The rules that everyone follows as part of whatever culture they are a part of, and whatever rules that particular culture subjects itself to at that time in history.

The "rules" a culture will follow can change on a dime ... say when Hitler starts to invade.  Then carpet bombing civilians (women, children etc) is just fine.

It changes...

But Hitler was carpet-bombing outsiders. That was the point of concentration camps and war in general; it's focused on disrupting the effectiveness of outside societies. He never carpet-bombed his own people (his own people being Aryan Germans). Even Hitler wouldn't condone harming 'good' pregnant German women.

I realize that Hitler changed the rules, but that's exactly my point.  If your sense of morality changes depending on circumstances then it's not universal or permanant, so I'm not sure how useful using the word 'morality' is. (Though there were some folks who stuck to their guns on their own nn-violence stance even during those darkest days)

It's like saying I always do the right thing except in these 11 circumstances - then I don't.

Dude, Hitler LOST, get over it.

Useing Hitler as a counter argument just proves the point, Hitler is seen as the quintesential example of all that is wrong with human behavior, so if he broke these rules that just validates them.

I hope we can all agree that people don't always do the right thing.

Just because people don't do the right thing, doesn't mean the right thing is a nonsensical concept. It means people fail. People go along with the herd and do things they know are wrong.

It might help to look at more specific circumstances, to decide if people knew they were doing wrong, or had no knowledge of right/wrong, or if right/wrong itself changed.

I'm not sure what Hitler losing has to do with the conversation.  I assume this is some kind of tongue in cheek comment that I don't get?

Anyways, my point wasn't that Hitler broke the rules, it was that Hitler broke the rules and also basically every other person did to.  The atrocities that happened in that war (and we're only discussing that war, not any other war right now), were not just from one side.  They were from every side.  Allied forces, almost unanimously (though with some exceptions) felt that slaughtering civilians with mass bombing of cities filled with women and children was okay. They were not arguing that it was wrong, but that it was entirely justified in that circumstance.

As Hakootoko suggests, we don't always do the right thing.  Okay, perhaps.  But what's being discussed is that the definition of 'the wrong thing' changes depending on all sorts of circumstances ranging from the taste of my soup this afternoon, to whether my mother was just raped while I, as an 8 year old boy was forced to watch it.

Hitler and God if one reads the OT seems to be the same on moral codes the moral code is whatever they said it was. In that sense both are by definition sociopathic monsters. So I would not use either for a moral code.

Humanism at least tries to say this is bad and this is good using common sense and rational thought.

For example one common moral code for them seems to be: Leave people alone unless their actions violate the rights of others to much that is do a tangible negative impact on another person. This would cover most big ones and allow for exceptions like a pregnant woman with a machine gun going on a rampage you would have the right to hurt or kill her in self-defense.

I think you're judging God as a sociopath because you see him as an equal to humans. One person killing another is wrong because it doesn't "leave people alone" (in the most severe way), taking away the rest of their life. From God's perspective, it isn't the same; God is bringing back to himself someone he sent into the world. God has rights over people that they don't have over one another.

The religious use the same humanist common sense and rational thought to tell right from wrong. But we recognize the basis of this ability to tell right from wrong in each of us was implanted by God.

I believe that people can tell right from wrong if they sincerely try. We can also get more in tune with right and wrong by working to develop our conscience, and can also atrophy our conscience by neglect or conscious effort. Breivik, for example, described how he had to work at turning himself into a machine who had no empathy for those he murdered.

   Looking over the previous posts I thought I figured I would add. Historically murder/killing has never been a moral problem. It seems that murder/killing those who are part of the In-Group has been a part of the code. More specifically the biggest moral crime history seems to put forth is taking an action which causes harm to the In-Group. If an out-group is capable of causing serious harm to the In-group and an individual has taken an action against a member of said out-group which might call for retaliation by the out-group then the individual in question will often be punished by the rest of the In-group for the transgression. But if the individual causes harm to an Out-group in a way that strengthens the In-group or is seen as beneficial to the In-group in other ways said individual will often either escape punishment entirely or be rewarded for it.

    As for the statements concerning gods morality. By modern Human Standards the god of the OT is a monster. If there really is a hell where people are tortured for all eternity and the god of the NT willingly condemns people there he is also, by modern human standards a monster. As I have never interacted with a moral being other than a human, I can only judge him by those standards. It is by these standards that I name a person or being worthy of admiration or loyalty. I do not judge a dog by some strange standards intrinsic to a Dogs Morality to decide if it is a good dog, I judge it by the Human standards I understand. Loyalty, friendliness, aggression to those who wish me harm these are traits I would appreciate in a human companion like I would a dog. Where as Excessive aggressiveness towards me, a history of unprovoked violent behavior, or a domineering attitude are traits I would not like in a Dog or a Human. While these are not all "Moral" traits they are intended as an example, that I am judging this animal by my Human standards.

  I will also argue that a god who creates us has no more moral right to kill, maim, or cause extreme suffering to any human than we have to do the same to our own children. While I understand there are still religious groups who argue we have that right, that we can kill or maim our own children, those groups are Barbaric by modern (Western) standards. Once again we have no proof of any moral standard other than a human one.

Been listening to the most recent 'Hardcore History' podcast which focuses on Gengis Khan.  During that time rape, slaughtering, torture etc were all a normal part of life.

The idea of any kind of consistent moral code that is in any way distinct from culture is unsupportable in my opinion.

I am glad I live in a culture that doesn't deem those things acceptable (for the most part) at this point in time.

Hitler did not change the rules. That was my point.

I would argue, and have previously pointed out, the rules of the 'Universal Moral Code' apply only to people in your group.

In some cultures, it's perfectly okay to kill children from other tribes/families/countries. However, I'm not aware of any culture where it's okay to kill the children from your own group.

Hitler did follow this rule. Aryans were never targeted by Hitler (except when they were spies or enemy combatants, obviously). Similarly God, whether you believe Him to be a sociopath or not, never targeted the Jewish children; only the children of the 'outside' group.

I don't know very much about Genghis Khan. Doulos, does your documentary indicate that he committed any of these atrocities against his own people? Or only against others?

I'm reminded of that old Simpsons Episode when the teachers went on strike.

Flanders (trying to mediate): "Well, it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree."
Skinner: "I don't agree to that."
Edna: "Neither do I."

The people that were not a part of the group were until suddenly someone decided they were not.  That's why you read horrific stories of people who were neighbours for years and years suddenly turning a blind eye, or even shouting encouragement, as their Jewish neighbours were dragged off to camps.

In Canada you have Japanese internment camps setup when most of those folks did absolutely nothing wrong and were good friends and neighbours that one day just became the enemy.

I agree that only outsiders become the object of wrath in these situations but when the definition of who an outsider is changes on a regular basis then I don't see how that's really helpful in determining any set of values or behaviours as being 'set' in any way.

As for Gengis Khan and his people, that's almost impossible to answer.  Again, the definition of who was part of "his group" was very fluid.  He killed his own brother (can't remember why - stealing food I believe).  If you did everything he wanted the you were a part of his group, but if not then he would likely attack, rape, kill and destroy everyone in your city.  So, again, of what value is that to determining morality?

Your statements show a failure to understand the situation, or the motives of the people involved.

Untill after World War Two racism was so ingrained in most of the world that no one even noticed it, including Anti-Semitism. The cristian Germans already hated their jewish neighbors, or at least in most cases were not close friends with them due to social pressure, and the few that did oppose what the Nazi's did suffered the same fate.

In America it was much the same with the (please note I use the following term only to illustrate my point.) "Japs", their facial features and customs set them appart from the "white" majority and they thus were seen as an 'other' and therefore dangerous. No, what was done was not right, but it was consistent with the precedent Kitsara is stateing.

In fact America is very unusual in how much it has become oposed to racism and classism.
Take for example most Native American languages: their word for themselves corectly translates to "people" as in 'we are people, everyone else are not real people'.

It is worse with some other cultures: Do you know what the word for foreigner in Japanese actually means?
Gaijin: Adjective; Forign Thing.
Not foreigner, foreign thing, in there eyes not only are we not people but we are not properly alive.

The concept of a "Human Race" is only a few centuries old, and has still not gained cultural acceptance in many places, any mark or difference can be enough to spark murder or on a larger scale genocide. But within the culture, with those who are accepted as part of the "us" group: a basic standard of behavior is applied.



As to Gingis Khan and his brother: Stealing food was incredibly serious, the mongols lived in constant danger of starving so stealing food runs up against all five universal rules, directly or at one remove at most. I don't know enough about the case to know how his brother died: crime of passion, trial and execution, or what, but many many people have been "lawfuly" hanged for exactly that crime.

I think Alexei said it for me :)

I'll admit, I really don't know much about pre-WWII German culture, however my understanding was that anti-semitism was rampant (and had been, throughout Europe, for a few hundred years preceding). There are plenty of examples of individuals who didn't hate Jews, but that isn't the same as saying those people saw Jews as their equals or part of their communities. I honestly can't comment.

The comment that 'they were part of the in group, until they weren't' is a tough part, and probably the bit that makes this whole discussion rather impractical. How do you know who is "in"? If you took a black man and plopped him into uptown Charleston, would he be "in"? What about Boston? Anchorage? Middle of Kansas? I'd like to think that, yes, he'd be "in" anywhere in the US, and of course, the law strives to make that the case. But from what I've been shown, that isn't always the case. There are many people who will be polite, even your friend, but who think, in the back of their minds, "that person is black/white/asian/male/female/republican/democrat/out-of-towner/whatever, and doesn't belong here". And those views change over time, in either direction. So with this huge factor that is unmeasurable and so dynamic, what use is everything that's built on top of it?

I was just having a similar discussion in a different politics game.

I would say morality comes down to harm and degrees of harm.

Actually, no. I speak Japanese, and Gaijin means "outside person." They have a slightly more politically correct term Gaikokujin as well, meaning "outside country person." I've known foreigners in Japan to insist on the latter, though to me the distinction seems so rarified as to not be worth bothering to complain about.

Interesting, my mother served as a journalist in Nara during the 70s and learned the deffinition I just quoted to you from a native japanese woman so either the definition has changed or one of us has bad information, for the moment I will presume the former, language does shift over time.

The basic point stands: many cultures do not see forigners as being fully human, yet are not significantly more abusive twards their own members, provided those members are not from a forbidden class or other abused "outsider" minority.

I'm trying to summarize a bit where we are.

As far as I can tell we've sort of established that morality might have something to do with culture, or more specifically in regards to protecting/being kind to/treating well the "insiders".

However the definition of insiders is a moving target.

I'm not entirely sure where that leaves things....haha.

I've been a bit busy lately, so haven't had time to post in quite a while, but have been enjoying this conversation even if I couldn't get time to add much to it.  But when I saw the above post, I just had to grab a few minutes to comment, because it related to something fascinating (to me at least) in the book I read recently about morality and politics ("the righteous mind" by johnathon Haidt).

For many people in the west, particularly those who self-identify as liberals, the above statement is true.  Morality is mostly about harm (and also "fairness").  But for a large fraction of the world, and especially for those who self-identify as conservatives, it's about more than that.  It's also respect for authority and tradition; it's about loyalty to the in-group; it's also about purity.

There's a number of different "moral foundations" (according to Haidt) that all people use to inform their morality, but self-identified liberals tend to rely almost entirely on just two of them: fairness and harm, while self-identified conservatives depend on all of them equally.

Haidt gets at the difference by proposing unusual situations, and asking people if they think someone's "done something wrong" in them, and asking them to explain why they felt something was wrong.  The scenarios are usually crafted to artificially deny the most common rationalizations.  For example one scenario was about a brother and sister who went on a vacation together, decided to have sex, used both condoms and birth control pills, both were STD-free.  Both decided that they had enjoyed it, but that they didn't want to ever do it again, so would never do so, and would never tell anyone else that it had happened.  This situation made almost everyone uncomfortable, and most said that it was wrong, but liberals had a very difficult time explaining why they had a problem with it, since no one was harmed or treated unfairly.  Conservatives, however, were much more comfortable saying things like "its against god's will" or "it against societies wishes," etc.

Anyway, just wanted to point out that habsin4's idea is largely true for some people, but not everyone.

Interesting annalisis: but answer me this: If everyone uses harm and fairness, and only a certain segment use the other critiria which of the potential criteria is the most valid?

Are you suggesting putting morality to a vote?

I also wonder how many cultures there are where tradition, authority, or purity are important, but fairness isn't.

From what I have seen? All of them. How many agree that it should be? Also all of them.

To clarify a bit, we all use all the criteria, but some of us just focus on some of them a lot more than others.  Most liberals are opposed to necrophilia, for example, even though that's a purity thing rather than a harm thing.

Also, not everyone uses the harm foundation to the same degree.  Libertarians, for example, tend to be far less concerned about harm than about fairness, but that doesn't imply that everyone else is wrong for caring about harm.

All the foundations have some kind of evolutionary benefit, most likely, or at least an evolutionary origin.  How they get adapted/twisted by cultures is another issue.

It reiterates what we already knew; be an 'insider' at all costs, because outsiders survive only on charity and mutual self-interest. The Babylonians knew it when they matched their gods to those of conquered people.

It also means that places with more diversity, with more opportunities for me to say 'you are not like me, and therefore outside of my community' are places which have more opportunity for immoral actions and beliefs. We should reasonably expect places that have a range of beliefs, languages, races, and cultural groups to have more crime, more decisiveness, more in-fighting than a place which is in all these ways undifferentiated.