Brent, at Uncommon Descent, asked:
Is rape morally wrong because society says so?
Or:
Does society say rape is wrong because morality says so?
I answered:
I’m going to annoy you, I’m afraid, Brent, in my answer, but in for a penny…
“Morality” doesn’t “say” anything. People do. Collectively, people form a society, so it is reasonable to say that “society” says something – if that something is the collective mores, or precepts of a society.
So I’d say that people in a society collectively construct a shared system of moral precepts and those precepts include, in most societies, the precept that rape is wrong.
This seems to be fairly universal, probably because most societies develop a system that places a taboo on one person exploiting another for personal benefit. This is not surprising given that we are a social species and do better when we cooperate with each other than when we act individualistically.
So my answer is “closer to that first thing”, because the second doesn’t really make sense.
However, I would phrase it as:
In most societies, rape is regarded as morally wrong, because it violates the principle that underpins the continuation of a society that has potential net benefits for all.
He replied:
Sorry to take the last bit first, but . . .
However, I would phrase it as:
In most societies, rape is regarded as morally wrong, because it violates the principle that underpins the continuation of a society that has potential net benefits for all.
I’m surprised you would say this, not that it is inconsistent with your own beliefs on the matter, but that it leaves you completely open to, and obviously guilty of, WJM’s charges that a Darwinist system (system consistent with “Darwinism”) cannot condemn rape.
And the first bit last . . .
“Morality” doesn’t “say” anything. People do. Collectively, people form a society, so it is reasonable to say that “society” says something – if that something is the collective mores, or precepts of a society.
So I’d say that people in a society collectively construct a shared system of moral precepts and those precepts include, in most societies, the precept that rape is wrong.
This seems to be fairly universal, probably because most societies develop a system that places a taboo on one person exploiting another for personal benefit. This is not surprising given that we are a social species and do better when we cooperate with each other than when we act individualistically.
So my answer is “closer to that first thing”, because the second doesn’t really make sense.
Which all means that my original challenge to your system of morality, in fact, is correct and undermines it completely; there is no actual morality whatsoever.
If people of a society are the source of morality, then people of a society govern morality, and morality doesn’t govern people of a society.
And I invited him to continue the conversation here.
What Brent seems to be saying is that a morality – a system of oughts and ought nots – somehow doesn’t count as “morality” if it is constructed by a socciety of human beings.
My response to Brent is to ask: what morality can he name that is not constructed by a society of human beings?
We have abundant evidence that “proto-morality”, at any rate, is not restricted to human beings — Frans de Waal has been very good on this, and I highly recommend his Primates and Philosophers at the very least.
From the editors introduction:
and therein lies the really difficult question: what does “reason” look like in properly naturalistic terms, and what does reason — thus construed — add to the empathy that is part and parcel of our mammalian and primate inheritance?
I would agree only if the animistic spirituality of hunter-gatherers could be excluded from the definition of “religion”.
I don’t think I would even rule out animism and hunter-gatherer societies. It isn’t a large step from shaman to voodoo priest to white-robed priest when societies start to collect in large city groups.
The precedent for deities and fear of deities is already there; all one has to do is project human emotions onto very powerful deities and the priest gains enormous power.
Which is why morality must be founded on eternal, unchanging verities… such as that it’s okay to own human beings, and that witches exist and must be killed, and that mixed-fabric clothing is evil, and…
In case the point of the above paragraph escapes you, Brent: You may think religion is a rock-solid foundation on which to base one’s morality, but religious concepts of morality are no more constant than any other concepts of morality.
I thought ‘keiths’ was the resident TSZ expert on rape.
But what’s conspicuously absent from the OP? A definition of rape.
Elizabeth:
So rape is not wrong. Thanks Lizzie!
Elizabeth:
In most societies rape is wrong, therefore rape is wrong in all societies. Thanks Lizzie!
Elizabeth:
Whether or not rape is wrong depends on the society. Thanks Lizzie!
Kantian Naturalist,
I partially agree with this in that there is an element of welfare about moral judgements that does not belong to aesthetic judgements. That is what makes them moral. However, it doesn’t get us awfully far as different cultures have very different ideas about what counts as flourishing or indeed human (and it does not allow for animal welfare at all). And to to the extent it does work it depends on the contingent fact that people have fairly common ideas about flourishing. In the end you can’t get round the subjectivity in moral judgements. E.g. how would you deal with someone who argued that heterosexuality was human flourishing but homosexuality was not and therefore homosexuality was morally wrong?
This has been a particularly unfair prejudice toward homosexuals in that it labels them immoral as a group simply on the basis of sexual preference.
It does not acknowledge all the contributions they have made to society in nearly every area of art, science, literature, and even war. How many thousands, or perhaps even millions, of lives were saved by the development of code breaking techniques by people like Alan Turing during WWII; to say nothing of his contributions to computer science? I would think that counts toward “flourishing.”
Mike Elzinga,
Mike – I couldn’t agree more. But how can you objectively prove that my hypothetical opponent is wrong?
Homosexuslity is harmful only in the sense that it hinders reproduction of the species, or would if extensively practiced.
The principle is dubious. Akin to criminalizing inactivity.
One might suspect — considering the difficulty that monarchies have had perpetuating male lineages — that rules against homosexuality would be most common in patriarchal societies.
Who’s fault is that? Lizzie is responding to Brent who asked the question to begin with. Regardless, we don’t have to go all philosophical on the definition of rape here, most of us have enough of an idea what is meant for us to be able to talk meaningfully about it.
The rest of your comment is just dumb. Nothing you state follow or relate to Lizzie’s comment. If you think it does, please go ahead and lay out the syllogism with the correct premises (Lizzie’s statements) and derive the conclusions you did from them. I challenge you to do this.
Seems to me that in this here real world, “moral law” does not govern man. Certainly if it did, we’d not rely upon the legal system we have.
For instance, most people are not deterred from murdering someone else simply because of some objective morality. Rather, most people do not commit murder because they weigh the risks and are averse to the consequences. This does not stop crimes of passion – such as Road Rage – however. Clearly if there was actually some objective morality that governed man, such incidents would be considerably more rare.
I’m sure that is a mistake.
I disagree. Most people do not commit crimes because they are not strongly motivated to hurt other people.
I have a simple example from observing cats.
Cats are predators and killers, but they are inhibited from killing each other. This is a complex set of motivations that involves both evolution and social learning as kittens. The strength of the inhibition varies in individuals.
I rather doubt that cats ponder this or have formalized rules. It’s just the way they are.
Most humans “just are” moral. The result of heredity and early socializing experiences. I personally seldom think about the law or legal consequences.
In addition to inhibitions, humans ans some other mammals are positively motivated to help others. They just are. Formal rules are not necessary for most people (although they do help in complex transactions, such as contracts).
The operative word above is “most.” Obviously there are people who aren’t socialized, either because they can’t empathize, or they lack the necessary childhood experiences.
ETA:
I’m fond of the cat example. I’ve recently had two cats at the same time that exhibited the extremes of socialization. Both were feral when captured by humans.
One of them completely lacked inhibitions against hurting people or other cats. You could not put your hand near him without fear that he would scratch and bite. He attacked the postman.
The other was the opposite. He hunted and caught rats and squirrels, but always kept his claws retracted, even when provoked or hurt, for example when getting shots. He frequently got hurt by other cats because he would not use his claws against them.
The evil cat became a project for me, and over several years became socialized.
Cats do not strike me as particularly introspective. The fact that they have these complex social behaviors argues that morality is largely inborn, or shall we say the capacity is inborn, much as the capacity for language is inborn in humans.
Lizzie,
You haven’t addressed my question:
I’m probably being too kind to let you know, if you didn’t already, that you’ve backed yourself into a corner. I’d like to know your answer, however.
There’s no corner. We can judge other societies by our standards. We do it all the time.
I admit, that is a pretty good answer, so if you ever find the question that precedes it make sure not to forget it.
The question isn’t whether you or I condone it in our society, or even whether we would personally condone it if we were in their society, but whether it is actually right or wrong within their own society.
According to Lizzie’s (and as far as I can tell, everyone else here excepting Mung (sorry if there are others I’ve not noticed)) account of morality, it is actually not wrong within their society. That’s shocking.
Liz and others use misdirection to obfuscate the point Brent brings up. Nobody is saying “It isn’t really morality if it’s not objective”; the point is what logically follows if morality “really” is governed by people (generated/created by people), as opposed to what logically follows if morality “really” is something objective (absolute) that governs people (meaning, moral and immoral behavior are accepted as having inescapable, or necessary, consequences).
For people who say that morality itself is the grounds for moral behavior, that’s no different than saying the Bible is true because it says so. Liz simply asserts that morality is about social success, according to how she defines it; and so that is, to her, what morality “is”. There is no social agreement that this is what “morality” means – at least, not here in the states. Most people in the states consider “morality” to be a spiritual law of some sort that governs people and tells them how to behave regardless of what society says, and regardless of what other people say.
And there’s the rub; if society says X is moral, and Liz disagrees, then will Liz abandon her personal conceptualization of what a good social morality should be and adopt the current, popular social morality? Of course not; she will fight for her personal view of what a good social morality should be. If society says it is good to rape, or good to round up Jews for extermination, will she do so? Of course not. She will consider her personal morality “better” than that of society.
If one holds that morals are generated by people, and that what is good is defined by social consensus, then they are obligated by that belief to adopt the social consensus. But Liz wouldn’t do that. So what principle in her beliefs gives Liz the right to assert her personal conceptualization of morality over the current social consensus? All she has available is just personal discretion and will – or, in other words, might makes right. She can defy the social morality and do what she personally thinks is right inasmuch as she has the will and capacity to do so, until society, with greater might, shuts her down.
But, why would she defy society, when that is what she claims defines what morality “is” in the first place? What principle can possibly give her the right to assert and employ (as much as possible) her own moral perspective, under her ideology, other than her simple physical and mental capacity to do so?
Why bother caring what society calls “morality” in the first place? There are no necessary consequences, just arbitrary ones humans make up and haphazardly enforce. Why bother calling such rules “morality” at all? There is either a law against what one does, or there is not. Under Liz’s paradigm, there are no spiritual or karmic “laws” against behaving badly. If one doesn’t believe in Liz’s paradigm of the social good, there is no reason not to steal, or kill, or do whatever for their own benefit as long as one can get away with it. After all, all one is really concerned about is avoiding the arbitrary, haphazard negative consequences humans bring to th tab le; if morals do not govern people, there are no necessary or inescapable consequences.
Liz claims morality “is” X, whether or not current society agrees with her, and I’m sure will do whatever she thinks is necessary, including defying current social views to promote her concept of morality as X; there is no difference in principle with that and my defining morality as “whatever advances my personal goals” and doing whatever I can, in defiance of social morality, to advance my personal morality. We are both imposing our personal opinion of what morality is on the world in spite of what society defines as “moral”.
The only way to avoid this meltdown of morality into “might makes right” is the premise that morality refers to an absolute, and as such, like gravity or entropy, governs people.
Open questions:
Is morality objective? Is it objectively wrong to rape? Steal? Lie? Be selfish?
What was wrong with Nazi morality? It was a society that constructed a morality. How to condemn it?
All morality is relative to harm or benefit. That relationship is objective. There are a bunch of imponderables. Regarding benefit, “one man’s meat is another man’s poison.”
There is also the problem of good intentions. The road to hell is paved with them.
Abrahamic religions teach that some actions (or thoughts) damage or relationship with god, regardless of whether other people know about them. It’s still a matter of harm or benefit, even if it is covert.
So morality can be an operator, like addition or subtraction, operating on the effects of actions. The operation can be objectively described or defined, but the list of actions cannot be divided objectively into moral and immoral.
I’d like to point out the WJM is right about my initial point. Though I’m now asking about objectivity, it wasn’t really the thrust of what I was getting at at first. I decided to switch modes for a moment (to give Lizzie some more rope . . .).
Fair enough Petrushka. My general point, I think, still stands. Most people avoid doing bad things, not because some objective morality guides them, but rather because of something else. Perhaps, as you say, it’s just the way most people are raised and ingrain social norms and expectations are just hard to break once they are wired in. I’ll go with that, but I still reject the concept of objective morality.
So I take it you are comfortable with neither yes, or no.
No, that’s not the question, because “actually” means something different to Liz than it does to you in terms of what is moral. If Liz claims that society defines what is moral, then Liz, living in a society that condones rape, must in principle accept that rape is good. If Liz lives in a society that condemns homosexual behavior as wrong, she must agree that it is wrong, because her principle of social definition of morality demands it.
However, I’m sure Liz, even living in such a society, would condemn rape as “wrong”; but then the question is, by what principle? Without something hierarchically superior to “society” to refer to, she has no principled means by which to condemn the practice of rape in a society that calls it good.
If she refers to her personal feelings as the basis, then whatever anyone personally feels, by principle, is justified, and thus people are justified disobeying any social morality and just following their personal moralities.
Liz is a moral relativist living in denial. She doesn’t want to cop to moral relativism, so she asserts an idiosyncratic “de facto” socialist definition of morality so she can escape coming face to face with the necessary ramifications of moral relativism, that there is no principled difference between the moralities of Hitler and Gandhi.
On what basis do you condemn rape?
Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle.
Zechariah 14:1-3.
Exodus 21:7-11 authorizes a man selling his daughter as a sex slave:
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
Then there is this:
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife
Deuteronomy 21:11
Also, Numbers 31:18.
In Judges 5:30, women are spoils of war.
In 2 Samuel 12:11, God promises rape as a punishment.
It seems that your god is not the reason that you condemn rape.
William J. Murray,
That’s all quite correct, and what I had already said back on UD.
I said that, based on her view, basically “might makes right”, but then how could we have moral progress, or change? By definition, the majority view is “actually” moral. But then how can any other view become the majority view, since it is actually morally wrong to have the counter view before it is the majority? If her view is correct, there could have been no moral change over the years.
I personally reject the concept of objective morality based on the observation of morals changing over the centuries. Slavery was, for the longest time, considered moral. Now it’s not. Selling offspring was considered moral and now it’s not. For thousands of years there was no such thing as marital rape and now there is. Stoning someone to death for adultery was considered just at one point and now it’s seen as barbaric. Keeping concubines and sex boys was just hunky dory for years; now, not so much. And so on…
I do not find anything objective about morality.
Do you mean aside from the fact there was/is no such thing? That is, there was never any Nazi authorized moral code. Hitler put forth his own moral code, but he makes it quite clear that such was his personal view. He tried to use the Nazi Part to establish some of his moral philosophies, but was only partially successful. Historically speaking, Goebbels’ propaganda could be called “Nazi morality” I suppose, but as it was made up for the total and absolute control of the masses (it was, after all, only propaganda), what would that mean?
But let’s take a specific example: the attempted extermination of the Jews. As a subjective morality based on the desire for the reinvigoration of German society, it had some circular flaws that were bound to doom it. For one, much of the German economy (what there was of it at the time) was supported by small emigrant-based business. By wiping out some 30% of that base, Germany was not going to be better off. Is that wrong? Ehh…Is that stupid? Yeah.
Personally I condemn it based on it’s impracticality. Like South Africa today, it would ultimately be for of a drain on itself than any kind of support and over the long haul, it would fail.
Trial by fire for me, I guess 🙂 Hopefully asking the same question without so many syllables will help.
davehooke,
It’s somewhat interesting to me that you can see that in the scriptures, rape is not considered a good thing, but bad, yet at the same time say that God approves of it. Strange to say the least.
Robin,
?
What’s the question?
Morality can objectively be defined as a classification of actions that result in harm or benefit.
Subjectivity arises in determining whether harm or benefit occurs. I do not believe there can be an objective list of moral actions or immoral actions. Nor can there be any objective way of classifying actions that produce both harm and benefit.
petrushka,
Lizzie said: “. . . most societies condemned rape. That is not the same thing as saying “it’s ok for some societies”. It’s simply an observation that, unfortunately, in some societies, rape is not considered a moral no-no.”
And the question is: Unfortunate based on what!? It is either okay in their society or it isn’t. Which is it?
At best, your god is not at all clear on the issue.
I so don’t get the formatting here.
Brent,
It is strange that you read that first passage from Zechariah and the last one from Samuel as God condemning rape, when he is prepared to use it as a tactic or punishment
The passage from Exodus is rules as to how a man can legitimately sell his daughter to be raped.
Deuteronomy 21:11, Numbers 31:18, and Judges 5:30 are endorsements of rape. God’s soldiers are told to take women for themselves.
Read the passages properly and tell me how you interpret them.
Oh, I think s/he realizes that it is likely that you will never answer the question that’s been posed.
Patrick,
Well, if your thing is taking down caricatures, just remember why no one cares what you say.
Try html (blockquote).The simplest thing is to copy the text and enclose it in blockqoutes. All the automatic stuff has quirks.
davehooke,
Not here. Not now. I made my point. The Bible doesn’t refer to rape as anything but bad. You say the Bible condones it. It is clearly a contradiction, but on the critics part in this case.
petrushka,
Thanks. I don’t get why some replies are nested and others aren’t.
For Mung, who clearly should never be let outdoors, the definition of rape is sex without valid consent. Intoxicated people, children, and those under duress cannot give valid consent.
Good to know that rape is considered bad, but murder is OK.
What do you suppose “keep alive for yourselves” implies?
No, you have not made your point. You are avoiding the point. I gave clear examples of God condoning, and even using, rape.
You have no point. It has been destroyed.
Well, I didn’t even think I was gonna have time tonight to try to get anywhere with this, but did for a bit. I was hoping Lizzie would pop in here and respond, but no such luck I guess. I may not be able to post for a couple of days, so don’t have too much fun without me everyone (sorry trolls, scavenge wherever else you can).
Caricature? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
The point is that your god is more concerned with how people treat it than how they treat each other. In numerous places in your holy book, your god commands that women be raped (Isaiah 13:15-18, Zechariah 14:1-2, and 2 Samuel 12:11, for just three examples).
This “objective” morality is reprehensible.
You can nest blockquotes. But as I said, the automatic quoting is not worth the effort, in my opinion.
I’m not sure what you are questioning about my reply. But here, I’ll make my answers shorter if that helps:
No.
No.
As far as I can tell from researching history, there was and is no such thing in a political/societal sense. If instead you meant to say, “what is wrong with Goebbels’ propaganda as a basis of morality”, I will point out that it was propaganda for a reason and that as such, it could not ultimately sustain itself as a moral model for very long.
What morality are you referring to here and what society? Keep in mind that in Nazi Germany in…say…1943…only something like 20% of the population was actual following Nazi doctrine. There’s a reason why a number of Jews et al got out of Germany during WWII; many of the German people helped them do so. Many of those same German citizens were then put to death for doing so. So ultimately, Nazism in Germany was self-defeating.
Easy. It was an impractical approach to governance and economic stabilization.
I think you are talking about the way that this one is nested.
It depends on which “reply” you click. The small gray one at the bottom left gives you nested replies. They only nest one deep, so you won’t find that “reply” on an already nested comment.
Robin, I have to butt in. Morality is always about harm or benefit. pleasure or pain. That’s oversimplifying, but not to a degree that causes any real problem.
Morality can be objectively defined in terms of actions causing harm or benefit. What can’t be absolute is the list of actions placed in sets.
Political power is always problematic because the exercise of power always harms some people. We judge Hitler to be bad not simply because he killed people, but because we identify with the victims. We judge foot soldiers on both sides less harshly, even though they also killed people.
Many actions cause both harm and benefit, and many actions have unintended consequences. If you view morality as an operator — a relation between action and consequence — it can be objective. Any list of moral and immoral actions cannot be objective.
Robin,
Because all I see is blood flooding the gutters, and you condemn it based on:
Bad economics. I fear for your neighbors.