Atheism

I submit that they are tested in the greater social experiment, sometimes with disturbing and haunting reprecussions, but ultimately for the greater stability and growth of civilization.

 

It is relatively harmless and there are benefits - regardless of tradition. The only reason I brought the benefits up is because it's a bad example to use if you are pointing out people doing something solely because of religious or societal norms. That's not the sole reason.

 

In my view, certain aspects of morality and ethics are dependent on social norms. We see certain subcultural morals and ethics that would be viewed as abhorent to the general populous but are intregal to the preservation of a subculture or tribe.

Look at the old chestnut "honor among thieves." I think we see that even to this day in the organized crime and gang cultures. A code of ethics and morality develops that protects the culture. Don't talk to the police. Murder is acceptable. Violence is often commendable. It's not so much about chaos vs order as it is about preserving power.

You could get into the whole genesis of the "greed is good" mentality as an example of using moral and ethical arguments to simply justify selfishness and the grab for power, whether political or economic, but I won't go there.

 

You've identified the successful moral deviation of population subsets - moral relativism among that subculture, but how does it relate back to the greater/whole of society, BV? Are you making an argument that a subset can exist with its own morality, independent from the flock, without fear of reprisal? Cause that seems to be what you are suggesting.

How about looking at it as a pocket of greater chaos tolerance or as a differentiated control paradigm for otherwise unbalancing chaos?

(damn good example BTW).

 

Context does play a part in morality. To kill a person for no reason is amoral but to that same person is self defense is moral. The same with my answer to circumcision. I did frame my answer both ways because the context is which you asked the question lead to a particular assumption.

Others above have stated some of the medical reasons for the procedure as I said previously there is an argument for and against it. I did the research as well as talking with more than one doctor and the doctor at the hospital who was to be doing the procedure.

I don't know if Jewish ritual circumcision is moral or not. If done in a painless manner I would lean toward no but I'm not really familiar enough with the process to answer. From my limited knowledge of female circumcision I would say that it is immoral.

 

The majority will always wish to impose it's will, ethics, morality, etc. on the minority. One aspect to look at is that there are majorities and minorites even within the differing subsets. I'm not sure there actually is a flock. Just varying degrees.

Humans are tribal. We identify ourselves in tribes from the most general terms down to the most specific. We move down in our identity from the merely human to American, to North Carolinian to what college you attended, to what political or religious philosophy you hold, to how old you are ad nauseum. I think we relate morally and ethically to many situations based on our tribal identification with the situation. The closer someone comes to our own tribal identity, the easier it is to treat them in a moral or ethical way.

Actually, they may not really be true. It's more likely the converse.
The further away someone is from our own individual and tribal identity, the easier it becomes to act in an immoral or unethical manner against them. The further removed we are, the looser our morals and ethics can become.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you at all. I do believe that morality and ethics are part of the evolution of the human species. So far, those constricts and guidelines have allowed us to develop without killing each other off. Society must be maintained.

With that said, I do believe that there are morals and ethics that rise above the tribal. The golden rule, law of reciprocity or whatever you wish to call it, is the key to that.

 

Don't confuse the the objectivity of morals with the people who practice it. Because early Christians didn't stand up against the immorality of slavery in no way diminishes that it is immoral. I'm saying that society many times does a poor job of making moral choices.

I think anyone who stopped to think about the morality of slavery knew it was wrong to enslave another human. Their actions based on that knowledge have nothing to do with if it was right or wrong.

If too much rain destroys my crops I don't conclude that all rain is bad.

 

Of course the subset exists. I could skip school back in the day and get away with it because I had good grades. The catch is that all us heathens can't skip on the same day.

How about looking at is as folks figuring out what they can get away with in a situation and going up to those limits? Those are smaller words anyway.

 

That is confusing what is moral or not moral with the actions of people throughout history. I would say that morals are the basis of societal norms, not the other way around. You can't point to a realization of something being moral as the origin of it. Child labor for example is immoral regardless of if anyone thinks it is or isn't. It's an objective moral.

Under your premise if society decided that rape was acceptable and moral then it would be. I disagree and say that rape is objectively immoral. If we are to believe that morals are just the result of societal norms and are subjective then there is no absolute truth or right and wrong. I would have no more claim to say that rape is wrong than another to say it is right. Then there is no such thing as right or wrong.

Harry, I'm sorry we couldn't do a better job of articulating our points to one another.

Where do those higher morals come from?

 

i'm not saying there's NO benefit, just that there's little benefit. circumcision doesn't really compare to condom use when considering stds.

and i'm not coming down on circumcision -- we circumsized my son. the main reason to do so was so he'd be like everybody else in that department.