Moral Superiority

[Animavore]

Describe for me superior morality.

The average PETA member.

[Jason]

That would require belief in the existence of objective truths, the existence and veracity of which would first have to be proven before superior morals could be approached in discussion. 'Twould be a lengthy discussion and I don't hold with the claim that objective truth is obtainable.

[Audley Strange]

Seems to me a sense of superiority comes first, then rationalised as moral code.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Describe for me superior morality.

The average PETA member.

Or the average vegan, for that matter.

[PsychoSerenity]

I would go with whatever sense of morality would come from the greatest possible intelligence with the greatest possible knowledge. Anything in that direction usually tends to be better. Of course it would be entirely possible for increased intelligence/knowledge to lead to disastrous consequences if a crucial piece is missing. It's ignorance that separates us and leads to moral failing.

[Rum]

Morality is apes finding a way to get along without killing each other too often. If you manage that well it is pretty superior I guess,

[Gallstones]

I would go with whatever sense of morality would come from the greatest possible intelligence with the greatest possible knowledge. Anything in that direction usually tends to be better. Of course it would be entirely possible for increased intelligence/knowledge to lead to disastrous consequences if a crucial piece is missing. It's ignorance that separates us and leads to moral failing.

I don't think knowledge or intelligence has anything to do with morality. One might employ intelligence to consider what superior morality is--but I think the ignorant stake as many claims to having superior morality as do the allegedly intelligent and informed.

IMO to be genuinely intelligent and informed one would eschew the concept of superior morality altogether.

[Blind groper]

In the Church of the Visually Challenged Serranid, morality is designated according to the dictates of the all-knowing prophet.

[JimC]

The very term it self is loaded. In most discourse, it is used as a term of opprobrium, indicating someone who has arrogantly assumed a position of the moral high ground, frequently without justification.

Morality isn't a logical calculus, although it can employ logic as a tool.

It is a continuing discourse within the human family, about how we should live, and how we should treat other human entities, as well as the living world around us. It will never reach a "perfection", it will evolve and change.

Deep down, it springs from our awareness of the tension that exists within social groupings of self-aware hominids, with conflicting desires to cooperate and to compete. We best manage the balancing act when we know the ground on which we stand, which is a heritage from eons of evolution, not the waving of magic wands by supernatural entities.

[Tyrannical]

Morality, at least the original Greek meaning was to simply follow your society's customs and acted in an acceptable manner.

[PsychoSerenity]

I would go with whatever sense of morality would come from the greatest possible intelligence with the greatest possible knowledge. Anything in that direction usually tends to be better. Of course it would be entirely possible for increased intelligence/knowledge to lead to disastrous consequences if a crucial piece is missing. It's ignorance that separates us and leads to moral failing.

I don't think knowledge or intelligence has anything to do with morality. One might employ intelligence to consider what superior morality is--but I think the ignorant stake as many claims to having superior morality as do the allegedly intelligent and informed.

IMO to be genuinely intelligent and informed one would eschew the concept of superior morality altogether.

I'm not sure if I know what you mean. Sure the ignorant may stake claim to having superior morality, but I'd say they're less likely to be correct.

As for disregarding the concept of a superior morality, I assume you mean like moral relativism? While I agree that's a useful stepping stone away from the presumption that one's morality is superior (usually based on nothing more than tradition and familiarity), I don't think it negates the possibility of objective moral differences between different moral concepts. As people learn and develop they can gain moral insights. If they were to then compare their new concept of morality with the one they held previously, it would be very odd for them to simply disregard their insights on the basis that their new concept can't be considered superior.

[Gallstones]

What makes for superior morality?
What are the defining factors?
How do you know it when you see it?
What makes it superior?
Why would ignorant or intellectually marginal persons be more likely incorrect when defining superior morality?
Might it be subjective?
Is there an objectively superior morality?

[Robert_S]

What kind of morals are we talking about?

One of the best parts of the Christianity I was raised with was that the moment you claimed moral superiority, you lost it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The morals I have are superior to the morals I learned at home when I was a kid.

[Animavore]

I think morals are bullshit. Moralising, on the other hand, is fairly rampant. There's a fair bit of evidence tying morals with disgust in the psychological literature. People treat things they find displeasing like they can get contaminated. Like certain Christians who think you can catch the gay, or Jews worried about losing 'purity' by touching menstruating women.

The problem is not everyone finds the same things disgusting. I couldn't kill a person because it would turn my stomach but that doesn't mean I should moralise this and then claim that I have a superior moral because of it. Others can kill people no problem. We lock them away to keep ourselves safe. It's self-preservation. Our laws should only reflect that self-preservation and a bit or order. When everyone else ends up subjected to silly laws because one group of people finds something disgusting/immoral those laws aren't sustainable because they are without justification.

I've lots of very good reasons for not murdering people. Mostly because doing so goes against my own self-preservation. I don't need to moralise that any more than I need to moralise , "Don't start fights with people bigger and more highly trained and experienced in fighting than you." That's just fucking obvious.