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?

  • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
    2·
    12 days ago

    I personally don’t believe that morality is a human invention (if it was, then why follow it?). It’s something that innately feels good to most people, because there exists innate “force” of goodness. C.S Lewis has the best argument for this in “Mere Christianity,” and you can probably find the full relevant prose online for free easily. It’s quite convincing.

    Yeah it is quite convincing. Thank you for pointing it out :)

    Also your way of writing feels very harmonic and round to me.

    It would be dishonest framing in their part if they said “we’re doing it for the greater good, utilitarian-speaking” because the only person “made happy” from each unhappy woman is the person they’re married off to; wider public who support the ruling wouldn’t actually be deriving any pleasure from the marriage.

    You have to keep in mind that it is a republican core belief that more children = better for the group. So they say that if women could choose, they wouldn’t make children. So that’s the argument there. Note that i don’t agree with this, for multiple reasons, one being that in fact, more children are not always better to the group (can also be opposite and today largely is), and that it seems off that women wouldn’t choose to have children. It just seems like one should investigate why they don’t want to, instead of assuming that it’s “simply the wrong way of thinking”. And then there’s the whole Calvinist (everybody must think/decide for themselves) thing that i won’t go into because it’d get too long.