Morality: Good or Evil?

[Ogar]

Question for debate:

Is a belief in morality a beneficial or detrimental influence on the world?



I understand that a lot of people do beneficial things in the name of their moral beliefs, but all of the most heinous, destructive events I can think of in history seem to have been strongly influenced if not directly caused by people believing that they needed to impose their moral beliefs on others instead of using their morality as a guide to live their own life.

Now, I will admit an amoral person may not be inclined to do all of the charitable things done by the religious and moral. However, I think that is more than offset by the fact that, without the justification of a sense of moral authority, an amoral person could never commit atrocities like the Holocaust or the Inquisition.

Thoughts?

[ChristianGuy]

I think that morality could do the world a lot of good. In a sense I think we are all at least a little moral, as we do not go around stealing and murdering. The problem with morality comes when you get into religions that condone obviously "wrong" acts in exchange for a reward. Another problem comes when people who claim to be Christians try to judge others to the point of persecution. In the end they wind up breaking their own Moral code. You speak very true words and in saying them you have given yourself my personal answer. People truly need to use their morals as a guide to their own lives and not trying to judge others based on their beliefs. It is our responsibility to answer for our own lives. Though trying to show others "the way" is good to an extent, when you break your own rules in doing so, you have accomplished nothing

[McCulloch]

I think that it very much depends on the basis for the moral system in question. If the basis for the moral system is arbitrary, then abuse is most likely. If however, the basis of the moral system is reason and facts, it is more likely to be good for human civilization, in that it will be self-correcting.

[zepper899]

I believe every moral system is created so than man works better together. Be it a societal contrivance, or ‘given from a-high,’ they all serve to increase our cooperation. A problem is that they are often too inclusive, resulting in the persecution of others. But overall, I think it is beneficial. Friendship displays a similar dynamic, as one may dislike another for seemingly intruding on one’s prior friendship. The one feeling slighted may retaliate, but I’m sure the conflict would be less than if there were no friendships at all, every man fighting for their life Mad Max style.

[Ogar]

I think that it very much depends on the basis for the moral system in question. If the basis for the moral system is arbitrary, then abuse is most likely. If however, the basis of the moral system is reason and facts, it is more likely to be good for human civilization, in that it will be self-correcting.

I think you're making a great point and I agree with you to an extent, but I do see a potential for even the latter type of moral system to become detrimental to the world. I can imagine it being very easy, even only a generation or two after the conception of such a moral system, for people to lose sight of the foundation of reason and facts and begin to use their beliefs as a means for violence and persecution. I'm not saying violence and persecution are inherent in morality, but I guess my question would just be this: Is it worth the risk? Would it not be better to base our lives themselves on reason and verifiable evidence without involving any sense of morality? It seems to me morality just becomes a corruptible middle man in that scenario.

[Ogar]

I think that morality could do the world a lot of good.

It can, and does. I just think it does more harm than good. I also think that people doing "good" deeds in the name of their moral beliefs would do most, if not all, of those same "good" deeds with no moral belief at all, while the people doing terrible things based on their moral beliefs could not justify their actions in any other way. Basically, without morality the beneficial effects remain, even if slightly diminished, but the detrimental effects cannot.

In a sense I think we are all at least a little moral, as we do not go around stealing and murdering.

I disagree. In my opinion these and all actions only have moral value when it is imposed by the viewer, and even then the illusion of morality is just that, an illusion. Therefore my lack of murdering and stealing doesn't make me a moral person because I'm not choosing my actions for moral reasons.

The problem with morality comes when you get into religions that condone obviously "wrong" acts in exchange for a reward. Another problem comes when people who claim to be Christians try to judge others to the point of persecution. In the end they wind up breaking their own Moral code.

This is exactly my point. What you call "obviously 'wrong' acts" are only so to you and those sharing your view of morality. I'm sure there are countless things you do that others with different beliefs would call "obviously wrong". My problem is that there's no objectively verifiable moral standard to point to when somebody takes their morality in the "wrong" direction, therefore any attempt to reason with such a person will make you seem "evil" to them and that much more of an enemy.

You speak very true words and in saying them you have given yourself my personal answer. People truly need to use their morals as a guide to their own lives and not trying to judge others based on their beliefs. It is our responsibility to answer for our own lives. Though trying to show others "the way" is good to an extent, when you break your own rules in doing so, you have accomplished nothing

I absolutely agree with your last sentence here and am glad to hear it coming from a Christian, because this is a common problem I encounter with people of your faith.

[McCulloch]

I think that it very much depends on the basis for the moral system in question. If the basis for the moral system is arbitrary, then abuse is most likely. If however, the basis of the moral system is reason and facts, it is more likely to be good for human civilization, in that it will be self-correcting.

I think you're making a great point and I agree with you to an extent, but I do see a potential for even the latter type of moral system to become detrimental to the world. I can imagine it being very easy, even only a generation or two after the conception of such a moral system, for people to lose sight of the foundation of reason and facts and begin to use their beliefs as a means for violence and persecution. I'm not saying violence and persecution are inherent in morality, but I guess my question would just be this: Is it worth the risk? Would it not be better to base our lives themselves on reason and verifiable evidence without involving any sense of morality? It seems to me morality just becomes a corruptible middle man in that scenario.

Humans are a social animal. Moral systems are inevitable. Let's choose the best one.

[ChristianGuy]

Honestly I think a good moral standard would be just treat others like you wish to be treated. Of course, that is a little biased on my side. I suppose you could also argue that some people want to be treated wrongly, for whatever reason. I think as a whole, though, that rule could be a fair call.

[Ogar]

Humans are a social animal. Moral systems are inevitable. Let's choose the best one.

I agree that humans are social animals, but what leads you to believe moral systems are inevitable? Then if that is the case, by what process would the "best one" be determined?

However, even if moral systems are inevitable, that doesn't answer the question I'm posing. Maybe this would be a better way to clarify what I'm trying to get at:

Are the "evil" deeds done around the world in accordance with the various moral value systems outweighed by the "good", or is it the other way around? Would there be more or less "evil", more or less "good", if these notions of morality were completely removed from the world? Essentially, would the world be better or worse off without morality, and of course, why?

[McCulloch]

Humans are a social animal. Moral systems are inevitable. Let's choose the best one.

I agree that humans are social animals, but what leads you to believe moral systems are inevitable?

In order to get along, to be a social animal, we need to have a common set of moral principles, otherwise each will do as he or she pleases and the very cooperation and coordination that gave us the selective advantage would be gone.

Then if that is the case, by what process would the "best one" be determined?

In my opinion, the principles of humanism where the acknowledged fact of our common humanity is the basis for our morality, fits the bill.

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as part of nature and holds that values--be they religious, ethical, social, or political--have their source in human nature, experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

However, even if moral systems are inevitable, that doesn't answer the question I'm posing.

No, it renders it moot.

Maybe this would be a better way to clarify what I'm trying to get at:

Are the "evil" deeds done around the world in accordance with the various moral value systems outweighed by the "good", or is it the other way around? Would there be more or less "evil", more or less "good", if these notions of morality were completely removed from the world? Essentially, would the world be better or worse off without morality, and of course, why?

I think that the question lumps all systems of morality together. Clearly some systems of morality are worse than others. I argue that morality is not going away. Therefore, it is better to focus on finding a rational, beneficial system of morality than the quixotic quest to eliminate it altogether.