe I must not allow the reductionism of this present age to eliminate the metaphysical in ethical dialogue.



But you haven't answered my question, have you? I'm not interested in discussing individual choices, such as the death penalty etc.

I am interested in knowing where you would find your base for what is right or wrong. What would be your bright-line test? And how would you "logically" impose that same bright-line on everyone else?

People don't all agree on everything, yet many of us all do have a bright-rule that is provided to us by our God. This is the base of our logical determinations of what is good and right, and what crosses the line to what is not good and not right.

The base for the existence of a social species rests on the presence of evolved instincts. These moral instincts plus the need to get along just to survive is the base for developing a science that will allow us to prevent our own destruction. By leaving moral conduct to religion we have created great problems that have led to constant wars. If we do not learn some way to better get along we will self destruct. Just as we have learned to control nature we must learn how to control human nature.

[coberst]

Lenny

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

It is unlikely that you will encounter this unorthodox suggestion ever again. You must act on this occasion or never act. The first thing is to make a change in attitude about just what is the nature of education. Then one must face the world with a critical outlook. A number of attitude changes are required as a first step. All parents, I guess, recognize the problems inherent in attitude adjustment. We just have to focus that knowledge upon our self as the object needing an attitude adjustment rather than our child.

Another often heard response is that “you are preaching to the choir”. If you conclude that this is an old familiar tune then I have failed to make clear my suggestion. I recall a story circulating many years ago when the Catholic Church was undergoing substantial changes. Catholics where no longer using Latin in the mass, they were no longer required to abstain from meat on Friday and many other changes. The story goes that one lady was complaining about all these changes and she said, “with all these changes the only thing one will need to do to be a good Catholic is love thy neighbor”.

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.