Moral Ambiguity vs. Moral Complexity

[JonSnow]

That's one view. But religious people would say they are divine constructs that are ascertainable by humans, and that left to their own devices humans would not develop them. Even as you look at developing moral systems and values over time, one can credit the hand of god for guiding humanity if one is so inclined. I've heard often, from religious people, the idea that without god there can be no morality.

Yeah, this is actually a debate for an entirely other issue (probably a different forum, actually). I think the idea that "without God there can be no morality" is a load of garbage. Whether or not you believe in God, if you think people who don't accept God aren't capable of morality, your head is up your anus. Morality is definitely a human construct, and therefore what is and isn't moral is all a matter of perspective. Look at marriage as a perfect example. In the middle ages (and long before it), as soon as a girl could menstruate (usually around age 13-14), she was fit for marriage and having babies, usually with an older man. Now, these girls would be considered minors, and a man over age 18 having sex with a 14 year old girl would go to jail.

This wasn't even a moral decision in their eyes, that far in the past. It was a practical and economic way of life. Now that other factors have changed (like women's rights, less need for child labor, etc.), morality has changed with it. Again, its all about perspective. That's why black and white morality is faulty.

 

[Steerpike]

Whether or not you believe in God, if you think people who don't accept God aren't capable of morality, your head is up your anus. Morality is definitely a human construct, and therefore what is and isn't moral is all a matter of perspective.

The way I've heard it presented is that whether you believe in God or not, you are still capable of morality, but it is because God created you with that capacity. So the believer would say "Look, God still created you with that moral sense. The fact that you don't acknowledge he exists doesn't change that."

I don't agree that all morality is a matter only of perspective. Certainly much of it is, but I think we can all come up with hypotheticals that would be pretty universally reviled.

 

[JonSnow]

The way I've heard it presented is that whether you believe in God or not, you are still capable of morality, but it is because God created you with that capacity. So the believer would say "Look, God still created you with that moral sense. The fact that you don't acknowledge he exists doesn't change that."

I don't agree that all morality is a matter only of perspective. Certainly much of it is, but I think we can all come up with hypotheticals that would be pretty universally reviled.

You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person.

There are aspects of morality that I believe are instinctual, or that we are "wired with", such as protecting your young, not killing your own species unless they are a threat to you (in the animal kingdom they might threaten your food source, your mate, your cubs, etc, which would warrant killing). Mentally stable humans, obviously, have the capacity to find other solutions to these conflicts. And for the most part, we all have a basic sense of right and wrong. But each individual is going to differ on finer points of those.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person.

People do say that, and it's self-evidently not true. But Steerpike's point still stands; the argument is also made that without a deity to have inculcated us with a moral sense to begin with, we wouldn't have one. (I don't buy that argument at all, but it's out there.)

 

[Mindfire]

People do say that, and it's self-evidently not true. But Steerpike's point still stands; the argument is also made that without a deity to have inculcated us with a moral sense to begin with, we wouldn't have one. (I don't buy that argument at all, but it's out there.)

The point Steerpike presented happens to be the side of the issue I stand on. But I don't think debating the issue further will be terribly constructive. The topic will inevitably devolve into a believer vs non-believer shouting match. I've seen it happen before on other forums. Please let's not have that here.

 

[Steerpike]

You may live in a less conservative part of the country than I do... I have actually had this discussion with a lot of people (religion is one of my favorite topics), and they have outright said on many occasions, without God, you can't be moral...which I take offense to since I am a non-believer, but consider myself a moral person.

Jon, it is true that people make that argument. I was limiting my comments to what I've heard from thinkers on the issue - educated, thoughtful people who know atheists aren't necessarily immoral (as Benjamin pointed out, it is self-evident). So the position they take is that a deity exists and imparts morality, whether you know it or not. At that point, the argument boils down to two opposing and unprovable propositions, so it is hard to take things much further.

 

[JonSnow]

The point Steerpike presented happens to be the side of the issue I stand on. But I don't think debating the issue further will be terribly constructive. The topic will inevitably devolve into a believer vs non-believer shouting match. I've seen it happen before on other forums. Please let's not have that here.

very true. and I have too much respect for the intelligence of people in here to have this argument. because it never ends well, and people get really angry really fast.

 

[Steerpike]

very true. and I have too much respect for the intelligence of people in here to have this argument. because it never ends well, and people get really angry really fast.

If it looks to go in that direction, I think the discussion should be stopped immediately. We can turn it back toward morality, which was the original subject. Religious discussion is a natural consequence of that, especially when you delve into areas of ambiguity or subject v. objective morality, but let's not let religion become the focal point. I have faith that everyone in this thread can keep a respectful and rational discourse going.

 

[JonSnow]

If it looks to go in that direction, I think the discussion should be stopped immediately. We can turn it back toward morality, which was the original subject. Religious discussion is a natural consequence of that, especially when you delve into areas of ambiguity or subject v. objective morality, but let's not let religion become the focal point. I have faith that everyone in this thread can keep a respectful and rational discourse going.

So back to morality, I will sum up my thoughts on it like this.... the very definition and source of human morality is grayed, and is different for everyone. Therefore, I would say that the very idea of moral purity (either purely good or purely evil) is a false premise. In that regard, any realistic character is morally ambiguous to a certain extent, whether the author wants it that way or not. You could have a character that makes every "good" decision throughout an entire book, and never show any evil tendancy. But he might have pre-marital sex with his girlfriend. This, in some readers' eyes, would make him a morally poor character. Other readers might not even think twice about it. There are literally endless examples of moral gray.... in addition to the "universal" morals, like throwing a child from a window or raping a woman, being evil.

 

[Feo Takahari]

There are literally endless examples of moral gray.... in addition to the "universal" morals, like throwing a child from a window or raping a woman, being evil.

I think the only universal we can point to is "don't harm members of the tribe." For instance, rape of one's wife was generally considered acceptable in times and places where women weren't considered full members of society.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I would say that the very idea of moral purity (either purely good or purely evil) is a false premise.

For the vast majority of people (and therefore characters) this statement holds true. However, as we are in large part, defined by our actions, this generality cannot extend to everyone. As you stated there are certainly evil acts that should be construed as evil regardless of viewpoint.

In terms of character's though, I feel that the gray immoral types are more interesting because we as people can feel and sympathize with the character arc. They can spiral further into evil, moving towards the pure evil or they can have a chance a redemption. It's this possibility of change (either way) which makes a gray character inherently more interesting than the purely good or purely evil. Either of the extremes would, by definition, be impervious to change.... And to me, that's boring.