My question is a bit more complicated than the title suggests. We can be quite sure that what is seen as moral has changed over time. The ancient romans, for example, believed it to be a moral imperative to kill disabled babies, whereas society nowadays believes the protection of such babies a moral priority.
However, it could be argued that this is not an instance of morality itself changing, but rather a change in the subjects of morality. That is, disabled babies were added to the 'list' of beings protected by morality. Likewise, it can be argued that extramarital sex has become morally acceptable since marriage is no longer an institution necessary to protect unwanted babies/children due to the introduction of the condom/pill.
My question, then, is if there are any examples of morality in itself changing over time, rather than the 'list of subjects' of morality, or institutions necessary for the moral protection of said subjects.
This is a thought that occured to me over dinner, and I'd like to hear some opinions since it's quite likely that I'm missing something obvious. I hope the formulation above makes sense.
My question is a bit more complicated than the title suggests. We can be quite sure that what is seen as moral has changed over time. The ancient romans, for example, believed it to be a moral imperative to kill disabled babies, whereas society nowadays believes the protection of such babies a moral priority.
However, it could be argued that this is not an instance of morality itself changing, but rather a change in the subjects of morality. That is, disabled babies were added to the 'list' of beings protected by morality. Likewise, it can be argued that extramarital sex has become morally acceptable since marriage is no longer an institution necessary to protect unwanted babies/children due to the introduction of the condom/pill.
My question, then, is if there are any examples of morality in itself changing over time, rather than the 'list of subjects' of morality, or institutions necessary for the moral protection of said subjects.
This is a thought that occured to me over dinner, and I'd like to hear some opinions since it's quite likely that I'm missing something obvious. I hope the formulation above makes sense.
Morality isn't consistent anywhere. It varies from person to person, country to country so obviously it's going to change from time to time.
Do you think it is morally acceptable to kill to punish one for their actions?
Well, this one is easily answerable by the alternative theory I posted in the OP. In this case, it could be not so much that the morals of capital punishment has changed as that our moral system has expanded to include criminals, which it didn't do previously/doesn't yet in some countries.
Well, this one is easily answerable by the alternative theory I posted in the OP. In this case, it could be not so much that the morals of capital punishment has changed as that our moral system has expanded to include criminals, which it didn't do previously/doesn't yet in some countries.
I see your train of thought but I'd like to believe that your theory is explainable if 'morality' is properly defined.
The Stanford philosophical dictionary defines morality as:
descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
Therefore if morality is a code of conduct relating to an individual's behaviour, we could go on to intimate:
If I used to have a code of conduct that e.g. black people are inferior to whites; then after much reading, travelling and thought I decide that I was wrong. I then go on to free my slaves.
In the situation above my 'code of conduct' (attitude) and 'behavior' changed.
but did my morality change?
Tautologically:
I think the answer is yes. I have changed my code of conduct and therefore behaviour towards a specific ideal/situation...in other words, morality has changed.
This is why we say morality does change over time. It doesn't just 'expand to include more things' as you intimated.
Morality is constantly changing. It often fluctuates a lot during even short time spans (e.g. a few decades) thanks to wars and other extreme situations etc.
My question is a bit more complicated than the title suggests. We can be quite sure that what is seen as moral has changed over time. The ancient romans, for example, believed it to be a moral imperative to kill disabled babies, whereas society nowadays believes the protection of such babies a moral priority.
However, it could be argued that this is not an instance of morality itself changing, but rather a change in the subjects of morality. That is, disabled babies were added to the 'list' of beings protected by morality. Likewise, it can be argued that extramarital sex has become morally acceptable since marriage is no longer an institution necessary to protect unwanted babies/children due to the introduction of the condom/pill.
My question, then, is if there are any examples of morality in itself changing over time, rather than the 'list of subjects' of morality, or institutions necessary for the moral protection of said subjects.
This is a thought that occured to me over dinner, and I'd like to hear some opinions since it's quite likely that I'm missing something obvious. I hope the formulation above makes sense.
Well, I am not sure about this but one example could be society's views on religious morality. We used to equate morality with religious morality. The view that one can not be moral (whatever that means) unless he is a believer in a higher power was a very commonly held view. Today, however, I think very few people actually believe that (some Religious extremists maybe - ironic huh?). We all have met atheists and agnostics and my guess is that we have come to realise that you can be an agnostic, an atheist even, and still be a very, very "moral" person (again, it's very complicated to define what is morally right or wrong because different people have different views on it but I guess what we consider a "decent" person can also be considered a "moral" one as well?).
Well, I am not sure about this but one example could be society's views on religious morality. We used to equate morality with religious morality. The view that one can not be moral (whatever that means) unless he is a believer in a higher power was a very commonly held view. Today, however, I think very few people actually believe that (some Religious extremists maybe - ironic huh?). We all have met atheists and agnostics and my guess is that we have come to realise that you can be an agnostic, an atheist even, and still be a very, very "moral" person (again, it's very complicated to define what is morally right or wrong because different people have different views on it but I guess what we consider a "decent" person can also be considered a "moral" one as well?).
That's a good example, but again, could it not be that non-believers were a group not protected by morality, but now are?
Obviously the manifestation of the same moral norms can differ in different circumstances. Perhaps we would be forced to practise infanticide for survival concerns if we found ourselves in the marginal environment of certain Eskimo peoples. Likewise, they would, if able, not practise infanticide if there wasn't a pressing survival imperative.
However, I think it is fairly clear that not all people share the same moral norms, and I don't think a distinction between 'subjects' and behavioural norms is important. It used to be that most people considered enslaving africans okay, and also thought that they weren't as human as europeans. You might say that the only change in morality that has occured is that they've been 'added to the list' of good people, but I don't see it. Personhood and other issues seem to me to be about morality, and so changes in who counts as a person and who is entitled to what gives moral changes. If that doesn't satisfy you, look to changing sexual norms instead.
If you are a moral realist, there are a set of true moral norms. + Universalism and a few other minor bits of meta-ethics, and this 'true charter' of moral facts isn't going to change, even if it prescribes different behaviour in different circumstances. If you aren't a moral realist, then there really isn't some monolithic 'morality' in the first place, and just communal instances of moral language and behaviour. These are, it seems to me, obviously mutable.
Well, would you care to offer me an example or two?
Attitudes towards animals is a good subject area if you're interested. Up to (and beyond in some cases) the mid nineteenth century in Britain a variety of sports and pastimes were widely pursued which involved animals, injuring them in a variety of ways and routinely involving much suffering and death. There was dog-fighting, ratting, bull-baiting, bull-running, bear-baiting, cock-throwing (sticks thrown at a tethered chicken til it dies) and a score of other activities which today, in contemporary Britain, would not be deemed acceptable, let alone pleasurable. Obviously there still are people who regard such harming and killing of animals as a pleasure, there is still dog-fighting, badger-baiting and so on, though they have become very marginal activities and are opposed by the general public.
That's a good example, but again, could it not be that non-believers were a group not protected by morality, but now are?
Ok I'm gonna use your examples to explain. Retarded babies could have the same moral code to, say, the Spartan soldiers who want to kill them. They could perfectly well be totally moral according to "Spartan morality". Same with people with extra marital affairs. I mean these people could be religious, spartan soldiers or whatever. They could be moral in every other respect. But you can't be an atheist and religious at the same time. It is a contradiction in itself. Atheists reject God and God's moral "laws" or commandments. So in this instance, I think, a NEW kind of morality has evolved out of this. Secular morality. Technically, religious morality still condems atheists. But religious people don't (most of them at least). Religious morality did not come to include atheists as being moral people. Religious people did by adopting a DIFFERENT kind of morality that really contradicts their religious one. How these people manage to uphold both? dunno.
There are tolerant religions but I'm assuming we're talking about the West and therefore about Christianity. So remember that for Christians, if you're not a Christian yourself, you'll go to hell no matter how "good" you were UNLESS you change & really regret your actions - convert to Christianity even at the last minute or something. Simples. Still is true - didn't change.
Obviously the manifestation of the same moral norms can differ in different circumstances. Perhaps we would be forced to practise infanticide for survival concerns if we found ourselves in the marginal environment of certain Eskimo peoples. Likewise, they would, if able, not practise infanticide if there wasn't a pressing survival imperative.
However, I think it is fairly clear that not all people share the same moral norms, and I don't think a distinction between 'subjects' and behavioural norms is important. It used to be that most people considered enslaving africans okay, and also thought that they weren't as human as europeans. You might say that the only change in morality that has occured is that they've been 'added to the list' of good people, but I don't see it. Personhood and other issues seem to me to be about morality, and so changes in who counts as a person and who is entitled to what gives moral changes. If that doesn't satisfy you, look to changing sexual norms instead.
If you are a moral realist, there are a set of true moral norms. + Universalism and a few other minor bits of meta-ethics, and this 'true charter' of moral facts isn't going to change, even if it prescribes different behaviour in different circumstances. If you aren't a moral realist, then there really isn't some monolithic 'morality' in the first place, and just communal instances of moral language and behaviour. These are, it seems to me, obviously mutable.
In the example of eskimos, I don't think there is any morality involved at all. As you said, it is necessary for survival reasons, and if the situation were better, it wouldn't happen. How's that immoral? That's more of a regrettable but necessary exception to the moral rule of not killing humans, rather than a change in the morality.
Slaves and gender roles could likewise be explained as other ethnicities and women being 'added to the list'.
QUOTE=Oswy]Attitudes towards animals is a good subject area if you're interested. Up to (and beyond in some cases) the mid nineteenth century in Britain a variety of sports and pastimes were widely pursued which involved animals, injuring them in a variety of ways and routinely involving much suffering and death. There was dog-fighting, ratting, bull-baiting, bull-running, bear-baiting, cock-throwing (sticks thrown at a tethered chicken til it dies) and a score of other activities which today, in contemporary Britain, would not be deemed acceptable, let alone pleasurable. Obviously there still are people who regard such harming and killing of animals as a pleasure, there is still dog-fighting, badger-baiting and so on, though they have become very marginal activities and are opposed by the general public.[/quote]
Well, wouldn't you say this is a case of animals becoming moral subjects?
Originally Posted by SunOfABeach
Ok I'm gonna use your examples to explain. Retarded babies could have the same moral code to, say, the Spartan soldiers who want to kill them. They could perfectly well be totally moral according to "Spartan morality". Same with people with extra marital affairs. I mean these people could be religious, spartan soldiers or whatever. They could be moral in every other respect. But you can't be an atheist and religious at the same time. It is a contradiction in itself. Atheists reject God and God's moral "laws" or commandments. So in this instance, I think, a NEW kind of morality has evolved out of this. Secular morality. Technically, religious morality still condems atheists. But religious people don't (most of them at least). Religious morality did not come to include atheists as being moral people. Religious people did by adopting a DIFFERENT kind of morality that really contradicts their religious one. How these people manage to uphold both? dunno.
There are tolerant religions but I'm assuming we're talking about the West and therefore about Christianity. So remember that for Christians, if you're not a Christian yourself, you'll go to hell no matter how "good" you were UNLESS you change & really regret your actions - convert to Christianity even at the last minute or something. Simples. Still is true - didn't change.
So Christians don't see atheists as moral subject to the same degree as other Christians. The moral rules that apply to Christians don't apply to atheists to the same degree, which is probably why it was seen to be O.K. to slaughter heathens/witches/scientists despite the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment.
---
I'm not actually advocating this view, I just want to see if anyone has examples to contradict it.
In the example of eskimos, I don't think there is any morality involved at all. As you said, it is necessary for survival reasons, and if the situation were better, it wouldn't happen. How's that immoral? That's more of a regrettable but necessary exception to the moral rule of not killing humans, rather than a change in the morality.
Slaves and gender roles could likewise be explained as other ethnicities and women being 'added to the list'.
QUOTE=Oswy]Attitudes towards animals is a good subject area if you're interested. Up to (and beyond in some cases) the mid nineteenth century in Britain a variety of sports and pastimes were widely pursued which involved animals, injuring them in a variety of ways and routinely involving much suffering and death. There was dog-fighting, ratting, bull-baiting, bull-running, bear-baiting, cock-throwing (sticks thrown at a tethered chicken til it dies) and a score of other activities which today, in contemporary Britain, would not be deemed acceptable, let alone pleasurable. Obviously there still are people who regard such harming and killing of animals as a pleasure, there is still dog-fighting, badger-baiting and so on, though they have become very marginal activities and are opposed by the general public.
Well, wouldn't you say this is a case of animals becoming moral subjects?
So Christians don't see atheists as moral subject to the same degree as other Christians. The moral rules that apply to Christians don't apply to atheists to the same degree, which is probably why it was seen to be O.K. to slaughter heathens/witches/scientists despite the 'thou shalt not kill' commandment.
---
I'm not actually advocating this view, I just want to see if anyone has examples to contradict it.[/quote]
Well I don't see how this is relevant to what we were talking about but I'd say that consistent Christians should be the most anti-violent pacifists on the planet. Tolstoy was a good example of that. Jesus too!
Although, Jesus did condemn all non-believers to eternal pain and suffering so... dunno. He didn't advocate violence against them though. Bertrand Russell ftw :P
I'd hardly say attitudes towards animals have changed significantly considering we support the killings of billions every year. Just that people don't like to see or participate in such slaughter themselves.
I'd hardly say attitudes towards animals have changed significantly considering we support the killings of billions every year. Just that people don't like to see or participate in such slaughter themselves.
This.
I don't see how banning fox hunting for example means that we, as a society, condemn the killing of animals. We may frown upon such practices but I don't think a fox itself "cares" whether she will die for the pleasure of a hunter or for the pleasure of a lady who likes wearing foxes. In both instances, the result is the same for her. She will die. We still use fox fur, we eat meat, etc. Huge % of people are meat eaters and leather wearers. So wtf has changed? I mean just cos someone doesn't want to become a butcher doesn't mean he won't eat meat. Same with those activities. People don't wanna be hunters but they will eat meat and wear fur. If 40% of the people support the ban, and only 7% of the people do not use fur or meat or whatever then I'd say that nothing has really changed other than what tomheppy said. Self-denial is a very effective copy mechanism.
I would say...that yes, our morality has changed, not so much with killing people/animals and the like - there'll always be some people who will, no matter what society we live in...
But our attitudes towards things, i think, have changed - it seems in todays society, we have an "If it doesn't hurt anyone its ok" view...people challenge the rules and that, whereas before they just went with them ... idk if there's anything wrong with that, just that its hard to judge if something is going to hurt someone or not, or if the consequences of our actions might reach futhter than we think. Or something. My 2 cents, anyway
I think Azer you need to define how you think morals are formed. I think the way you see it, morality is an ever existant thing that doesn't necessarily change but extend out to include things. But i think in order to really identify whether or not morality has changed, you have to know, or at least have some understanding, of how morality first came about. Now i can't say i have any idea of how it first formed myself (My knowledge of philosophical morality only extends out to Plato and Aristotle) but i assume someone may be able to give some indication.
In my eyes, morality is a forever changing thing that depends entirely on the society and the time. But i see how you could say the essential morals (i use the term loosely since i'm not about to go defining them, but you get what i'm thinking of) have always been around anyway, and have simply expanded to include more people/things. But i don't. Morals have, at different points in time, have begun and then changed.
Taking on the definition that morality is almost a set of unwritten rules put forward by society, then it would seem they do change, as and when society does.
I can't offer you examples, partly because it's 11:23pm and i'm yawning like a hippo, but also because i'm afraid i simply can't think of any. However i find everyones opinions thoroughly interesting
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
Has morality changed over time?
