Can someone explain to me why someone who is true to their internal principals might come to automatically occupy some sort of high-ground? Can somebody explain to me why either occupying or not occupying that high-ground automatically makes everything else that person does legitimate or bunk?

Truthfully, it's not that that I don't understand it, it's just that I think it's stupid.

I think it's stupid too. Mainly because any attempt to define morality falls into the same category as shooting at a moving target.

"High moral ground" is just a phrase that caught on and stuck. It is very useful for people who sanctimoniously consider themselves to be the standard by which others should be measured.

For those to whom the phrase truly applies--those who stick by their own principles even in the face of adversity, like Exmos :)---using such a phrase is superfluous.

"High moral ground" is indeed a dubious concept since morality is largely a personal matter.

It becomes relevant when people or groups, mainly religious ones, claim to be superior to others. The question of whether they actual do occupy the high ground then becomes a matter of integrity, hypocrisy, and hence of trustworthiness in general.

Morality also becomes a larger matter when it relates to how people treat other people. I'd prefer to avoid the term "high moral ground" in this context and perhaps to use the word "ethics" instead of "morals," but here behavior really is important both per se and because of what it means about the person's character and behavior in general. When doing business with someone, it is relevant whether that person is ethical.

Politically, morality matters in the same sense. Whether a person has affairs isn't significant unless it raises questions about the person's judgment and conduct in other contexts. To me, for instance, Bill Clinton's sexual attacks on innocent women, his lies in court, his use of the government to defame women, etc., raised real questions about his ability to govern.

The same is true, in spades, of Trump. I don't care about his personal affairs unless he is guilty of crimes, subject to blackmail, and/or lacking in impulse control. Whether we call those things morality, ethics, character, or competence is neither here nor there. The point is that when private conduct has public implications, it is important.

So I have no problem--and would in fact prefer--dispensing with the term "high moral ground."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "High moral ground" is indeed a dubious concept
> since morality is largely a personal matter.

I see morality as something larger than human concept, sure to be rejected by those steeped in Deconstructionism. (I'm a Post-Deconstructionist, myself.)
>
> I'd prefer...to use the word "ethics"
> instead of "morals," but here behavior really is
> important both per se and because of what it means
> about the person's character and behavior in
> general. When doing business with someone, it is
> relevant whether that person is ethical.

Ethics are for people who would rather not deal with morality. The legal profession comes to my mind here.
>

And yet, if people spent less time conflating sexual appetites with general competence, a much more tolerable guy named John Edwards might currently be sitting in the Oval Office.

Great questions.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can someone explain to me why someone who is true
> to their internal principals might come to
> automatically occupy some sort of high-ground?

I believe that the concept of "higher ground" comes from an idea that humans in a survivalist and more rudimentary condition are occupying "lower ground."

A human who can be "true to self" is someone who actually can reconcile what their life, habits, and communal conditions are like and what their beliefs, words, and use of power over others are like.

Hypocrisy is merely a huge delta between the two in my opinion.

> Can
> somebody explain to me why either occupying or not
> occupying that high-ground automatically makes
> everything else that person does legitimate or
> bunk?

No one but "the self" could even attempt to determine if they occupy "higher ground" so it is a self-designated "ground."

> Truthfully, it's not that that I don't understand
> it, it's just that I think it's stupid.

I don't think it is stupid from a personal point of view. IT is when people attempt to take their personal and make it the ground for others to see them on. And it would have to be high for that...

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...true to their internal principals..."

Another name for this is integrity.

Those who aren't true to their internal principles DON'T have integrity. They could be just weak, or they could be major league hypocrites. It's hard to depend on weak people, and no one trusts hypocrites.

However, whether someone who is true to their internal principles is morally superior depends on what those internal principles are.

olderelder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, whether someone who is true to their
> internal principles is morally superior depends on
> what those internal principles are.

Good point.
KKK members are very often true to their internal principles.
Doesn't mean I should trust them or consider them "morally superior" :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KKK members are very often true to their internal
> principles.

One thing interesting to note about humans being true to something they formed in a belief is that these are things that were biologically reinforced through human psychology. People will sometimes die for a principle they couldn't live by.

Being "true" to an internal principle means being false to human natures. We are the adaptive creature. No matter how others judge the height of your own internal principles the question is whether you would jump from that height to survive or not.

"Can someone explain to me why someone who is true to their internal principals might come to automatically occupy some sort of high-ground? Can somebody explain to me why either occupying or not occupying that high-ground automatically makes everything else that person does legitimate or bunk?"

COMMENT: First, the "moral high ground" encompasses more than merely following one's subjective moral sense, or internal moral principles. It requires some sort of objective grounding, even if only in social consensus. Very basically, one might point to the "golden-rule" as at least part of such a grounding. If so, "occupying the moral high ground" would be an appropriate characterization when someone places the interest of others over his own selfish self-interest in any number of morally relevant contexts, and perhaps in the face of peer pressure to do otherwise.
______________________________________________

"Truthfully, it's not that that I don't understand it, it's just that I think it's stupid."

COMMENT: Well, if you already understand it, why are you asking for an explanation; and why not simply state your understanding, and explain why you think it is stupid?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: First, the "moral high ground"
> encompasses more than merely following one's
> subjective moral sense, or internal moral
> principles. It requires some sort of objective
> grounding, even if only in social consensus.

In my opinion that is the only possibility in appealing to objectivity available - social consensus.

But following social consensus in attempting to gain higher moral ground is a terrible way to judge morality for individuals in my opinion.

Henry, I'm with EB.

Social consensus is a terrible standard for morality. Crowds are often highly immoral, both in riots and in mass political and religious movements. It's pretty clear that consensus values in 1930s Japan, 1930s Germany, 1930s USSR, Cultural Revolution China, 1990s Rwanda, etc., were terrible. It is in those situations the few who stood up against societal norms who were the true heroes.

The same is true of Sarah Pratt, the critics of MMM and polygamy, in Utah, those who were excommunicated for advocating racial equality before 1978, and those who espouse gay rights against the church's today.

Social consensus doesn't arise in a vacuum; it is often generated by political or social leaders and imposed on those of weaker will and courage. Often the champions of morality are isolated individuals, the opposite of society.

In answer to the broader question, I don't know where atheists and agnostics can find an "objective" moral code outside of biological imperatives. I just don't think societal norms suffice.

Henry, I'm with EB.

Social consensus is a terrible standard for morality. Crowds are often highly immoral, both in riots and in mass political and religious movements. It's pretty clear that consensus values in 1930s Japan, 1930s Germany, 1930s USSR, Cultural Revolution China, 1990s Rwanda, etc., were terrible. It is in those situations the few who stood up against societal norms who were the true heroes.

COMMENT: Read my post! I wasn't arguing for social consensus as the foundation for morality, I was only pointing out that some foundation is assumed when using a moral term like "moral high-ground."
_________________________________________

Note: You make a lot of moral judgments yourself, both here and elsewhere. What is the basis for your own moral standard? If it is just your personal moral sense, that is worse than social consensus, because that is not an objective standard at all, and provides no foundational basis for social morality.

You are right that I make a lot of moral judgments. You are also right that individual conceptions of morality are inevitably subjective.

I just don't think group morality is any more objective. I think you'd have a hard time making a case for that proposition historically or theoretically. All that societal morality does is take the mores of political and opinion leaders in a given place and at a given time and impart to them the imprimatur of society, which is tautological. In short, social norms are every bit as subjective as individual norms--just more popular. And popularity is not a good standard of truth.

I acknowledge that I am not offering an objective standard. Perhaps I am suggesting that objective morality is logically impossible. But I am willing, even eager, to submit my judgments to examination by others in part because I enjoy the repartee but also because I learn from the exchanges.

Maybe there is something in that: morality as a process of argument, reflection, and learning rather than as an objective reality.

And I stand by my reading of your post. You wrote that "'High moral ground'. . . requires some sort of objective grounding, even if only in social consensus."

I think it is reasonable to interpret that as meaning that social consensus is "some sort of objective grounding." In fact, that's a plain reading and not really an interpretation.

"I just don't think group morality is any more objective. I think you'd have a hard time making a case for that proposition historically or theoretically."

COMMENT: No problem. Social morality *is* objective in a very important way; it *can* offer an objective standard from which to gage moral conduct. Of course, that does not make it metaphysically real in any sense.

Suppose you had a social group of 1000 people and upon inquiry all said that they believed that killing an innocent child was wrong. You would then have an objective standard by which to gage the morality of killing an innocent child, namely a social consensus. Now, let's make it more complicated. Suppose you had a society of 500 million people, and after surveying all of them individually, 97 percent agreed that killing an innocent child was wrong. THAT IS STILL AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. Statistical results are mathematical, and as such are objective. Thus, an objective standard of morality in such a society that stated that the killing of an innocent child was morally wrong would be an objective standard.

In short, the question is *how* the "objectivity" of such a standard is established, not whether it can be. The problem of moral objectivity only comes into play when (1) the complexities of moral context and behavior make consensus difficult and cumbersome; and/or (2) someone insists upon making some metaphysical or ontological claim; e.g. by invoking God, or by tying morality ontologically to the avoidance of suffering. When someone says, "Morality" is a part of the universal order of things; or "Morality" is dictated by God; or "Morality just is behavior that minimizes suffering, they are engaged in metaphysics: They are trying to say what morality "is," rather than how members of a given society "feel" about certain actions or conduct.

I'll change one word in your sentence.

What if "you had a social group of 1000 people and upon inquiry all said that they believed that killing an innocent child was RIGHT?"

Does the agreement of 1,000 people make killing the innocent child "moral?" I say no.

What does the fact that groups of 1,000 people in different times and places can reach diametrically opposed positions on something as simple as killing a child tell us about "objectivity?"

What you are doing, Henry, is arbitrarily defining one form of subjectivity--social consensus--as "objectivity." That, in my reading of history, justifies all manner of atrocities.

"What if "you had a social group of 1000 people and upon inquiry all said that they believed that killing an innocent child was RIGHT?"

COMMENT: If the social group in fact came to that consensus as a moral judgment then, yes. And it would be equally objective for that social group, even if it offended your personal moral sense. But, the question here is about grounding morality in some objective sense. Social consensus does that. If you insist upon something more metaphysically satisfying, then good luck establishing that. Otherwise, you are left with morality being defined entirely upon an individual's own personal moral sense, which entirely defeats any discussion of morality as a standard to be relied upon in establishing laws and appropriate human behavior.
_______________________________________________

"Does the agreement of 1,000 people make killing the innocent child "moral?" I say no."

COMMENT: Your saying "no" only reveals your own personal moral sense. There is no grounding of morality in that; unless, of course, you are God. Now, you could, and I would as well, say about such a society that they are wrong! But, like you, I would only be expressing an opinion based upon my own moral sense, or perhaps about some metaphysical reality that I can insist upon but cannot either identify to justify. Not much help.
________________________________________________

"What does the fact that groups of 1,000 people in different times and places can reach diametrically opposed positions on something as simple as killing a child tell us about "objectivity?"

COMMENT: It tells us that there is likely no metaphysical objectivity, and that morality must rely upon social consensus if it wants to insist that moral judgments can be objectively made within a society.
_________________________________________________

"What you are doing, Henry, is arbitrarily defining one form of subjectivity--social consensus--as "objectivity." That, in my reading of history, justifies all manner of atrocities."

COMMENT: No. "Subjective" by definition is mind dependent. "Social consensus" is a mathematical calculation as to what people say or believe is morally required. Now, each individual belief may be based upon their own personal moral sense, but that is not what is at issue here. The objectivity here is based upon a calculation, not on individual feelings. Social consensus is a form of relativity, but not a form of subjectivity, because--again--the result is based upon math, not psychology. In other words, societies do not have minds, and therefore do not have subjective beliefs.

Finally, please keep in mind that I am addressing a problem for morality; i.e. how do you ground it in some objective way in order to facility social norms about what is morally right and wrong. I cannot do it without relativity, and all of the issues associated with that. Nonetheless, as a society we still need to be able to assess moral and immoral conduct, besides just leaving it up to whims of individuals.
_________________________________________

Yes, we are both addressing the same complexity. We have been using the words "objective" and "subjective." I don't like those terms because what you are doing is to use "subjective" as in "individual" and "objective" as in "group." In that sense you do get away from individual choice and towards something else, though I don't feel comfortable describing that "group" as objective or moral.

And I think it is obvious that moral heroes are often those who reject the group's thinking, when your analysis would basically call that immovable individual anti-social or even sociopathic. As someone who has studied a lot of mass movements, I am uncomfortable with any definition of morality that would condemn someone who stands up for the unpopular as "immoral."

We are both groping towards the words "relative" and "absolute." So your group consensus would be moving beyond the individual's relativistic moral code and towards an "absolute" group code. I like the word "relative" in that context but am again uncomfortable with the word "absolute" as a modifier of morality if it is based merely on consensus. In fact, consensus is neither objective nor absolute and in either case again leads to the conclusion that an individual staring down a band of Red Guards is acting immorally.

I don't have an answer other than to say that perhaps objective morality is beyond human powers of definition. Religion surely doesn't hold the answer because God frequently commands violence and oppression as well as being remarkably fickle in his moral views over time.

Not satisfying, I know. But as Isaiah Berlin wrote of the second generation of Enlightenment thinkers, the attempt to move beyond "negative freedom," meaning constraints on the powers of the state and society over the individual, to "positive freedom" in the sense of an objective moral code, very often leads to tyranny. In human affairs it is sometimes best to recognize the limitations on our capacity rather than to reach for simplistic answers that often have unintended, and horrible, consequences.

I think defining morality as "going along with everyone else" is one such invidious simplification.

Yes, we are both addressing the same complexity. We have been using the words "objective" and "subjective." I don't like those terms because what you are doing is to use "subjective" as in "individual" and "objective" as in "group."

COMMENT: No I am not. I am using these terms for what they mean in ordinary discourse. "Subjective" means that a moral dictate finds it validity solely from an individual's moral sense or feelings. "Objective" means that the principle is based upon some established criteria or theory that dictates the moral action. I can present an objective theory by proposing some set of moral rules, right or wrong. The "objectivity" characterization has nothing to do with society per se.
__________________________________________

"In that sense you do get away from individual choice and towards something else, though I don't feel comfortable describing that "group" as objective or moral."

COMMENT: Again, objectivity only means that the moral principle is based upon some rule, criterion, or theory that is not just the inner moral feelings of some individual. The Golden Rule, as an example, is such an objective principle. The fact that in general people feel that it the GR captures morality in some sense, is irrelevant to its objectivity.
__________________________________________

"And I think it is obvious that moral heroes are often those who reject the group's thinking, when your analysis would basically call that immovable individual anti-social or even sociopathic. As someone who has studied a lot of mass movements, I am uncomfortable with any definition of morality that would condemn someone who stands up for the unpopular as "immoral."

COMMENT: I share this concern. No doubt there are problems with adopting social consensus as "the" moral imperative. But, nonetheless, it offers grounding from which a society can talk about and dictate laws and behavior. It is not perfect, but as far as I know, it is all we have. If one's personal, subjective morality trumps the social norm, that suggests something about "morality" as a concept, and human psychology. But, again, as a practical matter, as a society are we supposed to throw up our hands as just say, "Everybody can do whatever they think is right."
___________________________________________________

"We are both groping towards the words "relative" and "absolute."

COMMENT: Not me. Maybe it would help to consider that the opposite of "relative" is "absolute" (not subjective) and the opposite of "subjective" is "objective." (not absolute) Social morality is objective (in some sense) but relative across societies. An individually based morality is relative (across individuals) and subjective. In the former case, the "objectivity" component arguably allows for a meaningful social moral code, whereas the latter, being subjective, does not.
__________________________________________________

So your group consensus would be moving beyond the individual's relativistic moral code and towards an "absolute" group code.

COMMENT: No. See above. It remains forever relative.
___________________________________________________

"I like the word "relative" in that context but am again uncomfortable with the word "absolute" as a modifier of morality if it is based merely on consensus. In fact, consensus is neither objective nor absolute and in either case again leads to the conclusion that an individual staring down a band of Red Guards is acting immorally."

COMMENT: I reject the word "absolute" as a description of morality. That is why I do not, and did not, use it in my description of social morality.
___________________________________________________

"I think defining morality as "going along with everyone else" is one such invidious simplification."

COMMENT: That is not quite what I said, but I agree that the issues are difficult. And almost anything one might say on this subject is bound to be an over-simplification. But one thing I think is clear, subjective moral relativism is doomed to create social chaos, which is why we at least try to instigate laws that reflect in some sense our general moral sensibilities.

This is a useful dialogue.

I'll make two points. First, the word "subjective" usually applies to individuals but can be used to describe groups. When people persuade each other, often through peer pressure or mass psychology, that something that is false is true, they can reasonably be described as acting subjectively together in the sense that they are not behaving objectively. There are lots of psychological studies and historical events that have demonstrated this Lemming-like element of human society.

Second, you write that "subjective moral relativism is doomed to create social chaos." Well, perhaps. But is social order really that sacrosanct? Was Stalin's social order just or moral? Was Mao's? How about the Heaven's Gate cult or Mormonism during the Reformation, when MMM occurred? My point is that often society embraces immorality (unless you dispense with that problem by saying that everything society praises is by definition "good" or "moral.")

And when society goes off the rails, so to speak, it is often the Socrates or would-be assassin of Hitler who embodies higher morality. Describing such people as immoral because they violate the "objective" morality of society is something I'm not comfortable doing.

Good points.

Thanks, LW. I found it useful as well.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is the basis for
> your own moral standard? If it is just your
> personal moral sense, that is worse than social
> consensus, because that is not an objective
> standard at all, and provides no foundational
> basis for social morality.

Do I really need to point out that you deciding her own personal moral sense is "worse" than social consensus is, itself, entirely subjective?

:)

"Do I really need to point out that you deciding her own personal moral sense is "worse" than social consensus is, itself, entirely subjective?"

COMMENT: Well, O.K. But obviously I did not mean "worse" in a moral sense, I meant worse in a philosophical sense, and a pragmatic sense. In other words it is worse because it doesn't get us anywhere in either defining morality or applying it to social life. And that seems to me to be an objective judgment, based upon facts and logic. But maybe there is an argument that everyone being free to apply their own morality is better for society that having objective moral norms. I will wait for you to argue that point. :)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will
> wait for you to argue that point. :)

I won't <grin>!

I'm firmly convinced there isn't any objective basis for morality. So it's up to us to work out subjective ones that we can agree on, and that produce results we subjectively set out.

I'm not super impressed with moral altruism like the golden rule. To often it espouses an underlying current of existential superiority. I'm equally skeptical of the idea of an objective social conscious although my issue is with the word objective and not the concept of social conscious. If we are to suppose that a social conscious represents a higher ideal I'm fine with that, just don't tell me that it is an objectively higher ideal.

Like!

"I'm not super impressed with moral altruism like the golden rule. To often it espouses an underlying current of existential superiority."

COMMENT: What are you talking about? Please explain.
_______________________________________________

"Imequally skeptical of the idea of an objective social conscious although my issue is with the word objective and not the concept of social conscious. If we are to suppose that a social conscious represents a higher ideal I'm fine with that, just don't tell me that it is an objectively higher ideal."

COMMENT: Fine. You're skeptical of any type of objective standard for morality. So, then what is your basis for making moral judgments, and in particular what is your basis in thinking that someone should accept your moral sense as in any way authoritative? If your skepticism extends to complete relativism, there is no morality, and you might as well not bring it up.

Moral Altruism: Nate's way of saying that the idea that I should make decisions based on the welfare of others using my perspective involves me thinking that my perspective is best. As a very naive 19 year old I thought that I was doing unto others when I went on a mission. After-all I knew the true path of salvation and it would be selfish to not share it.

I'm quite happy with a subjective standard, just as long as it isn't co-opted as a true and right ethic. I prefer the constancy of change, that way I'm able to adjust my views when new information arises.

"Moral Altruism: Nate's way of saying that the idea that I should make decisions based on the welfare of others using my perspective involves me thinking that my perspective is best."

COMMENT: There are many nuances surrounding the idea of "the welfare of others." For example, there is the physical welfare of others, the emotional welfare of others, the psychological welfare of others, the spiritual welfare of others, etc. The fact that this involves some element of "perspective" certainly does not mean that human beings cannot experience genuine empathy in some contexts, and thus appropriately understand the idea of altruism. In short, your suggestion that applying one's perspective to altruism implies the claim that somehow that perspective is the "best" is questionable. But more importantly, there is a lot of commonality of moral perspectives from which to base altruistic behavior, particularly as applied to physical welfare.
__________________________________________________

"As a very naive 19 year old I thought that I was doing unto others when I went on a mission. After-all I knew the true path of salvation and it would be selfish to not share it."

COMMENT: Wait a minute. The fact that you were mistaken as to the underlying facts of Mormonism, has no bearing whatsoever on the application of the general rule that people should treat others as they wish to be treated. Maybe "how we wish to be treated" is occasionally based upon a misguided perspective, but that is no justification to give up on the rule. It is only pointing out a need to be mindful, rational, and flexible as to the validity of one's perspective when contemplating one's actions towards others.

You attempt to make a puzzle of all of this instead of drilling it down to the simplest idea. That way all of the obvious nuances and complexities take precedence over the two or three foundational issues. That someone might be genuine and be doing the wrong thing isn't even a discussion. Yet you bring up the fact that someone is or might be genuine as a point in favor of what you call base commonality in moral perspectives.


You misunderstand my anecdote and then accept my original premise. Strange.

I think posters here talking about the high moral ground or not the moral high ground. It’s a subtle distinction but it makes a big difference. If we’re talking about the high moral ground – then we’re comparing to people that are all operating on the moral ground, some higher, some lower, but all moral. If were talking about the moral high ground – then we could be talking about a lot of people operating on High ground- some that are on moral high ground and some that are simply on high ground.

I dare you to claim that I am making less sense than anyone else here.

My father stood on it until people got tired of his bluster.

You are turning in the opposite direction of a very tight circle of MORmON thinking.

MORmONS like to feel that they are better than others because of meaningless trivialities that they deem to be important but are not really. such as MORmONS do not drink pepsi, do not swear, and do go to church. Based on that kind of trivial stuff, MORmONS feel they must be better than others.

There IS such a thing as Moral high ground. IF a person steals, and their accuser does not steal, then as the first person is caught, then their accuser definitely does have the moral high ground.

I think you might be sick of hearing about MOral high ground from MORmONS and MORmON ASSpostHOLES who like to assert that they have the moral high ground when they are really epic phonies !

I agree with your topic liner but for a very different reason than most; namely, we all don't think and believe in the same things. What is considered the moral high ground (or moral high ground) to some is absolutely beneath the feet of others. Donbagley's point about what Mormons consider to be the moral high ground is pretty much on target--what they consider to be the moral high ground (not drinking or swearing, or making sure my tithes are paid) are not my definition of the moral high ground (which involves fairness and personal integrity).

And while I agree with both Lot's Wife and Elder Barry about using social norms to determine moral high ground, the fact remains that we humans are social animals who do need each other for support whenever we attempt to do something.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And while I agree with both Lot's Wife and Elder
> Barry about using social norms to determine moral
> high ground, the fact remains that we humans are
> social animals who do need each other for support
> whenever we attempt to do something.


Great point. It isn't just an appeal to sociality because we are social creatures. How could I disentangle my subjective views of my reality from my environs of social experiences?

I like the thought experiment about being the only human in existence. Everything you do is moral because there is no possibility of consensus.

I use that thought experiment since I learned about it as a basis for my own judgements which my society considers moral, scruple, ethical type decisions and opinions in my life. It forces me to address myself outside the vacuum of individuality without running to some sense of personal objectivity (read metaphysical type jump outside of myself.) My prefrontal cortex is a wonderful strategizer and constraint on my own biology when it wants to go wild. To require it to have some sort of thing outside my own physiology to judge my judgements against like a "virtue" or "altruism" is like requiring myself to know how my brain works so well as to be able to pinpoint where my ethics come from or knowing about a "moral gene."

It isn't going to happen. Ironically I just wrote sin't and corrected myself. But that is apropos for me. Sin't going to happen. Sins are merely myself or others judging my behaviors based on things outside my cognition and biology. Are brains are great decision makers and function at the level of right and wrong in ways I can't understand. My prefrontal cortex as a mature adult helps me decide things from a variety of influences one of which is the huge social influences in my life.

The idea that we can't be moral human beings without some sort of objective measure or abstract conception or metaphysical appeal is just a lie we tell ourselves in my opinion.

Morality almost requires society, doesn't it?

If you were the only human on earth, with no obligations to other humans, are their moral constraints on your actions? What could you do that would be immoral.

I think the answer is that one redefines society to include a less important group: animals and other life forms. Because if there are no other humans around whose wives you can covet, most moral issues do not arise. But it would still be wrong, would it not, to inflict unnecessary pain on other life forms?

My point is that morality is about one's relations with others. Almost always that means other humans, but the absence of humans still leaves some "moral" considerations. If you were the only sentient being in existence, by contrast, it is hard for me to see what you could do that would be "immoral."

Society may not provide a dependable basis for moral decisions, but it is what gives birth to (the need for) morality.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morality almost requires society, doesn't it?

I think it does. Humans are one of few creatures who can live a rather normal span for their species with a glut of calories. Nature eliminates rather quickly creatures consuming too many calories.

We are omnivorous to an insane degree. Other animals and plants are going to "suffer" from our biology. And so our morality is contained in our societies ready to consume everything ingesting and otherwise. Left in a more natural state we would have no problems with all the barbarities of our human past. They would temper our voracity. We only have a concept of morality because we have a capacity for empathy. Empathy requires other human beings to experience in study after study. People believing they are affecting another human being (or pet) experience emotions they wouldn't with a machine or other animals.

We are horrified by a puppy placed in a snapping turtles jaws but not a rat.

> I think the answer is that one redefines society
> to include a less important group: animals and
> other life forms. Because if there are no other
> humans around whose wives you can covet, most
> moral issues do not arise. But it would still be
> wrong, would it not, to inflict unnecessary pain
> on other life forms?

I think this is asking whether the sanctity of life as a whole is something we could consider moral if we were the only human alive. I think of the movie "Castaway." A volleyball got included as another human being in the cast.

We use higher cognition to determine right and wrong subconsciously and interpret the resulting mental activity. Life is always evaluating conditions and making decisions. I personally believe unnecessary pain in any form is wrong because it is useless for life. Reducing it would be a good thing in my subjective view. I might have to ask my volleyball what he thinks though.

> Society may not provide a dependable basis for
> moral decisions, but it is what gives birth to
> (the need for) morality.

Exactly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2018 04:21PM by Elder Berry.

The term 'moral high ground' describes which of two or more conflicting moral ideals is important enough to supercede the others.

So one person says "illegal immigration violates the law and therefore it is wrong and no one should do it". Then someone else comes along and says "that is an unjust law and therefore, we have a right to violate it". Both sides claim that they alone have the moral high ground.

There is yet a third and more freightening use of the concept that I see enacted my mormon church members all of the time. Lacking a real moral compass, many church members decide that based on the actions or the perceived actions of other church members, that moral high ground varies, based on the actions of other church members. So if John Doe is violating the word of wisdom, then it is okay for you to violate the word of wisdom too and blame your choice on John Doe if you're ever called on it. The next step then is to decide that since John doe doesn't keep the rules, that you don't have to be in integrity with John Doe. You can lie to him because he is a rule-breaker himself, which relieves you of your duty to be honest with him and even justifies these actions by you. In this case, you believe that you have the moral high ground because he is a ruls-breaker. By extension then, as one of the lord's elect, you can lie and mis-treat others because you have moral high-ground, by virtue of the fact that you belong to the 'only true church'. This may sound extreme and screwed-up. It is. But after the church finishes breaking someone and replaces their common sense with religious dogma and narcissism (designed to create an 'us vs them' mentality), that's what you often get. Is this observation wrong?

One advantage of leaving the church is that you get your own definition of 'moral high ground' back. Your morality is not relative to the actions of others or of what the church leaders say, as much as it is to your own code of right and wrong, which is consistant with everyone and fair. You get to use your own concience and concepts of fairness again.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2018 11:30PM by azsteve.