Are Better Morals the Solution?

[Sunstone]

George Orwell, in an essay on Charles Dickens, wrote something to the effect that Dickens was a moral writer, and therefore, had no solution to offer for the problems he saw with human nature and society.

Of course, Dickens actually offered a solution to such problems of human nature as greed, callousness, lack of compassion, and so forth. He proposed they could be solved if only people would make an effort to be more moral, to be better people.

But to my thinking (and apparently, to Orwell's thinking, too) that is not an actual solution since people, generally speaking, are simply not going to improve themselves all that much.

But what do you think? Is calling for improved morals really a solution to human failings? Why or why not?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Religions, philosophies, societies, cultures, leaders, teachers, authors, and thinkers have been calling for people to improve their morals for thousands of years. I suppose we can measure the success of this approach by how much improvement we've achieved in human failings.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It's a solution, but it's not a method of attaining the solution.

If I want someone to do something better, I'll explain to them how to do it better. I won't get anywhere yelling "You're doing it wrong! Get better!"

 

[LuisDantas]

George Orwell, in an essay on Charles Dickens, wrote something to the effect that Dickens was a moral writer, and therefore, had no solution to offer for the problems he saw with human nature and society.

Of course, Dickens actually offered a solution to such problems of human nature as greed, callousness, lack of compassion, and so forth. He proposed they could be solved if only people would make an effort to be more moral, to be better people.

But to my thinking (and apparently, to Orwell's thinking, too) that is not an actual solution since people, generally speaking, are simply not going to improve themselves all that much.

But what do you think? Is calling for improved morals really a solution to human failings? Why or why not?

Part of the solution, at the very least. But that is not saying much; it comes from the definition of morality. It is by virtue of being useful to improve society that is is morality.

The trick is in motivating and enabling people towards that goal. And also in the very significant challenge of actually attaining a functional understanding of what morality should be.

 

[Sunstone]

It's a solution...

So, do you think a significant number of people will ever significantly improve their morals?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

In The Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor argued that people will only morally improve themselves if you force them too. That the only solution to human failings was to limit human action.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So, do you think a significant number of people will ever significantly improve their morals?

If there is a method to achieve it.

I would wager most people would simply need moral legal laws to hold them in place.

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is a method to achieve it.

I would wager most people would simply need moral legal laws to hold them in place.

How could laws possibly help in improving morals instead of hindering them?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How could laws possibly help in improving morals instead of hindering them?

Some people only have morals because they keep them out of jail. It's a sad reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Some people only have morals because they keep them out of jail. It's a sad reality.

I beg to differ. Laws may well hinder people out of immoral behavior to some degree, but that in no way creates morals.

Law may direct behavior, but it does not - and should not - direct moral judgement.

 

[Quintessence]

I think it is worth asking the question: why do we classify certain things as failings and problems?

It often seems to me that "problems" exist because we decide to classify them as such. We demand "oughts" and "shoulds" instead of accepting the "what is." Until we suspend classifying things as failings and problems, there will be no solution; we'll always come up with more things to label as failings and problems. Perhaps focusing on the benefits and strengths or the what is might be a better approach.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it is worth asking the question: why do we classify certain things as failings and problems?

So, murder is not a problem unless we classify it as such?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think it is worth asking the question: why do we classify certain things as failings and problems?

It often seems to me that "problems" exist because we decide to classify them as such. We demand "oughts" and "shoulds" instead of accepting the "what is." Until we suspend classifying things as failings and problems, there will be no solution; we'll always come up with more things to label as failings and problems. Perhaps focusing on the benefits and strengths or the what is might be a better approach.

Are there any strength or benefits to child abuse or murder?

 

[Koldo]

George Orwell, in an essay on Charles Dickens, wrote something to the effect that Dickens was a moral writer, and therefore, had no solution to offer for the problems he saw with human nature and society.

Of course, Dickens actually offered a solution to such problems of human nature as greed, callousness, lack of compassion, and so forth. He proposed they could be solved if only people would make an effort to be more moral, to be better people.

But to my thinking (and apparently, to Orwell's thinking, too) that is not an actual solution since people, generally speaking, are simply not going to improve themselves all that much.

But what do you think? Is calling for improved morals really a solution to human failings? Why or why not?

'Improved morals' and 'better morals' strike me as oxymoronic.

However, if everyone shared the same morals and goals, we would indeed advance towards solving our problems. I don't see that happening though, ever.

 

[LuisDantas]

'Improved morals' and 'better morals' strike me as oxymoronic.

Why?

However, if everyone shared the same morals and goals, we would indeed advance towards solving our problems. I don't see that happening though, ever.

Don't you think moral capability - and even concepts - can and must vary among people? Not because morality proper isn't objective, but because personal ability to achieve it does?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I beg to differ. Laws may well hinder people out of immoral behavior to some degree, but that in no way creates morals.

Law may direct behavior, but it does not - and should not - direct moral judgement.

Behavior creates judgment and vice versa.

 

[Koldo]

I think it is worth asking the question: why do we classify certain things as failings and problems?

It often seems to me that "problems" exist because we decide to classify them as such. We demand "oughts" and "shoulds" instead of accepting the "what is." Until we suspend classifying things as failings and problems, there will be no solution; we'll always come up with more things to label as failings and problems. Perhaps focusing on the benefits and strengths or the what is might be a better approach.

While up to a certain extent I can agree with you that problems arise by 'oughts' and 'shoulds', I don't think you propose much of a solution. You are essentially saying: The way to solve problems is to no longer call them problems. But even if we don't call them 'problems' we still have to deal with them.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think it is worth asking the question: why do we classify certain things as failings and problems?

It often seems to me that "problems" exist because we decide to classify them as such. We demand "oughts" and "shoulds" instead of accepting the "what is." Until we suspend classifying things as failings and problems, there will be no solution; we'll always come up with more things to label as failings and problems. Perhaps focusing on the benefits and strengths or the what is might be a better approach.

I agree to an extent. Nobody is a fixed moral or good-person in the manner that a rock is a rock. If we're playing categories, it might be more useful to classify problems as lessons or challenges rather than moral failings. The resistance of situations sustains the projects of man, like air beneath the wings of a bird in flight. Perfect solutions are often associated with the ideal that we can become totally complete or fully human rather than deal with the reality that life is ambiguous and in constant process of becoming. There is no end to the need for overcoming ourselves within the particular context of a situation.

 

[Koldo]

Why?

A value judgement ( improved/better ) is being made about that which serves as a foundation for value judgments ( morals ).

How does that work? By what measure does one determine that certain 'morals' are better or improved?

Don't you think moral capability - and even concepts - can and must vary among people? Not because morality proper isn't objective, but because personal ability to achieve it does?

They can, but I am not sure as to what they extent they must.
Regardless, it is a sad state of affairs. Not agreeing on morals creates problems.

 

[Quintessence]

Are there any strength or benefits to child abuse or murder?

I don't think that's appropriate to discuss on the forums, so I'm not going to comment on that specifically. And it isn't necessary to anyway, nor does it help address the point I'm trying to make. Your virtues and sense of honor is a reflection of your character and your responsibility.

What I think is important to recognize is that how we map the world around us is very much biased by our value judgements, our cultural upbringing, personal experiences, and a whole host of other messy emotional things. Typically, it's not so much an objective or impartial assessment of the empirical data or the fact of "what is." Put another way, I make a very strong distinction between the matter-of-fact of what is and what people perceive to be the case. It's the difference between "this is a problem" and "I or my culture believe this to be a problem, and you or your culture might have different traditions or understandings of the world." I think that honest recognition of this is important. It creates a space for acknowledging the diverse ways of life individuals and societies create, and also for avoiding one-true-wayism.

Personally, I'm able to strip off or broaden lenses to the point that I can see strengths and weaknesses in everything (and I do mean everything). Does it mean I personally agree with or endorse something? No. Does it mean it's part of my sense of honor or a virtue I wish to cultivate in my life or in others? No. But I assess things with as broad of a lens as possible because I like understanding things from as many perspectives as possible. I can't help it; I've always been inquisitive, curious, and poking at things with sticks.