Is morality cultural?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, March 22. 2011

Sometimes I think morality is purely culturally-defined, and sometimes I think there is "natural law." Most of the time I simply try to adhere to God via the Ten Commandments and Christ's teachings (Mark 12:28):

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

If you are a Christian, those are the revealed word of God. If not, they are cultural. I know when I have done wrong because I feel guilt and shame. Sometimes I feel guilt and shame even when I haven't transgressed in any meaningful way. That's me, not God.

Jesse Prinz argues Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response.

It's a fun topic for college students' late-night bull sessions with beer.

Posted by The Barrister in Our Essays, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 13:00 | Comments (11) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.brucehanify.com
Tracked: Mar 23, 23:03

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Barrister, those are the revealed Word of God regardless of who yall are or think yall are.

Too, bad yall yanks are stumblin' about in yall's own light, still.

#1 Leag on 2011-03-22 13:06 (Reply)

True, Leag. Sad but true.

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2011-03-22 15:00 (Reply)

Didn't CS Lewis address this in Abolition of Man?

It's easy to believe they're cultural, but Lewis poses an inductive argument that demonstrates cultures have pretty much the same basic morals (Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie).

There's more to the book than that (and it was over 25 years since I read it) but that's a compelling case for natural law.

#2 DrTorch on 2011-03-22 13:36 (Reply)

It would seem apparent to anyone who's raised or spent much time around children that Lewis was on to something. It would do little good to teach children that something was "wrong" if there weren't some ground for that admonition to make sense. Why else would they know what "fair" is, or what it means to share?

My opinion, obviously, is that Natural Law not only exists but is transcendently evident; humans, after all, know that they exist, and that humanity carries responsibility.

My clumsy attempts to explain and characterize this are embarrassingly limited by my own intellect, I realize. The best I can do is to notice that there is a reason why cops and nurses and psychologists can almost always tell when somebody is lying; in fact, why else would lie detector machines work if the subject himself didn't know?

Nonetheless, the best stuff around for the argument of Natural Law can be found in the work of J. Budziszewski. Here's a well-spent 30 minutes on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPEAEGe9TuY

#2.1 Rob De Witt on 2011-03-22 19:24 (Reply)

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . ." Romans 2:14-15

#3 Jim on 2011-03-22 14:23 (Reply)

Or, you can just do what the liberals in Seattle do--"it's all relative". Moral law is a decision made on the spot depending on the goals of the moment. Except sometimes it comes around and bites them in the arse--then you know what white man? Yup, you guessed it--it's your fault!

#4 faculty wife on 2011-03-22 14:32 (Reply)

I would say that people in all cultures prefer justice over injustice, honor over dishonor, love over hatred, and truth over lies(footnote). Cultures differ how they weight these and in whether the individual or the group is the focus. I recall midnight dorm discussions with people from a culture who were all in agreement that it was better to cheat (passing exam answers to a friend from their country who would not otherwise pass) than for one of their number to suffer the dishonor of not passing. Cheating or lying within their own tribe was "right out" for them however, even if it would result in personal dishonor.
So the basic principles are the same in all cultures, the weighting and tradeoff between them is conditioned by culture and upbringing.

See:
http://www.johnpatrick.ca/papers/jp_myth.htm

#5 Douglas2 on 2011-03-22 15:06 (Reply)

And, thus we come to the most dominant cause of war.

#6 faculty wife on 2011-03-22 16:21 (Reply)

Having taught children for ten years and in the process of raising two of my own, I take great comfort in a child's natural ability to demonstrate notions of personal possession and unfairness--they are keenly aware, independent of an adult informing or showing them, when someone steals their property or treats them unfairly. However, they may need guidance in extending such feelings towards others (i.e., don't steal from others) or making such "feelings" abstract rules.

Of course, I dare any self-declared moral relativist to ACT as if all morality was truly relative. Good luck.

#7 Richard Enna on 2011-03-22 19:48 (Reply)

Lewis took some effort to illustrate various common principles from cultures around the world in A of M. Yet beyond the simple generality of moral law, which could at least theoretically have several causes, he considered it important that human groups have the universal experience of knowing we fall short of our own standards. (Emphatic note: this applies to groups, not individuals. In every place and time there are individuals who are not troubled by this in the least.)

We do put the principles in differing hierarchy and express them differently.

As to cultural conditioning of morality, I would say that there is considerable flexibility around the edges, and that it can be demonstrated rather easily. That doesn't really touch the central question.

#8 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2011-03-22 22:32 (Reply)

I agree that there are universal morals that is human nature and that each culture modifies the application of those morals. The question to Jesus was " who is my neighbor". Jewish law made strangers welcome. Jesus applied the golden rule to everybody.

Another proof of the universality of standard morals is the lack of variety in morals world wide. If morals were simply cultural there should be all kinds of systems of morals; same as religion, dance and music, language, food, etc. It is hard to imagine a different set of morals. Blick

#9 Blick on 2011-03-23 11:47 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, March 22. 2011

Is morality cultural?