Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
Yes. And it changes as the society changes. What was morally unacceptable 50 years ago is not considered immoral today. Half a century ago, separate but equal was morally acceptable; today it is "hate speech." The Founding Fathers did not condemn slavery as immoral in their days because in their society it wasn't, even though there was already a movement underway to free the slaves elsewhere.
Even Lincoln, who is credited for freeing the Southern slaves, would be considered a bigot today if one reads what he had to say about the blacks.
Today calling someone a "Negro" is considered unconventional at best and outright racist as worst. And while 'black' is not frowned upon (yet), African-American is considered more proper (but not European-American for e whites). Likewsie the perfectly legitimate English word 'neggardly' is not much in use today and some poltician a while ago lost his job over it. All man-made "morality."
Much of the Old Testament morally prescribed standards would be considered morally unacceptable today—on moral grounds. Whose moral grounds? Certainly not God's! If God were the source of our morality than every word in the Bible would be practiced as morally upright to this day.
What you are describing is conventionalism, i.e., that you ought to do what your society tells you to do
That's how every society works. We raise our children according to what we believe is right, and we congregate in groups that share the same outlook on life. We discourage or prohibit that which we find hurtful, or counterproductive for the society and our own interests and values. We believe our society is superior to others.
which if you think about it for a moment leaves you no basis or grounds for your condemnation of the destruction of the state and lawlessness of the French revolution
The grounds for condemnation are that the anarchy that resulted is antisocial, it threatens the survival, destroys the security offered by the society, it threatens our property, privileges, etc. and, academically speaking, it is not what the 17th century Lockean Liberalism advocated.
If there is no law above society and moral rules are relative to society, then once French society speaks, end of discussion. Fin.
What law is above the society? What law can be in effect unless the society, or a subset of society accepts it as the law?
Part of morality is also culture and tradition. 0bama says the Muslims have the legal right to built their mosque at Ground Zero in Manhattan because the law allows them.
But the history of that site says it is improper, indecent and an in-your-face provocation. The law was created for man; not man for the law.
This is like saying can we put up an all-naked strip joint right next to a church? Just because the law may allow doesn't mean it is proper because it disturbs the social order, it is disingenuous, polarizing, potentially violent, or just plain antisocial, unnecessary, etc.
I think you already have proved it by your condemnation of the French revolution
I don't think so. One would have to define God first before one can make God the standard. And, as I said, if scripture is as close as it comes to God standards, I really don't think the Bible is the best source to emulate when it comes to morality and acceptable punishment, even though it supposed to be from none other than God himself.
If you really believe the scriptures are inerrant word of God, then you ought to believe that stoning disrespectful children to death should be morally acceptable for all times, for the Bible musthave been true back then as it must be today.
Yet in terms of what view of reality and knowledge inherent in the moral conventionalism that you espouse do you assume that there is anything like an objective criterion of morality by which to find the French revolution lacking?
French anarchy is no different than any other anarchy. Anarchy is undesirable for many objective reasons, but I am sure some lone Grizzly Adams living by himself in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere couldn't give a rat's about any law or morality because he doesn't have to. Nor is he technically subject to any laws other than nature.
Yes, Rousseau believed the direct democracy was the preferred form of government.
And that direction was?
Lawlessness and anarchy.
What you are saying, it appears, is that human values are self-created, subjective, fleeting, and relative.
That's how every society works. We raise our children according to what we believe is right, and we congregate in groups that share the same outlook on life. We discourage or prohibit that which we find hurtful, or counterproductive for the society and our own interests and values. We believe our society is superior to others.
Morality by social construct led to the murders of six million Jews in Europe. That sort of normative ethical relativism logically leads to the absurd conclusion that people like Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom who disobeyed Hitler's edicts were, by definition, immoral. We believe our society is superior to others - based on and measured against what? Other can self-created, subjective, changing values?
The grounds for condemnation are that the anarchy that resulted is antisocial, it threatens the survival, destroys the security offered by the society, it threatens our property, privileges, etc. and, academically speaking, it is not what the 17th century Lockean Liberalism advocated.
While I agree with your assessments, I still must point out that the examples you use to explain or account for morality are all ultimately based on some prior moral notion for their support, which says nothing ontologically about the source or grounding of morality itself. Without God, you have only a couple of options left, and without begging the question it is going to be very difficult for you to explain how a materialist, impersonal universe that is the result of nothing but the result of blind chance or necessity is the origin or source of prescriptive moral truths that exist outside of our opinion of them, and that are incumbent upon us to obey in the future. Why should I not be selfish, or antisocial, or why I should care about the survival of society, or the security of society, or other people's property or privileges if nothing transcends nature itself?
What law is above the society? What law can be in effect unless the society, or a subset of society accepts it as the law?
Do you believe that moral right and wrong exist outside our opinion? I think the Founders did. The appeal of the Declaration that the Founders signed was to a Law above the law to which even governments are beholden:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Unalienable refers to, among other things, something that cannot rightfully be abrogated, and the ground and source of that non-transferability according to the Founders is the endowment of a transcendent Creator. On the other hand, if your rights come only from society then society can decide to take them away, if society says so, and in that case the society says view of morality that you espouse here leaves you without standing for complaint.
Cordially,
What you are saying, it appears, is that human values are self-created, subjective, fleeting, and relative
Societies are man-made, and so are the values that govern them. Just as the societies evolve so do their moral values. They are subjective, and relative, but not fleeting, imo.
Morality by social construct led to the murders of six million Jews in Europe
Bible morality justifies exterminationnbsp;of entire nations found to be offensive, including children and even animals. By biblicla standards, a complete destruction of every German man, woman, child and animal would have been jusitfied in the aftermath of Hitler's reign.
What moral leg does the Bible stand on to criticize Hitler or Stalin and others like them? Or to offer its morality as a suitable norm?
That sort of normative ethical relativism logically leads to the absurd conclusion that people like Dietrich Bonhoffer and Corrie Ten Boom who disobeyed Hitler's edicts were, by definition, immoral.
No it doesn't. I am sure some would come to that absurd conclusion, but the majority of people wouldn't. But what does that mean? Even the Soviets were outraged with Hitler, yet perfectly capable of massive murder of groups they considered their soul enemies. The fact that Stalin was not much different didn't stop us from forming an alliance with him. Pragmatism trumps morality every time.
the examples you use to explain or account for morality are all ultimately based on some prior moral notion for their support, which says nothing ontologically about the source or grounding of morality itself.
The Enlightenment created a new set of moral standards precisely by asserting that sovereign authority is vested in the will of the people and not divinely imposed through a king. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible tells us.
I think it will be much more difficult for you to explain, let alone prove, that there are prescriptive moral truths that exist "outside of our opinion" or that they are incumbent upon us to obey in the future.
Why should I not be selfish, or antisocial, or why I should care about the survival of society, or the security of society, or other people's property or privileges if nothing transcends nature itself?
Because we behave naturally according to the Golden Rule, and, more importantly, because selfishness in our society has a negative connotation; it is inherently anti-social, and therefore undesirable for any society, large or small.
Our morals are not "out there." There is nothing moral or compassionate about nature. In fact, it's just the opposite. We don't live in nature but outside of it in our man-made island called civilization—cities, houses, states etc. Nature may be pretty from the distance and the comfort of our civilization, but it is a pretty nasty place, perilous, cruel and violent.
Humanity as we know it is learned and man-made. So are its values and, of course, morality. If you took a child from the moment he was born and kept him in the back yard, with enough food and water and no other human interaction, I am willing to bet he would lack morality, compassion, good manners, language, etc.
There is nothing intrinsically moral about the "natural man". A natural man is really not human as we think of humans, but only if he is properly civilized, that is—brought up, taught, trained to be a domesticated beast. As long as we remind ourselves that this domestication is also a man-made product of human culture and not something "out there".
A Muslim father will go as far as to kill his wife (or wives) or daughter(s), which they call "mercy" killing, to defend the family honor. Their twisted religious beliefs tell them it is morally right to do that! I am sure the Muslims will tell you that their sharia law is morally "upright." Sadly, if you or I or any one of us were brought up Muslim, we'd believe that too. So, yes, I say morality is man-made.
No. I see no evidence of that.
I think the Founders did. The appeal of the Declaration that the Founders signed was to a Law above the law to which even governments are beholden:
What they wrote was very logical and self-evident. They realized that all humans are born without a contract, and therefore under no obligation. How do we know that? Simple: none of us asked to be born, but here we are.
We owe nothing to anyone for being alive. We are free. That freedom was not granted upon us by some king, or government, but by the very fact that we are alive and that this is everyone's world.
Brought unbound into the world, we certainly have a natural right to do as we please (be free) to seek satisfaction (happiness), because all living things seek to satisfy their needs. Also, by the manner of birth we are are obviously equal. We all put on our pants one leg at a time.
And because none of this was given to us by any man-made institution or king, or government, etc. it cannot be taken away by any of them. Very self-evident.
Unalienable refers to, among other things, something that cannot rightfully be abrogated, and the ground and source of that non-transferability according to the Founders is the endowment of a transcendent Creator
It cannot be abrogated because it was never given by a society; rather it was given by nature and what the Founders called the Nature's God. As far as I know, no Founding Father was an atheist, so yes, they all believed in some sort of deity.
By agreeing to a social contract people give up a portion of some of their rights for the general (mutually beneficial) good. A government commissioned by a social contract is obligated contractually to deliver something in return for those rights surrendered to it by the people, things that benefit all, that make us stronger and safer, and economically better off.
The social contract places the sovereignty in the people, and not in the king or the government. The government is commissioned to serve the people, is a pulbic servent (tell that to our Imperial Congress and the White House!). A government that decides to play god and violates the contract is immoral, by definition.
Using social contract as the man-made standard, then, any government that tells the people how they should think what they should eat, whom they must love, what they much purchase, etc., is not a society in harmony with our creation and therefore undesirable and inherently immoral.
But if we follow the Bible as the standard, then any authority is from God and the rulers are divinely anointed sons of God who are to be obeyed. Disobedience, then, is seen as rebellion against God and therefore inherently evil.
So, we have two mutually exclusive man-made "working models" of the society, one placing the moral high ground in the natural man, and the other in a God-annointed ruler; one wiht moral obligation of the authoirty to serve the people, and the other one with the obligation to obey all authority because all authority comes from God. These represemnt two morally exclusive standards.
As for the French Revolution, the Enlightened philosophers realized that nature, man, society and government should be in harmony which is achieved through social contract: Man is free, he freely forms an association with others of his kind, freely forms a government by contract, the governed give up some of their sovereignty in order to receive mutual benefits in return; Man remains free.
The French Revolution never achieved that harmony. One tyrant was replaced by another, even by multiple tyrants. There was no contract and the society was in discord with the natural order of things. As such it was immoral according to the social contract. It was immoral according to the Biblical standard as well, for a different reason of course, because it rebelled against the God-annointed sovereign king.
Merciful Heavens! Whatever led Monsieur Rousseau to think that twenty eight million Frenchmen could make a ‘direct’ democracy (a ‘pure’ democracy?) work? Or, for that matter, twenty eight million of anyone.
“Lawlessness and anarchy.”
An inevitable outcome, surely. Lawlessness and anarchy . . . the fruits of the “social contract.” Monsieur Rousseau is thought brilliant? Yet, this was the best he could do? Like today’s Socialist Democrat, perhaps Rousseau was judged by his intentions and not by his results. So . . . when his ideas failed, a bunch of thugs took over and declared themselves the new elite. We seem to be repeating history.
He didn't. He admired the type of government in Geneva at that time, realizing it would never work in France (too big as you suggest), which is why he modified his social contract to include a representative form of government, as a necessary evil, not as a preferred choice.
Monsieur Rousseau is thought brilliant?
Actually he was subjected to rather strong criticism form the English side of the social contract for allegedly idealizing the "natural man."
So . . . when his ideas failed, a bunch of thugs took over and declared themselves the new elite. We seem to be repeating history.
He was dead eleven years when the French Revolution broke out. But he wouldn't be the first or the last philosopher whose ideas were misused for extreme political purposes. Nietzsche comes to mind.
Well, that's certainly an understatement! Certainly the "English" who objected would include Edmund Burke (who you seem to cite in support of your own view, which is mystifying to me); and Jonathan Swift — among others. Rousseau didn't "allegedly" idealize the "natural man." He actually did so.
Trouble there is Reality trumps ideological idealizations every time.
In Monsieur Rousseau's book, man is born a "noble savage." Which strikes some sensibilities as being an outright oxymoron on logical grounds. But he never explains this "term of art." He cites no empirical evidence in support of it (though he had several millennia of human experience and history to draw from, had he chosen to do so); no fuller definition is forthcoming. This term of art stands as simply an unsupported allegation, which we are instructed to uncritically accept. But it is interesting to note that where such "allegations" loaded into the base of abstract systems have actually been tried in human history, all have failed — to the misery of untold numbers of human beings.
Obviously, there must be some deeper truth in Nature than man as the Noble Savage. Or man as the center of moral order in the universe. But that's the very truth that neither Rousseau — and one sadly suspects, nor dear kosta — refuses to accept.
If man is the center of order in the universe, then it should be perfectly legitimate to accept that 28 million Frenchmen — of virtually uncountable degrees of intelligence, culture, and condition — can make a "representative form of government," a social contract. And thereby establish a workable "democracy."
But this overlooks the problem of: How do you get 28 million Frenchmen to agree about what should be in that social contract? Are you going to poll them? (Oh, isn't that what an election is all about?) The peasant wants to fill his belly, and his family's bellies, and hopefully get some security WRT property into his insecure position in society. The merchant or banker is looking after his mercantile or banking interests. The lawyer, the dignity of his profession, on which his personal revenues depend. The guildsman, the rights and privileges of his trade. The sick, the "right" to be healed. The hungry, the right to be fed. Etc., etc.
Dear kosta, earlier you wrote: "Morality is part of society and society is man-made. Reason is capacity humans are born with."
Well we know that morality is necessarily "part of society." [Let alone that "part" business for now; to me fidelity to the moral law is the whole of a just, free, good society — and I do believe the historical record is on my side here.] If morality is man-made — if it is something that is to be determined by 28 million Frenchmen — then how can we even call it "morality?" You can't base the moral law on the shifting sands of human self-interest and cupidity.
As usual, betty boop, I am at a complete loss as to what you are talking about, and why do you have to distort everything I say? To wit:
(1) I did not say "English;" I said "English side," the Anglophone critics of his.
(2) Exactly where do I "seem to cite" Edmund Burke and why is this "mystifying" to you?
Rousseau didn't "allegedly" idealize the "natural man." He actually did so.
He did?
In Monsieur Rousseau's book, man is born a "noble savage." Which strikes some sensibilities as being an outright oxymoron on logical grounds.
Funny, such a term was never used in France. And sauvage doesn't mean "savage."
He cites no empirical evidence in support of it (though he had several millennia of human experience and history to draw from, had he chosen to do so)
I don't think in his days they really knew much about the pre-societal man. What "empirical" evidence did the English side have about the pre-societal man?
But it is interesting to note that where such "allegations" loaded into the base of abstract systems have actually been tried in human history, all have failed — to the misery of untold numbers of human beings.
What "allegations"? That man has an innate sense of justice?
Obviously, there must be some deeper truth in Nature than man as the Noble Savage.
Oh yeah? You have "empirical" evidence for that?
Or man as the center of moral order in the universe
Now we are really reaching...
But that's the very truth that neither Rousseau — and one sadly suspects, nor dear kosta — refuses to accept.
I can't speak for Rousseau, but why should I accept it?
If man is the center of order in the universe, then it should be perfectly legitimate to accept that 28 million Frenchmen — of virtually uncountable degrees of intelligence, culture, and condition — can make a "representative form of government," a social contract. And thereby establish a workable "democracy."
Wow. What does workable "democracy" (I guess there is some doubt in your mind as to what that really is) be in any way connected with man possibly being "in the center of order in the universes"?
But this overlooks the problem of: How do you get 28 million Frenchmen to agree about what should be in that social contract? Are you going to poll them? (Oh, isn't that what an election is all about?)
I don't know, how did American Founding Fathers draw up a social contract? It sure wasn't through election. It was more like four-five people who commanded respect among the Founders who drew up a document and got a blessing from the rich and the educated who could afford to sit and ponder cosmic mysteries of mankind and be away from the affairs of their estates.
You can't base the moral law on the shifting sands of human self-interest and cupidity.
But we do.
”necessary evil” . . . Even though it was a favorite of Madison’s, I’ve always had a little trouble with that expression. How can something ‘evil’ be thought ‘necessary’? Bad idea? Good idea badly expressed? What?
Despite their remarkable achievement, the Founding Fathers don’t seem to have hit it quite square on the screws. They spoke of even the best-constructed republics as lasting little more than two hundred years, and expressed the hope that their posterity would rise to the challenge of keeping things going. Time’s up.
Aside from a couple of obviously needed changes made by their posterity, I’ll take the vision of the Founders over anything anyone else has proposed. I’ve been waiting for over a half century now, but I haven’t seen anything better come along. Have you?
[Rousseau] “was dead eleven years when the French Revolution broke out.”
Yeah, and Marx was some 125 years’ dead when 0bama broke out. So, what? Am I mistaken in understanding that it was the thought and the spirit of Rousseau driving the French Revolution? Something went awry. What was it?
Mz boop has introduced the idea that something deeper (greater?) than Man’s nature is at the center of the Universe, and that it has guided our more profound thoughts about Man’s relationship amongst his own and with the Universe. Rousseau and the Revolutionaries had little but themselves to fall back on in their attempt to create a greater society. It was a debacle.
The Founding Fathers seemed to have something more. So, while they built a republic that has lasted for over two hundred years, the French went through a king, two empires, a Directory, a Convention, a Consulate a Vichy puppet government, and five republics. Whence might that ‘something more’ have come, do you suppose? From a source with which you find yourself in perpetual denial. But you seem to have no better answer. Jefferson does, however:
“If we are made in some degree for others, yet, in a greater, are we made for ourselves. It were contrary to feeling, and indeed ridiculous to suppose that a man had less rights in himself than one of his neighbors, or indeed all of them put together. This would be slavery, and not that liberty which the [Virginia] bill of rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been charged. Nothing could so completely divest us of that liberty as the establishment of the opinion, that the State has a perpetual right to the services of all its members. This, to men of certain ways of thinking, would be to annihilate the blessings of existence, and to contradict the Giver of life, who gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 20 May, 1782, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 4, pg 196)
Yet you seem incapable of looking past doctrine to see values.
Your own presuppositions of prescriptive moral truths that you deny the existence of is evident throughout your replies. A few examples from this post alone:
... selfishness in our society has a negative connotation; it is inherently anti-social, and therefore undesirable for any society, large or small.(begs the question; assumes a prior moral obligation not to be selfish, anti-social, or to act in ways undesirable to any society)
A Muslim father will go as far as to kill his wife (or wives) or daughter(s), which they call "mercy" killing, to defend the family honor. Their twisted religious beliefs tell them it is morally right to do that! I am sure the Muslims will tell you that their sharia law is morally "upright." Sadly, if you or I or any one of us were brought up Muslim, we'd believe that too. So, yes, I say morality is man-made.
("Twisted" assumes a prior prescriptive moral obligation for fathers not to kill to kill their wives and daughters. Begs the question in that morality can't be accounted for by positing a prior moral rule. Vitiates the claim that morality is relative.)
A natural man is really not human as we think of humans, but only if he is properly civilized, that is—brought up, taught, trained to be a domesticated beast.
(Assumes the very thing in question; a purpose or an established standard for which the natural man is appropriately fitted.)
Cordially,
How can something ‘evil’ be thought ‘necessary’?
Life is a compromise, so some things that would normally be rejected are accepted reluctantly because of the lack of choice. I don't think in this case the evil is literally the evil, but "evil" nonetheless because it is imposed circumstantially as a practical solution.
They spoke of even the best-constructed republics as lasting little more than two hundred years, and expressed the hope that their posterity would rise to the challenge of keeping things going. Time’s up.
Yup. Now that we have reached the point when the government is telling us what we must purchase, I would say the Founders were right on the money. I don't think this country is morally, and otherwise, the same country it was at its foundation, or fifty, even thirty years ago.
I’ll take the vision of the Founders over anything anyone else has proposed. I’ve been waiting for over a half century now, but I haven’t seen anything better come along. Have you?
No, not by any stretch. The problem with such more perfect union (how can perfect be more perfect?) is keeping it such. The Founders were a perfect storm of free thinkers, an event that doesn't repeat itself very often and an act that is hard to follow consistently, especially when the country itself is undergoing tectonic changes and challenges politically, demographically, economically, etc. This country has radically changed in the last 30-40 years in the direction that seems to be leading her into a third world camp, and most of it is by design, undoing what the Founder did, brick by brick.
Modern politicians are like caricatures compared to the wise Founders. There seems to be a perilous lack of political talent (and political will) in this country, and each successive election seems to produce more bad apples.
Yeah, and Marx was some 125 years’ dead when 0bama broke out. So, what? Am I mistaken in understanding that it was the thought and the spirit of Rousseau driving the French Revolution? Something went awry. What was it?
Progressivism has been alive and well in America practically from Marx's death in 1883, and 0bama is certainly not the first who pushed progressivist agenda. There have been a number of progressivist US presidents who added their 2-cents': Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ in good measure (he changed the immigration law which is directly responsible for the irreversible demographic changes in the US in the past 40 years).
What went wrong in the French Revolution is probably misunderstanding or adulteration of Rousseau's idealism. He was not against religion, and he did not advocate violence or mass executions as far as I know.
Mz boop has introduced the idea that something deeper (greater?) than Man’s nature is at the center of the Universe, and that it has guided our more profound thoughts about Man’s relationship amongst his own and with the Universe. Rousseau and the Revolutionaries had little but themselves to fall back on in their attempt to create a greater society. It was a debacle.
So, what will be our excuse when it happens here?
The Founding Fathers seemed to have something more. So, while they built a republic that has lasted for over two hundred years, the French went through a king, two empires, a Directory, a Convention, a Consulate a Vichy puppet government, and five republics.
And Great Britain outlives both the French and the American republics hands down. The Holy Roman Empire existed over 800 years technically speaking. The Roman republic lasted 492 years. China was an empire over 2100 years. Egypt lasted for 1,000 years, etc. What does that prove? That there is a "higher power?"
Whence might that ‘something more’ have come, do you suppose?
Honestly, probably our heads.
But you seem to have no better answer.
I will be the first to admit that I don't know the answer. Trouble is that those who claim otherwise really have nothing to show for it.
Jefferson does, however: ... Nothing could so completely divest us of that liberty as the establishment of the opinion, that the State has a perpetual right to the services of all its members. This, to men of certain ways of thinking, would be to annihilate the blessings of existence, and to contradict the Giver of life, who gave it for happiness and not for wretchedness. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 20 May, 1782, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 4, pg 196)
So, he believed that life was given for happiness. I guess he wasn't aware of the misery that exists in the world.
Yet you seem incapable of looking past doctrine to see values.
What doctrine?
Thank you for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
... selfishness in our society has a negative connotation; it is inherently anti-social, and therefore undesirable for any society, large or small.
begs the question; assumes a prior moral obligation not to be selfish, anti-social, or to act in ways undesirable to any society
Being selfish is simply an antisocial phenomenon. No society to my knowledge promotes selfishness.
... Their twisted religious beliefs tell them it is morally right to do that!
"Twisted" assumes a prior prescriptive moral obligation for fathers not to kill to kill their wives and daughters. Begs the question in that morality can't be accounted for by positing a prior moral rule. Vitiates the claim that morality is relative.
Killing your own kind is counterproductive. No society promotes murder as something beneficial. Muslim "mercy" killings are also in conflict with our societal values.
A natural man is really not human as we think of humans, but only if he is properly civilized, that is—brought up, taught, trained to be a domesticated beast.
Assumes the very thing in question; a purpose or an established standard for which the natural man is appropriately fitted.
Properly civilized according to each cultural standard. No assumption there.
Your descriptive observation misses the point. Morality is prescriptive. Why shouldn't be a person be selfish?
Killing your own kind is counterproductive. No society promotes murder as something beneficial. Muslim "mercy" killings are also in conflict with our societal values.
So what? Societies values are relative. And why should a person care about being productive? (fact check - I think some societies have promoted killing of one's own kind in some instances, but it's besides the point)
Properly civilized according to each cultural standard. No assumption there.
Ok. But is there moral incumbency for a person to be "properly civilized" according to each cultural standard?
Cordially,
No reason whatsoever, except social. Without a society, unselfishness as a virtue loses any meaning or purpose.
Since it subsists only in man-made social settings, it is a pragmatic man-made value.
So what? Societies values are relative. And why should a person care about being productive?
Same answer. Being productive is meaningless without a society, which is a network of interconnected and interdependent activities.
(fact check - I think some societies have promoted killing of one's own kind in some instances, but it's besides the point)
For superstitious religious reasons in hopes of gaining favor from some imaginary god. Its "virtue" was in the primitive cause-and-effect belief that a sacrifice was necessary for the society's well-being. Shall we call it the ancient form of "charity?"
But is there moral incumbency for a person to be "properly civilized" according to each cultural standard?
No, there is no moral incumbency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.