Talk-Polywell.org

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/28/what- ... lieved-rea

Very interesting article for many reasons! Thanks for sharing!

Approval != Morality

Morality is brought on in an individual basis, however; there is generally an agreed upon norm or standard through the community to maintain the peace. The data provided speaks more about where the societal norm has changed more than the individual. I imagine if you had graphs representing BC era Persia/Africa/etc. approval, you'd see the social construct of race wouldn't factor in so much.

ScottL wrote:Approval != Morality

Yup.

ScottL wrote:Morality is brought on in an individual basis, however; there is generally an agreed upon norm or standard through the community to maintain the peace. The data provided speaks more about where the societal norm has changed more than the individual. I imagine if you had graphs representing BC era Persia/Africa/etc. approval, you'd see the social construct of race wouldn't factor in so much.

OTOH, the incest taboo and a few other standards are well-nigh universal.

djolds1 wrote:

ScottL wrote:Approval != Morality

Yup.

ScottL wrote:Morality is brought on in an individual basis, however; there is generally an agreed upon norm or standard through the community to maintain the peace. The data provided speaks more about where the societal norm has changed more than the individual. I imagine if you had graphs representing BC era Persia/Africa/etc. approval, you'd see the social construct of race wouldn't factor in so much.

OTOH, the incest taboo and a few other standards are well-nigh universal.

In the case of incest, there's a biological component that adversely effects the general population, but yeah its part of the "standard morality" and will never change.

Does anyone else note the irony that this thread says "morality never changes" and cites an example where morality certainly has changed just in the last few decades?

GIThruster wrote:Does anyone else note the irony that this thread says "morality never changes" and cites an example where morality certainly has changed just in the last few decades?

Has it really changed?

In-group/out-group dynamics like this are persistent in all cultures and if suppressed in one area tend to just pop back up in another (often more virulently).

If you really want someone upset with you, tell them it's not OK to hate the people they've been hating their whole lives.

GIThruster wrote:Does anyone else note the irony that this thread says "morality never changes" and cites an example where morality certainly has changed just in the last few decades?

I think he was being sarcastic or at least that is how I took it for the obvious rebuttal.

GIThruster wrote:Does anyone else note the irony that this thread says "morality never changes" and cites an example where morality certainly has changed just in the last few decades?

The public perception of what is moral has certainly changed. Some of us believe that unchanging standards of right and wrong exist anyway.

The public perception of what is moral has certainly changed. Some of us believe that unchanging standards of right and wrong exist anyway.

Going back to my previously stated distinction between morals and ethics.

No, not really.

"Morals" generally refers to beliefs about right and wrong behavior. "Ethics" refers to the system used to understand or justify those beliefs. hanely sounds like an absolutist since he believes that values concerning morality of right and wrong behavior have an absolute basis or in the words of the philosopher, they have being, but not existence. Absolutists fall into the three groups "graded", "conflicting" and "unqualified" but all three of these ethical systems teach that most if not all moral values have an absolute basis, not contingent upon our recognizing them or agreeing with them. Very often people who are absolutists are also neo-platonists in that they believe these values that have absolute being are amongst other non-moral concepts such as numbers, that likewise have absolute being.