Future moral values

[pErvinalia]

Hard to speculate on.
The entire planet could be muslim in 100 years time, for all we can guess...

Or Marxist...

[MrJonno]

I think we are confusing morality with values, social norms and social change. The core of the prevailing morality are the rights and wrongs regarding our behaviour to others and their property and that's about it really. The context in which we exercise those changes ever more rapidly I agree.

Well I'm confused , you can only really measure what is illegal or not illegal combined with how likely it was to be enforced. Not sure what else you can really compare.

A majority of people storming the beaches of Normandy were racist bigots who were legally allowed/encouraged to be like that, sure they were infinitely better than the Nazi's and better than those 100 years earlier who would have been slave owners. Nor that is change the fact that they were heroic but but by the standards of modern times their attitudes were appalling.

Our concepts of right and wrong does change rapidly , usually but not always building upon what has gone before (and survived as an ideology)

[Beatsong]

I think we are confusing morality with values, social norms and social change. The core of the prevailing morality are the rights and wrongs regarding our behaviour to others and their property and that's about it really. The context in which we exercise those changes ever more rapidly I agree.

Well I'm confused , you can only really measure what is illegal or not illegal combined with how likely it was to be enforced. Not sure what else you can really compare.

A majority of people storming the beaches of Normandy were racist bigots who were legally allowed/encouraged to be like that, sure they were infinitely better than the Nazi's and better than those 100 years earlier who would have been slave owners. Nor that is change the fact that they were heroic but but by the standards of modern times their attitudes were appalling.

Our concepts of right and wrong does change rapidly , usually but not always building upon what has gone before (and survived as an ideology)

I think it's possible to integrate the valid POV's that both you and Rum are expressing into a single scheme.

I agree with Rum that the "core values" of morality actually change very little. Over most of human history, and in all kinds of widely differing societies, these have basically been:

1. Don't kill other people.
2. Don't hurt other people.
3. Don't steal other peoples' property.

What can change massively from one society to another is our conception of who belongs with the "circle" of connected humanity to which morality applies. Two peoples doing brutal things to each other in a war aren't negating the existence of morality within their own respective societies; they are just drawing a clear boundary determining how far that morality extends, and not extending it to those on the other side of the boundary.

Religion often has a similar effect. Someone raised the issue of islam earlier, but islam is actually an extremely moral religion when it comes to how muslims are taught to treat other muslims. Like all religions, it has very clear principles for considerate, cooperative social living withing the circle. It's how it interacts with those outside the circle that has historically been the problem.

Someone else raised the question of animals, which is another interesting example of the same thing. We do really unspeakble things to animals through farming for meat, medical research etc. We justify these by saying that the animals are not as intelligent or self-aware as humans so their suffering doesn't matter. But I think if we looked honestly at the degree of intelligence some animals DO have, and how they are likely to react to the suffering we inflict on them, we'd find it pretty hard to maintain that justification. The real reason we don't care is because we don't see them as being within our moral circle. Pretty much the same boundary that people make about other people in times of war or whatever.

It may well be that after a certain point it will become intellectually untenable to keep doing that, I don't know.

[MrJonno]

Problem with the general be nice to people and property it doesn't define people and what property is. There still isn't an consensus. Women and property used to be the same thing for instance.

As for treating animals, one day in the future we will be able to read the thoughts of animals (including humans), maybe even experience then and I suspect after that eating meat will become unacceptable (through growing proteins that are similar will replace it).

Don't think we can guess at what future morality will be but its highly likely to be different to ours

[Audley Strange]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

[PsychoSerenity]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No it is not!

Whut?

[Jason]

In the future... it will be nature - red in tooth and claw. Long pig. Word.

[JimC]

I think we are confusing morality with values, social norms and social change. The core of the prevailing morality are the rights and wrongs regarding our behaviour to others and their property and that's about it really. The context in which we exercise those changes ever more rapidly I agree.

Well I'm confused , you can only really measure what is illegal or not illegal combined with how likely it was to be enforced. Not sure what else you can really compare.

A majority of people storming the beaches of Normandy were racist bigots who were legally allowed/encouraged to be like that, sure they were infinitely better than the Nazi's and better than those 100 years earlier who would have been slave owners. Nor that is change the fact that they were heroic but but by the standards of modern times their attitudes were appalling.

Our concepts of right and wrong does change rapidly , usually but not always building upon what has gone before (and survived as an ideology)

I think it's possible to integrate the valid POV's that both you and Rum are expressing into a single scheme.

I agree with Rum that the "core values" of morality actually change very little. Over most of human history, and in all kinds of widely differing societies, these have basically been:

1. Don't kill other people.
2. Don't hurt other people.
3. Don't steal other peoples' property.

What can change massively from one society to another is our conception of who belongs with the "circle" of connected humanity to which morality applies. Two peoples doing brutal things to each other in a war aren't negating the existence of morality within their own respective societies; they are just drawing a clear boundary determining how far that morality extends, and not extending it to those on the other side of the boundary.

Religion often has a similar effect. Someone raised the issue of islam earlier, but islam is actually an extremely moral religion when it comes to how muslims are taught to treat other muslims. Like all religions, it has very clear principles for considerate, cooperative social living withing the circle. It's how it interacts with those outside the circle that has historically been the problem.

Someone else raised the question of animals, which is another interesting example of the same thing. We do really unspeakble things to animals through farming for meat, medical research etc. We justify these by saying that the animals are not as intelligent or self-aware as humans so their suffering doesn't matter. But I think if we looked honestly at the degree of intelligence some animals DO have, and how they are likely to react to the suffering we inflict on them, we'd find it pretty hard to maintain that justification. The real reason we don't care is because we don't see them as being within our moral circle. Pretty much the same boundary that people make about other people in times of war or whatever.

It may well be that after a certain point it will become intellectually untenable to keep doing that, I don't know.

This makes a lot of sense to me in general, but I think it is understating the changes in attitude we have made over the years towards animal cruelty. Clearly, the idea of direct cruelty to animals (like whipping an over-loaded donkey) is now anathema to most people. A substantial number of non-vegetarians are seriously interested in the animals they eat being raised in the best conditions possible (e.g. free range chickens) before a painless death.

The other interesting area is the attitudes towards sexual behaviour - the zeitgeist in the west has shifted massively in the last 50 years or more.

[En_Route]

Human societies have inevitably been obligated to make rules about such fundamental matters about killing and property just in order to be workable. Our ability to make, enforce and observe rules (however imperfectly) looks to be hard- wired and the evolutionary advantages which that facility confers are evident. Not many if any societies prohibit killing but they do lay down the parameters for whom you can or can't kill. Similarly property rights are assigned in a wide variety of ways; what would be theft in one society is merely the assertion of superior or overriding claims in another, with the relationship between State and individual citizen always problematic.

[Cormac]

Just to point out that sexual mores haven't really changed. We're just a little more open during this particular cultural window


I poi t to Bella's historical art thread as evidence that appetites have been fairly constant for a very long time in human society.

[En_Route]

Just to point out that sexual mores haven't really changed. We're just a little more open during this particular cultural window


I poi t to Bella's historical art thread as evidence that appetites have been fairly constant for a very long time in human society.

The sex drive is omnipresent and inescapable but societies have regulated and circumscribed it in bewilderingly myriad and divers fashion. We in the West are rapidly junking all the remaining taboos and with that the thrill of breaking them.

[FBM]

Just to point out that sexual mores haven't really changed. We're just a little more open during this particular cultural window


I poi t to Bella's historical art thread as evidence that appetites have been fairly constant for a very long time in human society.

The sex drive is omnipresent and inescapable but societies have regulated and circumscribed it in bewilderingly myriad and divers fashion. We in the West are rapidly junking all the remaining taboos and with that the thrill of breaking them.

Maybe that's what's ultimately behind all our rule-making. We're simultaneously making the thrill of breaking the rules.

[En_Route]

Just to point out that sexual mores haven't really changed. We're just a little more open during this particular cultural window


I poi t to Bella's historical art thread as evidence that appetites have been fairly constant for a very long time in human society.

The sex drive is omnipresent and inescapable but societies have regulated and circumscribed it in bewilderingly myriad and divers fashion. We in the West are rapidly junking all the remaining taboos and with that the thrill of breaking them.

Maybe that's what's ultimately behind all our rule-making. We're simultaneously making the thrill of breaking the rules.

For example, would the Welsh ravage sheep with such gusto if it was considered an act of good citizenship?

[FBM]

Maybe slightly less gusto, but the job would get done.

[JimC]

Just to point out that sexual mores haven't really changed. We're just a little more open during this particular cultural window


I poi t to Bella's historical art thread as evidence that appetites have been fairly constant for a very long time in human society.

I would argue that societal attitudes to homosexuality have undergone a fairly massive change, which is still continuing...