wiploc wrote:
Jonathan Haidt, in
The Righteous Mind, says that, in the absence of moral beliefs, we couldn't have societies of more than about 300 people.
(That's not how Haidt said it, but I think it's a fair restatement of his claim.)
Can it be shown that his claim is anything more than a subjective opinion?
Also, does it really need to be "moral beliefs" or would secular social ethics suffice?
Ethics don't require judging anyone to be a bad person. Ethics are simply a set of rules that a society or organization agrees to. And they can indeed be quite subjective and even open to democratic votes.
wiploc wrote:
We have laws. And laws are what keep people from doing things we don't want them to do. At least it keeps most people from doing things we don't want them to do.
And laws really have nothing to do with morality, nor should they.
That seems to me an outrageous claim.
How can you say this? You know it's true. What does a law that says that we have to get our car inspected for safety have to do with morality?
Also there was a time when some states didn't even require auto inspections. Not sure if that's still true today, but who would say that those states were immoral because they didn't' require safety inspections on their cars?
The law that says you have to pay the county property tax? Morality?
How about income tax? What's the got to do with morality?
There are tons of laws that clearly have nothing at all to do with morality.
And I suggest that even those that can be argued to coincidentally line up with the moral values preached by some, they'd probably exist anyway even if there never was such a concept of morality.
Like murder for example. We don't make that against the law because we think that people who commit murder should be punished. Instead, we make the law because we don't want citizens to think that it's ok to just go around killing each other for no good reason.
wiploc wrote:
I have to pay property taxes lest I get in trouble with the law. What in the world does paying property tax have to do with morality or concepts of right or wrong?
If you want me to play devil's advocate, I'll point out that some people think tax evaders don't pay their fair share, and that not paying your fair share is wrong.
So? That's their subjective opinion.
wiploc wrote:
We can't go around beating fair shares out of everybody. A society that prospers will be one in which people pay their fair share voluntarily, because they think that is morally right.
It has nothing to do with morality. What about someone who lost their job and can't find work. Now you're demanding that they pay their "Fair Share". Well, in this case their "Fair Share" should be zero because they have no source of income. Yet come property tax time not being employed doesn't count for much.
So I question the concept of "Fair Share" and suggest that this is also nothing more than a subjective opinion.
Besides, I think that NO ONE should have to pay property taxes. That's certainly fair.
And why should people who have no children be forced to pay school tax? Why not let the people who have children pay for their own kid's education?
How is it fair to force people who don't have kids to pay for the education of other people's children?
wiploc wrote:
I personally think that property tax is wrong in the first place.
To quote Detective Sargent Arthur Dietrich (played by Steve Landesburg in
Barney Miller), "It's a point of view."
Exactly. Nothing more than a subjective opinion. It certainly has nothing to do with any objective morality.
wiploc wrote:
I have to get my car inspected, licensed, and insured. What in the world does any of that have to do with morality? Most of our laws have nothing at all to do with morality.
To quote or paraphrase Audrey (Little Shop of Horrors), "You're talkin' peculiar again, Seymour."
When you respond with comments like this I know the points I'm making are rock solid.
wiploc wrote:
Even laws that might seem to be about morality really have nothing to do with morality. Like stealing and shoplifting. There would be laws against doing those things just as a matter of commercial practicality. Who cares whether we judge a thief to be a "Good or Bad" person? That's not the point of the law. The law isn't out to brand people as being good or bad. It's just out to insure that people don't do things we don't want to be done. That's all.
I agree that the law judges whether someone did a particular bad thing. It does not judge whether she is a bad person.
I can't agree that supporting a moral code with criminal penalties has nothing to do with morality.
Why even judge that it to have been a "
bad thing"? Just becasue it was illegal doesn't mean it was a bad thing. I got busted a while back for having an expired license plate on my car. Caught me totally by surprise. I had no clue the plate had run out. I got the car inspected and thought I had renewed the license at the same time but apparently forgot to actually do it. So I got fined for having simply made an honest mistake.
The law doesn't give a hoot whether anything "
bad" was done or not. All they care about is whether a law is broken.
It has absolutely nothing to do with morality at all.
wiploc wrote:
None of our laws should be based on moral judgements anyway. We don't have laws against murder because we think it's morally wrong. We have laws against murder because we don't want people going around killing each other just because they feel like it. It simply isn't compatible with trying to create a safe and strong society.
A society doesn't even need to have any concept of morality at all. All they need to do is make practical laws and enforce them. What purpose does it serve to judge the criminals to be "bad people"? It serves no purpose at all other than potentially publicly shamming them.
So we don't even need a concept of morality. What does morality have to do with setting a speed limit of 55 MPH on the highway? Absolutely nothing. We make all manner of laws that have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality.
If we didn't have speed limits, more people would die. Lives would be messed up. We would suffer more without speed limits.
That's not even why they cut the speed limit back to 55 MPH. Look it up.
wiploc wrote:
I read Machiavelli's
The Prince in Junior High, and concluded that we are responsible for the predictable effects of our actions. If you'll grant me that point, then it follows that failing to set speed limits would make us responsible for the resulting deaths, injuries, and the resulting suffering.
It would be wrong of us not to set speed limits.
Setting speed limits is a moral act.
And that, my friend is your personal subjective opinion. One that I don't personally agree with.
wiploc wrote:
Morality is a concept that has one use only. To judge others. That's it. Even the law doesn't use it. They don't judge whether a criminal is a good or bad person. All they do is judge whether or not he broke a law.
Societies have no need for morality anyway. It's a concept that we don't even need.
For societies of fewer than 300 people, that could be true. But I'm skeptical.
Your taking Jonathan Haidt's subjective opinion as Gospel truth. Why?
wiploc wrote:
Just make laws based on how a society expects their citizens to act, and that's all that's necessary. No moral judgements required. In fact, it's quite dangerous when they start making laws based on what they think is moral or immoral.
So morality is not only ill-defined. But it's virtually useless anyway.
Morality is how we work together with people we don't know. It is how we strive as a group for things that don't benefit us personally. It's how we fit more than eight million people on the planet. It is how we appeal to people's better nature.
Why call it morality? What's wrong with secular ethics?
Ethics works well for companies and commercial industries. And even for our legal system. There's no need to judge people to have done "
bad" things. If they aren't in harmony with our ethics, we don't say that they are "
bad" people. We simply say that they aren't respecting our ethics.
We can have rules of conduct without bringing a concept of morality into the picture at all. Like I say, driving with an expired license is illegal, but who's to say that it's immoral?
wiploc wrote:
Even subjective morality is a useless construct. It amounts to nothing more than passing moral judgements on others. That's all it's any good for.
And if we judge a person to be immoral, or have committed an immoral act and the law can't convict them. Then they get off Scott free anyway. Judging them to have been immoral is a total waste of time.
You think that, if Bill Cosby had been aquitted, he'd have gotten off scott free?
Well, he certainly would have gotten off scott free from a legal perspective.
And who's going to punish him? Some invisible imaginary God?
You'd need to demonstrate that such a God exists to make that argument.
And if you're going to argue for the God of Christianity you need to take into considering that Jesus may simply forgive Bill Cosby and give him undeserved free amnesty to obtain eternal life in paradise.
So where did morality go after that?
Jesus promises to let everyone off the moral hook. All they need to do is ask.
So even Jesus doesn't give a hoot about morality apparently. Just ask Jesus to forgive you and you'll get a free undeserved pardon. It's that easy.