When will modern Western morality end?

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

OP is conflating morality and ideology. There are certain moral principles that can't really change and hold true in any society...things like harmony, being happy, honesty, knowledge, caring, love. Morality comes from people, sure, but I don't think that makes it relative by definition. It develops out of wisdom which develops out of understanding and reflection. It's not something you can deduce logically and prove experimentally, but it's still very real and universal.

Our dedication to those morals can change, and does change, constantly. We're seeing a shift away from moral virtues and towards materialism and nationalism/tribalism. It's not new, but it seems to have picked up steam in the last few decades, probably due to globalization, the internet, but mainly rich people getting richer and devising better schemes to grow their wealth. It also looks like civil rights are being broadened and eroded at the same time. Russia, Islamist countries, and China and curtailing civil rights and abandoning basic moral principles to consolidate power, while European countries are trying to incorporate these moral principles into their health care and financial systems. As far as the US goes, hard to tell but I think it's moving in the direction of great civil rights and ethics, ultimately.

 

[Salomé]

I guess in the contemporary West, we believe in:

- Social equality
- Human rights
- Social liberalism
- Liberal democracy

But when will this end?

Nothing in life is truly permanent. And we are taught from young that these are “good” ideals, but are they?

Why can’t slavery or colonialism make a comeback? I'm beginning to think we may see the end of Western morals by the middle of this century.

Slavery has never gone away. Nor is "the contemporary West" the Utopia of your imagining.

Here. Educate yourself a little: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/#overview
http://www.hrw.org/united-states

As to why we are unlikely to overturn the general consensus that slavery /colonialism is wrong, it's because the evolution of human consciousness is unidirectional. It's not possible to unknow a truth once established. The only way this could conceivably happen would be if some apocalyptic event wiped out all traces of our cultural history, laws and scientific knowledge plunging us back into a new Dark Age where superstition and prejudice would again predominate over reason and knowledge. It wouldn't legitimise slavery, but then, it has never been legitimate and that hasn't proved to be much of an obstacle for most of human history.

Your argument about subjectivity is irrelevant. Of course, from the perspective of the slave-owner, slavery is an unequivocal good; from the perspective of the slave an unequivocal evil. To overturn anti-slavery legislation however, one would have to prove that ownership of another human being is legitimate in some circumstances. You would have to prove that freedom is the right of some groups but not others. That "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Such a thing cannot be proven. It was only ever a chauvinistic assumption - one which enough people benefited from that they chose not to challenge it. The same logic applies to colonialism. That is not to say that we will never live through another dark age, or fall subject to another totalitarian regime, but neither would that introduce moral ambiguity about the inherent rights or wrongs of slavery / colonialism or other forms of oppression.

 

[Salomé]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape

I balked at his TED talk when I first heard about it years ago, but these days I don't see how it couldn't be true. This is pretty much directly related to the questions asked in this thread, and having stumbled across it just now, I think it might be useful.

Also, apparently he has a challenge (the moral landscape challenge, look it up), in which he is offering 2-20 thousand dollars to anyone who can successfully refute him.

CHECK IT OUT!

EDIT: here's a vid to summarize:

This fella's reasoning is non-existent. You can't just dismiss the is-ought problem by waving your hand at it and shouting "Abracadabra, values = facts".
That's not science, it's magic.

Similarly, he seems to believe he invented Utilitarianism, having never engaged with any of the themes of western philosophy ever, apparently.

He is not so much scientist as scientismist - a flavour of dogmatism with little more to recommend it than the ones he rails against. His is a fundamentalist ideology that seeks to destroy fundamentalist ideologies. Seems a tad... self-defeating? Maybe he should just pay himself $20K and be done with it.

The answer to the question : how do *I* live a good life? is a wholly subjective affair. In his brave new world, "Science" would dictate this for you. It would poke around in your brain to check whether your dopamine levels were within the "ideal" range.
What part of that sounds like a good idea, exactly? And what next? Artificially manipulating them with chemicals?
Oh wait...

Science is a lens through which to view some aspects of reality. It does not make value-judgements. And must not. Because its answers involve shit like vivisection, lobotomies, nuclear weapons, eugenics and final solutions.
No, morality doesn't need science, but science could always use a bit more morality.

Morality will be different in the future, but history suggests to me that what will happen is that some things we consider long-standing, normal behavior will be considered abhorrent or crude.

Here are some examples.

Eating meat.
Having a child incidentally.
Nationalism.
Gender roles.
Being religious (for a really Richard Dawkins sort of future).
Inheriting wealth.
Physically dangerous sports.
Denying some set of "intelligent" animals (like apes or cetaceans) autonomy.

It doesn't hurt to dream.

 

[zago]

The answer to the question : how do *I* live a good life? is a wholly subjective affair. In his brave new world, "Science" would dictate this for you. It would poke around in your brain to check whether your dopamine levels were within the "ideal" range.
What part of that sounds like a good idea, exactly? And what next? Artificially manipulating them with chemicals?
Oh wait...

What part of checking my dopamine levels sounds like a good idea? That's completely self evident. The part where it would increase my sense of well being. That's the part.

I'd ask pretty much the same thing of you: what is so bad about checking if your dopamine levels are within an ideal range? What is so bad about manipulating your neurotransmitter levels to produce a higher sense of well-being? Depression itself is a miserable and usually unproductive experience.

 

[danseen]

Slavery has never gone away. Nor is "the contemporary West" the Utopia of your imagining.

Here. Educate yourself a little: http://www.globalslaveryindex.org/findings/#overview
http://www.hrw.org/united-states

As to why we are unlikely to overturn the general consensus that slavery /colonialism is wrong, it's because the evolution of human consciousness is unidirectional. It's not possible to unknow a truth once established. The only way this could conceivably happen would be if some apocalyptic event wiped out all traces of our cultural history, laws and scientific knowledge plunging us back into a new Dark Age where superstition and prejudice would again predominate over reason and knowledge. It wouldn't legitimise slavery, but then, it has never been legitimate and that hasn't proved to be much of an obstacle for most of human history.

Your argument about subjectivity is irrelevant. Of course, from the perspective of the slave-owner, slavery is an unequivocal good; from the perspective of the slave an unequivocal evil. To overturn anti-slavery legislation however, one would have to prove that ownership of another human being is legitimate in some circumstances. You would have to prove that freedom is the right of some groups but not others. That "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Such a thing cannot be proven. It was only ever a chauvinistic assumption - one which enough people benefited from that they chose not to challenge it. The same logic applies to colonialism. That is not to say that we will never live through another dark age, or fall subject to another totalitarian regime, but neither would that introduce moral ambiguity about the inherent rights or wrongs of slavery / colonialism or other forms of oppression.

There was nothing wrong with slavery, get over it...

 

[danseen]

OP is conflating morality and ideology. There are certain moral principles that can't really change and hold true in any society...things like harmony, being happy, honesty, knowledge, caring, love. Morality comes from people, sure, but I don't think that makes it relative by definition. It develops out of wisdom which develops out of understanding and reflection. It's not something you can deduce logically and prove experimentally, but it's still very real and universal.

Our dedication to those morals can change, and does change, constantly. We're seeing a shift away from moral virtues and towards materialism and nationalism/tribalism. It's not new, but it seems to have picked up steam in the last few decades, probably due to globalization, the internet, but mainly rich people getting richer and devising better schemes to grow their wealth. It also looks like civil rights are being broadened and eroded at the same time. Russia, Islamist countries, and China and curtailing civil rights and abandoning basic moral principles to consolidate power, while European countries are trying to incorporate these moral principles into their health care and financial systems. As far as the US goes, hard to tell but I think it's moving in the direction of great civil rights and ethics, ultimately.

Yes, and ideology isn't influenced by morality... lol.. whatever, dude...

 

[danseen]

lulz... OK, so morals are not anything one makes them to be?

And our contemporary value system is no superior in any form to the those of 18th century Europeans.

 

[zago]

lulz... OK, so morals are not anything one makes them to be?

And our contemporary value system is no superior in any form to the those of 18th century Europeans.

Do you know what they used to DO to people in 18th century Europe? Those people were fucking savages, my god. Educate yourself.

Europe in the 2nd millennium, pretty much all through it but lessening through time, is like the breeding ground for the stuff of nightmares. They have a rich history of gruesome torture that people would absolutely not tolerate today. Just a week ago I was reading about the demise of King Edward II (~1300). They took his gay lovers and hung them up in front of a crowd, sliced off their dicks and balls, ripped out their intestines, and quartered them, placing the heads on pikes at the London bridge. Then they tortured Edward till they got bored, took a red hot iron, and shoved it up his ass to kill him. This sort of thing wasn't terribly uncommon back in the day. Oh, and I'm sure "evil" is just a silly thing children are scared into believing....

Imagine such depravity taking place today in front of a crowd... what if they had done that to Margaret Thatcher or something? That is beyond dystopian. Way beyond. AND THAT'S STUFF THAT USED TO HAPPEN. GET SOME PERSPECTIVE.

 

[danseen]

lulz.. I'm just citing the social norm.

 

[zago]

lulz.. I'm just citing the social norm.

What?

 

[danseen]

The norm is that anything goes.

 

[zago]

The norm is that anything goes.

Still really don't know what you're referring to. Like today, it's really not anything goes, because we don't, say, pour liquid hot tar all over people and then dump feathers on them. Or throw mildly handicapped people in sanitariums. Or drink our own poop water and get cholera. Soooo...

 

[danseen]

there is no definition of morality, since it doesn't and cannot exist. this is common fact.

 

[zago]

there is no definition of morality, since it doesn't and cannot exist. this is common fact.

So you wouldn't have a problem with me killing your family and kidnapping you and then locking you up in my basement to starve and torture you for the rest of your life? You wouldn't consider that immoral?

 

[danseen]

yes, i would.

 

[zago]

yes, i would.

Well that's something at least. Note, this kind of thing used to be done, and probably still is done quite a lot in corners of the globe like Syria and North Korea. It's not even unrealistic.

Now, consider North Korea as it is right now (basically 1984) and then consider America, but better. Let's say our society had no poverty, no crime, a beautiful environment, etc. How could you possibly say that the latter is not objectively better than the former?

 

[danseen]

Well that's something at least. Note, this kind of thing used to be done, and probably still is done quite a lot in corners of the globe like Syria and North Korea. It's not even unrealistic.

Now, consider North Korea as it is right now (basically 1984) and then consider America, but better. Let's say our society had no poverty, no crime, a beautiful environment, etc. How could you possibly say that the latter is not objectively better than the former?

All things are relative/subjective.

 

[Mole]

GET SOME PERSPECTIVE.

Yes, those with no knowledge of history keep on telling us about their own parish as though it were the whole world - and for them, it is.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yes, and ideology isn't influenced by morality... lol.. whatever, dude...

lol whatever bruh

You're talking about people's personal moralities because you haven't experienced things like immutable, universal morality. Guessing that's because you're in you're early 20s. #adhomftw

 

[Mole]

All things are relative/subjective.

Perhaps you believe in cultural relativism - the belief that all cultures are equally good.

Yet we see people doing their damdest to escape tribal cultures, dictatorships, totalitarian cultures, religious cultures and chaotic States, and fleeing to liberal democracies, multi-cultural States, with regulated and competitive capitalism, who subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.