Occasionally i hear the phrase “there is no morality outside of human society”. I believe, what is meant by it, is that you cannot say whether something is morally right or wrong in nature, if it isn’t part of human society.

For example, when a turtle eats a bird (here’s a video about it), you cannot say whether these deeds are “good” or “bad”. It’s part of nature, it’s part of the circle of life, … if these things didn’t happen, the bird couldn’t be alive in the first place.

Now, i’ve had some interesting talks yesterday with a close friend about what “morality” really means. They very certainly assured me that morality is simply the construct and the set of rules that society uses to organize itself to make itself more successful. In other words, morality aids the fitness of the group, but not necessarily of the individual. Do you agree with this view?

And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual? Where do you draw the limits? Like if some republicans claim that some women cannot decide themselves who they are/should be in a relationship with … does that derive from that view of morality? What do you respond to that? I’m seriously wondering because all these discussions make my head spin and sometimes i wonder truly whether i even know anything at all… How can you find certainty in what’s morally acceptable and what is not?

  • Ada@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    13·
    13 days ago

    And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual?

    Nope. This is contradictory with your earlier definition. If morality can’t exist without humanity, then that means morality is subjective. If it were objective, it would apply across the board.

    But if morality is also “Doing what is best for the group, even at the expense of the individual” then you’ve just defined it as objective, not subjective.

    The reality is, morality is subjective. But it’s not chosen. It’s part instinct that derives from us being social animals, but it’s also part custom, tradition and culture. There is no objective morality, sure, but that doesn’t just mean that folk get to remove other peoples agency and claim the moral high ground.

    How can you find certainty in what’s morally acceptable and what is not?

    You can’t. You just have to listen to your own sense of right and wrong. If it’s too much at odds with the rest of society, you’ll know about it…