Morality as love

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
FinalEnigma
Site Supporter
Posts: 2329
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 3:37 am
Location: Bryant, AR

Morality as love

Post #1

Post by FinalEnigma »

I believe that love is the basis of all morality.
The above was stated in another thread and I would like to explore it. I am not necessarily dismissing it, I would just like to explore and see where it goes.


Having Asperger's syndrome, I have a different perspective on many things than the majority of people. I'm not claiming some kind of superiority here, only a difference. I do not understand a great deal of why people behave the way they do.

I'm not certain that the above quote is the way my morality operates. I don't know if my morality operates like everyone else's. I've gotten the indication here and there over the years that it may not. I'd like to find out.

So, is morality based strictly upon love?

If anybody is curious, I'll try to formulate and explain the way I see things once I've gotten a few responses.
We do not hate others because of the flaws in their souls, we hate them because of the flaws in our own.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #11

Post by Goat »

Lioba wrote:
Is it immoral to break a conventional or contextual rule?
Not necessarily. But I´m not so sure, that it is always clear what is simply convention and what is morality. There where times when racisme or strict limitations between social classes were seen as "naturel" and breaking such barriers was not breaking a convention- as we would judge nowadays. It was in the eyes of many people an immoral act.
I personally believe that there are fundamental moral rules and if it is necessary I must be ready even to break with the conventions of my surroundings to defend the moral rule.
And how do you know if something is a 'Fundamental moral rule" or a social convention or a personal preference?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
realthinker
Sage
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Post #12

Post by realthinker »

Morality is a social compulsion to set aside the opportunity for personal advantage in favor of supporting the greater interest of the social group. The advantage there is that a stronger social group improves the survival chances not only of the individual but of one's offspring as well.

Morality is about individual behavior. Immoral behavior is behavior that promotes the individual which in every case is detrimental to the greater social structure.

What is immoral often hinges on what the social structure can afford. When there is relative surplus, fairness rules. When there is shortage it's more acceptable to take what one can.

It's pretty obvious from history that morality extends only to those whom we wish it to extend, generally those we believe are part of our social group or those we wish to make part of our social group.

Certainly love for one's offspring or love for those in our social group may be a part of that compulsion, but I don't love is the only factor in morality.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #13

Post by Cathar1950 »

Morality is social in nature. It has to do with relationships with others and how "We" "should" act.
It becomes as large as our social relations.
Families don't really need morality or formal laws, neither do small groups.

User avatar
Lioba
Student
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Germany

Post #14

Post by Lioba »

And how do you know if something is a 'Fundamental moral rule" or a social convention or a personal preference?
That´s the crucial question. I think that some moral basics can be found in every society at all ages. They are necessary for the functioning of a society and most people will spontanously agree with them. Murder and theft for example are seen as bad by almost eveyone. The Golden Rule can be found in various societies.
Those moral rules might be suppressed, distorted or even forgotten for a while, they never totally disappear.
The question is if their is something like a natural law that cannot be neglected without destroying not a special form of society but social life in itself.The varying forms of a society depend on accordant conventions.
From this point of view conventions are also necessary to give a society its shape or frame and they should not be violated just for fun.But they might go through developments and they must be measured on their congruence with the general moral law and their actuel usefulness for society.

User avatar
realthinker
Sage
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Post #15

Post by realthinker »

Lioba wrote:
And how do you know if something is a 'Fundamental moral rule" or a social convention or a personal preference?
That´s the crucial question. I think that some moral basics can be found in every society at all ages. They are necessary for the functioning of a society and most people will spontanously agree with them. Murder and theft for example are seen as bad by almost eveyone. The Golden Rule can be found in various societies.
Those moral rules might be suppressed, distorted or even forgotten for a while, they never totally disappear.
The fact that the behaviors we label as murder and theft during times of social stability are labeled as "self defense" and "survival" in others suggest that there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality is for those who can afford it.

The question is if their is something like a natural law that cannot be neglected without destroying not a special form of society but social life in itself.The varying forms of a society depend on accordant conventions.
From this point of view conventions are also necessary to give a society its shape or frame and they should not be violated just for fun.But they might go through developments and they must be measured on their congruence with the general moral law and their actuel usefulness for society.
There appears to be a baseline of behavior that must be generally observed in a population before any social organization can form. There has to be a certain level of cooperation and trust before it can be called a society. That I might accept as a fundamental rule.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #16

Post by Cathar1950 »

realthinker wrote:
Lioba wrote:
And how do you know if something is a 'Fundamental moral rule" or a social convention or a personal preference?
That´s the crucial question. I think that some moral basics can be found in every society at all ages. They are necessary for the functioning of a society and most people will spontanously agree with them. Murder and theft for example are seen as bad by almost eveyone. The Golden Rule can be found in various societies.
Those moral rules might be suppressed, distorted or even forgotten for a while, they never totally disappear.
The fact that the behaviors we label as murder and theft during times of social stability are labeled as "self defense" and "survival" in others suggest that there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality is for those who can afford it.

The question is if their is something like a natural law that cannot be neglected without destroying not a special form of society but social life in itself.The varying forms of a society depend on accordant conventions.
From this point of view conventions are also necessary to give a society its shape or frame and they should not be violated just for fun.But they might go through developments and they must be measured on their congruence with the general moral law and their actuel usefulness for society.
There appears to be a baseline of behavior that must be generally observed in a population before any social organization can form. There has to be a certain level of cooperation and trust before it can be called a society. That I might accept as a fundamental rule.
In families and small hunter gatherer groups morality and social control doesn't need to be formalized as everyone knows what everyone else is doing and it is the group survival is the focus and individuals are interdependent. We did this for many thousands of years and it is where affection and social relationships evolved. Guilt come from the broken social relationships and has been extended to social morality.
Guilt is mostly used to prevent one from doing things that make you feel guilty and is a deterrent for future feeling of guilt and behavior that causes it.
We can see the roots of our moral behavior, which is social in nature, in other social animals where bonds are for the survival of the individual and the group.
We use language and culture which makes our social relationship more complex and fluid while still grounded in our social relationships and bonds.
The stronger the social relationship the more we include them in our moral constructs as one of us.
Universalism is built for empires from rules meant for kingdoms and cities.

User avatar
Lioba
Student
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Germany

Post #17

Post by Lioba »

The fact that the behaviors we label as murder and theft during times of social stability are labeled as "self defense" and "survival" in others suggest that there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality is for those who can afford it.
Self defense is always seen as something different from murder. Their might be societies in which fighting for ones life is more usual than in others and the reluctance to kill is not so great. What really differs is the idea against whom I must act morally. People of my tribe, of my country, my race?
About the last sentence: that´s how it seems to work. But I personally am under the impression, that is it the other way round. The question for me is, if we can afford it to be immoral.

User avatar
realthinker
Sage
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:57 am
Location: Tampa, FL

Post #18

Post by realthinker »

Lioba wrote:
The fact that the behaviors we label as murder and theft during times of social stability are labeled as "self defense" and "survival" in others suggest that there is no absolute standard of morality. Morality is for those who can afford it.
Self defense is always seen as something different from murder. Their might be societies in which fighting for ones life is more usual than in others and the reluctance to kill is not so great. What really differs is the idea against whom I must act morally. People of my tribe, of my country, my race?
Self defense and murder are exactly the same if you talk about he facts of what was done. It's only when you judge the event on the purpose and the value of the result that there is a difference.

In some states in the US one cannot claim self defense if the attacker was not given a chance to flee. If someone has broken into your home and stands before you with a weapon and you kill the intruder you have committed murder if you have not paused to allow the attacker a chance to flee. In other states it's permissible to kill someone breaking into another person's unoccupied home. There's a case in Texas where a man on the phone to authorities tells them he is going to shoot two people breaking into a neighbor's home and then shoots them in the back as they flee and he was not charged.

This, I think, shows a vast difference in the morality of different regions as it is backed by law.

About the last sentence: that´s how it seems to work. But I personally am under the impression, that is it the other way round. The question for me is, if we can afford it to be immoral.

Most people I believe will naturally behave morally with regard to really antisocial behavior until circumstances push them to a position where there appears to be no real alternative. Only real deviants murder and steal for their general sustenance when there is a reasonable alternative.

There are subcultures within many societies where antisocial behavior is routine. Those subcultures are really not engaged with general society though. They're isolated in some fashion. Either they feel that society doesn't want them to be engaged, such as the case with gangs, or the feel that they don't need society, as in the case of the elitist white-collar criminals.
If all the ignorance in the world passed a second ago, what would you say? Who would you obey?

User avatar
Lioba
Student
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Germany

Post #19

Post by Lioba »

I don´t know anything about US-Laws. Here in Germany self-defense means to keep actuel danger of health and life from you or another person. The general rule is that you might go one step further than the attacking person. If someone steels the handbag of an old lady, you might hit him with your fist,If he attacks you with a knife, you might use a pistol.
That morality can break down partly or even totally in extren situations is true, but people tend to go back to a kind of normalcy as soon as possible.
Morality is a practical necessity for the functioning of communities- okay conventions also to a certain degree. As Cathar wrote , in a very small group we live in constant personal relations, developing emotional bonds and maybe strategies of interaction.
Morality is needed when the community gets bigger, when we have complex social relations. When morality is rooted in the personal - love, empathy, belonging - how then becomes it a force guiding us in the greater social complex? Through emotional identification- my nation, my fellowmen and so on? I think, here is another thing also needed- a certain abitity of abstract thinking. First as the step to identify myself with something that goes beyond direct personal relations, secondly as the ability to imagine something as good or bad in a sense that means more than "useful for me and my kin".

Post Reply