And so the moral of our story is ...
Cristina Odone for The Observer
Sunday April 2, 2006
Man is a moral animal, claimed Robert Wright, the evolutionary psychologist. In 1995 Wright proposed that humans were programmed by evolution to be protective of partners and children in order to secure the proliferation of their genes. Man was moral because his survival depended on it.
Woman, a recent study shows, is also that way disposed: nine in 10 women, when asked what they thought about having a one-night stand, replied that it was wrong. Three thousand years after Moses came down from Mount Sinai, we are attempting to shape a new, contemporary code of conduct. In forging our moral contract, we seem to look to Darwin as well as to the divine, for much of it does seem based, as Wright suggested, on reproduction. One-night stands, with their potential for exposure to disease and disappointment, betrayal and unwanted children, could affect the all-important progeny. Adultery continues to be a no-no: upset the family unit, and you risk hurting the children.
Any revision of the Ten Commandments would now probably include precepts about dealing with the environment. Thou shalt not turn up the heating to 70 degrees, or pull faces at the sight of wind farms, or indulge in too many Ryanair flights, or opt out of recycling because it's a bore. This green code means to protect the planet for the next generation. Equally, sins such as smoking, drug and alcohol abuse are also rooted in the desire to shield our genes.
But not every moral position we take up today is. Both sides in the war in Iraq couched their rhetoric in morality: the question was of trust, injustice, and responsibility for those outside one's own family. Both supporters and opponents spluttered with indignation, seeing their determination to wage or end the war as a question of right over wrong. Tolerance is also not prompted by concern over our genes but rather by a commendable altruism that seeks others' ease in our multi-faith culture. This acceptance of other people's gods is a million miles removed from the first commandment of Judaeo-Christian tradition, which forbids the worship of any deity other than Yahweh.
History suggests that whatever our moral code is today, it will be decried as censorious tomorrow. The Puritans, the Victorians, the 1950s: we have seen off plenty of 'new' moralities, with their hairshirts, covered piano legs and book banning. Our own moral code will probably be scoffed at by our heirs. They may well feel that overpopulation does away with the imperative to reproduce, and one night stands are an acceptable form of relationship-testing. Then they too will try and construct a set of guidelines to rein in the basest instincts and bring forth the best in all of us.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
32 comments:
OK whereas I see that protecting others would be an evolutionary trait, i just don't believe "morality" is - mostly because the definition is so variable.
Oh *takes deep breath & waits for screams of rage* and I don't think one night stands are immoral. Or adultery. I do keep meaning to do a post on "open" relatinships & why they can be good, but haven't got round to it yet.
in fact, i can contemplate a number of social situations where both would be considered moral! And a number where they are both considered moral now....
I think that one-night stands are... unsatisfying. At least they are for me... That must be my feminine side again [chuckle].
As to adultery.... Been there, *really* didn't like it.
Further addendums to the 10 commandments should probably also deal with stem-cell research, cloning, designer babies, genetically modified foods....
I personally feel that the moral culture has closed itself upon itself, meaning it has become "censorious", conservative and narrow minded. Some of the freedom and hope I felt during the 60's and 70's has been whittled down and is gone.
Schaumi said "Further addendums to the 10 commandments should probably also deal with stem-cell research, cloning, designer babies, genetically modified foods...."
I'm for all of those too & believe they are not only moral but it would be immoral not to use them.
obviously there are some bounderies to their use, but that goes for anything
Where these things can be moral within a specific social/cultural group:
One night stands:
Many young people, gay people (men especially) have no problem with one night stands. as long as both parties understand it is an immediate physical thing and no relationship is intended, there is no moral problem.
It's long been the custom of the more wealthy men in this country to spread their droit de signoir (sp) on the poorer women of their estates. these were (and sometimes still are) considered moral one night stands.
I know of some nice Jewish lads who were encouraged to go shiksa krierking(sp) (sleeping with non-jewish girls to get into practise before settling down with a nice virgin jewish wife), which was specifically about one-night stands & any relationship would be seriously immoral!
Adultery:
In open relationships, swingers, free-love communes etc. they would all consider adultery moral.
In many cultures, adultery (by the man) with another man is not considered immoral. only if the man sleeps with another woman (then it's probably the womans fault) or if the woman sleeps with someone else.
Multiple partner marriges. ok it's not technically adultery since they are married to all parties, but it's certainly not monogomy
Royalty. throughout history it's been common knowledge that royalty (and many aristocrats) were regular adulterers. Lord Bath is a perfect example for today's world. He has a wife, and a selection of wifelets. the wife provides stability, social standing, partnership etc. the wifelets provide sex.
I could go on, but it seems a bit unfair in CK's comment section.
Of course uberchap raises an interesting/important point here:
Who decides what constitutes Moral Action?
Society at large? A particular group within a society (for themselves if not for the larger community)?
Can an individual decide what is or is not moral - even when if conflicts with the 'moral majority'..?
How do ideas of morality change/develop?
Because ethics & morality clearly change from place to place and over time. Can we realy judge the morality of others when we are often just stating our PoV?
That's exactly what I was trying to say - morality is a pov, often a very individual one. My opinion of what is an d isn't moral will not talley with others. Unless you belive that there is a fundemental moral code either in our genetic make up or laid down by a higher authority, morals will change depending on social/cultural/personal circmstances.
Oh, and if you do belive there is a fundemental moral code you need to check your history!
uberchap - morality is generally defined as "correct" and acceptable behaviour to your peers, therefore the behaviour of the people in all the situations cited above was moral.
Mrs A does however have a valid point... actually several...
Clearly moral attitudes to many things have changed over history. Just about any thing that could be done *has* been done. No, this does not justify those actions but conversely we cannot easily judge the actions of our ancestors or those from other cultures from our own moral standpoint.
Personally I don't believe in moral absolutes. Morality is situational - depending on the culture and the time that things are taking place. Just because we find something apalling doesn't mean that it's 'wrong' in any absolute sense.
Uberchap - You may be appalled, but that doesn't change the facts!
I said "i can contemplate a number of social situations where both would be considered moral! And a number where they are both considered moral now.... " you asked me to give those situations.
i did so. without even bothering to go into possible future social situations where either or both would be considered moral.
This was not a discussion on my morals, or yours, but on what is considered moral in different places and times.
I am appalled that the USA considers capital punishment moral. But it doesn't change the fact that it does!
Think of it this way:
Until very recently it was considered normal & moral by most of the people in most of the world to have slaves.
Then less than 200 years ago that all changed. Now it is considered that it is morally repugnant to own another human being for whatever reason.
So is slavery immoral? Yes, I strongly believe that it is. However, my ancestor 300 years ago could quite happily have taken part in the slave trade without a single moral twinge. Why? Because morality depends on the time and the place. So how could I possibly judge him?
"the facts" that the people involved in these situations (usually the dominating & the dominated ones) consider it to be moral.
Therefore there are situations where it would be considered moral to have one night stands and adultery.
which is where we started.
You may personally believe there are NEVER any moral reasons for these actions, but it doesn't make them inherently immoral to the human race.
Which is what the post was about.
wasn't it?
I like some what you say but fact still is, iraq war was wrong. At least the way Bush do. Without are friends, France avec les amis . Fact is what Bush do = wrong.
now Bush want to nuke iran!! what is that , i thoht we learnt about dropping nukes. I guess no.
fact is, i blog externally on this and other topic's
Hillary-for-President.blogspot.com
come if you want a real edcation.
We are genetically programmed to have one night stands. I read where around 25% of babies born in Europe up to the 1900's had a different father than the one that was presumed. Women are pre programmed to go after the best supporter but also the one who is most attractive. Of course it takes two to tango. And men are preprogrammed to spread their seed all over the planet.
There are no inherent bounderies. They are defined by ur culture, society & circumstances.
I thought that's what i was saying right at the beginning? Morality is not an inbuilt trait, we make it up as we go along.
obviously not very well though.
uberchap said: The main human weakness is to kid ourselves that our excesses of behaviour are justifiable.
Interesting statement. What do you mean by that?
..and another...
uberchap said: Anything goes ?There is no morality in that, because there is nothing to strive for.
Is Morality the process of striving for something? If so, what?
uberchap--
I've been telling cyberkitten and mrs. aginoth the same thing on several debates:
basically, their position is that morality is individual.
So, 'majority rules' is not a factor.
Even if 99 people say that 'sleeping around' is NOT moral, we cannot conclude that it is NOT moral because 1 person said it is moral.
We already know that society works and function in a 'majority rules'-type of climate.
We base our laws, rules, regulations on how the majority of people view certain issues.
So clearly, morality is not based on an individual perspective. You are either WITH the grain or against it as far as morality goes.
Morality is a personal subject though sadie: If the law expected you to do something you considered completely immoral, you would not do it - true?
It is not intrisically tied into the laws of the society - although in general the laws of society will follow the morality of the majority (or the powerful) in tht society.
Morality & free will are different subjects as far as i am concerned. I have the free will to do anything i want, regardless of the consequences. I have the morality to decide what I should & shouldn't do.
A completely immoral person may still use his free will NOT to do something as he doesn't consider the consequences are worth the risk. It doesn't mean he thinks that thing is "wrong", just not worth doing.
As I said previously, I personally don't think adultery is immoral (in certain circumstances). However i will not have an affair as i know that Aggie does consider it immoral & therefore the consequences of my actions would be a divorce - which I do not want. i can exercise my free will not to do something i consider perfectly morally acceptable.
Does that answer your question?
Sadie Lou said: So clearly, morality is not based on an individual perspective. You are either WITH the grain or against it as far as morality goes.
Really? Are you then saying that an individual or group (not part of the majority) cannot make moral decisions? That the majority is always right? If society says that abortion is moral and you do not are you then taking an immoral standpoint? Would you have supported society 100 years ago that regarded women as property or would you have taken the 'immoral' position that women deserve the same rights as men?
You see where I'm going with this... If the morals of the majority where always the only legitimate morality then how would things change or even progess. I would've thought that for you morality rests on a firmer foundation than simple numbers.
You are confusing the issue. It's pretty clear.
Let's take your example.
Society does not say that abortion is moral.
Nobody that has or had an abortion will say they based their choice on morality.
The issue is about the choice to have one.
There are those that believe it is so immoral that there should not even be the choice to have one.
There are others that say it is mostly not moral but sometimes the proceedure is required to save a mother's life during complications.
and there are still others that maintain that the choice is more important than the moral implications.
Majority is usually on the right side of morality.
We see this in examples of unmoral activity in other countries:
Yes, a whole country might think it is moral for women to be second class citizens but the rest of the worl viewing it from the outside, knows it's not.
Sadie Lou said: Society does not say that abortion is moral.
Certainly here it is not an immoral choice. It is perfectly legal and accepted as such. If something is legal and acceptable does that make it moral? If not then what criteria are you judging morality against? If a country considers Gay Partnerships to be legal and acceptable can homosexuality still be considered immoral?
Sadie Lou said: Yes, a whole country might think it is moral for women to be second class citizens but the rest of the world viewing it from the outside, knows it's not.
So.... You're saying that morality = GLOBAL Morality? Wow. I didn't think that the world has every agreed on *anything*... Is there Global consensus on what is right & wrong?
Until the 19th century the majority of the world thought slavery was OK. Does that mean that slavery *was* OK back then? When an individual country decided that slavery was not OK did that make them immoral?
uberchap said: I am striving to be a better person. An impossible or fruitless task you may think but there it is.
Not at all. I think we all strive to be better people in our own ways. I wish you nothing but good luck & a fair wind in your endeavours.
uberchap said: Morality for me is between me and God, and it's about me, not anyone else. So, maybe in in some agreement with other posts, i.e. it's a personal thing.
There is normally common ground when we get down to things. Morality is a very personal thing, no matter where we get it from.
uberchap finally said: Hopefully this message has not made too many of you want to reach for the sick-bucket but I thought I owed you a frank answer having provoked a few responses on this folder.
Thanks. It's always interesting (though often heated) discussing personal beliefs. No sick-bucket required here....
Is there Global consensus on what is right & wrong?
Come on.
Murdering people is globally frowned on
Lying is globally frowned on
Betraying your country...
Dishonoring your parents...
don't be coy.
Sadie Lou said: Murdering people is globally frowned on etc..
Murder is an odd one (kinda) because it's a legal definition - planned *unlawful* killing - rather than a moral one. Killing people doesn't seem to be that immoral if you watch the news for any length of time. Life seems to be very cheap...
Lying....? It's an art form for Politicans. Also a necessity for social cohesion. Can you imagine telling the truth for a whole week? Many people couldn't do it because they'd end up dead!
Betraying your country - That's an interesting one. I guess it depends on 'betrayal'. Whistleblowers certainly say that they are making things public, for example, for a higher good. The famous US case (in the 50's) of passing nuclear secrets to the Russians was 'justified' on the grounds of fairness. It is certainly possible (and moral) to betray your country for the best of reasons..
Dishonoring parents....? That's just normal behaviour.... Teenage rebellion? The 1960's... etc...
I actually thought you would've brought up the "UN Declaration on Human Rights"... That's a pretty good place to start actually and may in fact be an example of pretty much global morality.
Except that pretty much no-one sticks to them;-)
you are so frustrating. I didn't ask for list of idiots that make up excuses for doing immoral acts.
You need to admit defeat and agree that there is such a thing as global morality.
There is such a thing as a majority that rules on morality and you're either with the grain or against it.
Just because some sickos can justify immoral behavior in their own twisted minds doesn't make it MORAL.
Gosh.
Sadie Lou said: you are so frustrating.
Oh, its been said before.
Sadie also said: You need to admit defeat and agree that there is such a thing as global morality.
No I don't because there isn't one.
Sadie said: There is such a thing as a majority that rules on morality and you're either with the grain or against it.
I'm afraid that I don't agree with you.
Sadie finally said: Just because some sickos can justify immoral behavior in their own twisted minds doesn't make it MORAL.
I think that we're having another one of our communication problems. Are our mind sets *really* that different?
I'm not playing 'Devil's Advocate' here... as Uberchap said earlier.. I don't believe in him (either)...
you posted a laundry list of justifying seemingly immoral acts to make them appear *less* immoral.
Yes, are mind sets *are* that different.
~~done~~
:)
uberchap--
*applauding*
It feels good to have someone like you around this place. I get buried.
...expressing a minority view as far as this particular blog is concerned.
Don't I know it?
Thank you for visiting my blog. You are a welcomed addition. Please come again.
Sadie Lou said:
...expressing a minority view as far as this particular blog is concerned.
Don't I know it?
..and it's appreciated. As is the fact that you keep coming back!
Post a Comment