Director Roger Nygard traveled the world asking theologians, scientists, skeptics, and everyday people 85 tough questions to try to understand The Nature of Existence! Now that he’s asked the experts, it’s YOUR TURN! To offer your own insights on today’s question, “Is there a moral yardstick that applies to all cultures?“, Leave a Reply below!
No, but the more freedom of speech there is, the more likelihood the current moralities will be questioned, and perhaps altered; just the same way that Governments change legislation to suit the environment and attitude of its people.
I believe there is a universal and natural morality that has to do with the idea of intentionally or knowingly causing harm. If your behavior causes harm to another, and you know beforehand that it will, that is not moral. Now of course, things get more complicated when you have to cause harm to some for the greater good. Is it immoral, for example, to kill 100 people if doing so will save 1,000?
I am not a person of faith, but I do believe that all people should have an internal moral compass that points to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Circumstances, brain chemistry and other factors can destroy that compass or make people ignore it, but I think that is how any human society is able to exist at all.
I think moral actions are tested by their consequences in the real world, and those which serve to decrease suffering are to be preferred over those which increase suffering.
It will be interesting to see how the clash between modern civilization and religious orthodoxy will continue to play out in our age. The latest chapter in a long story.
Where do we draw that line. Should women be able to drive a vehicle? Leave the house without a male family member?
Where does the desire to respect others’ traditions end and the basic human rights of all take its place?
Does it stop when a parent refuses their child medical treatment?
Only time will tell.
No, i think that drawing lines in the sand of what is “right” and what is “wrong” is a bad move when trying to have a multicultural state or city because not everyone would agree on the same morals. In a one cultural state, IT’S STILL BAD, you will have people diverge and “mutations” of meme ideas as well as rule breakers and other sorts. morality can have a line, but it should be faint and moveable.
For the most part I believe morality is subjective and I think all morality should be treated on a sliding scale, as case-by-case with circumstances always taken into account. But I do believe there are certain innate concepts that all humans share that can clearly be defined as “bad” and thus in need of similarly-applied morality. My own personal definition of something that is “morally bad” is “something that does knowing and unprompted harm to another being, be it physical or mental.” This is, of course, a very tricky issue to nail down. But I’ll try.
My grandma doesn’t like the fact I wear shredded jeans, my hair in my face, black nail polish, etc. One could argue this ‘hurts her.’ Her sensibilities are offended. This, however, is entirely subjective. I could make the same argument about her green floral-pattern dresses. Her opinions of my dress are subjective thus her reactions are too. They do no one any harm. Now take smoking. I go into a bar for a drink and the guy next to me is smoking. I don’t like it. But this is not some benign activity that offends me purely subjectively. The smoke is entering my lungs, causing literal physical discomfort and, at worst, potential illness. Smoking is his choice thus the onus of behavioural consideration falls on him (like the onus of proof should fall on theists when pushing their cancer-inducing gods into our lungs!) Ultimately this is why I believe smoking in public places is ‘bad.’ It infringes upon the rights of none-smokers, forcing on them a condition they have no reason to accept. Smokers, on the other hand, volunteered for this condition. That is their freedom, fair enough. But it is not their freedom to inflict that (literally physically harmful) choice on others. To argue smoker’s rights in this context one may as well argue a pyromaniac’s rights to set fire to people then claiming ‘intolerance’ and ‘segregation’ when we request he/she please not give us 2nd degree burns!
I should probably address this in at a more fundamental level. Cultures all have their own ideas of moral “right and wrong” but, stripped of culture, would these things still be perceived as unpleasant and harmful to the recipient? I would say of things such as genital mutilation/forced castration “yes, they would.” Ask any human not biased by culture if they want their parts butchered and rendered useless they’d say “hell no!” But whether or not 2 men or 2 women can marry is entirely biased by religious philosophies on sexual norms. Remove such cultural biases and where does one ascertain harm is done, when both parties are consenting?
The right to all beings to self-determination, I believe, lies at the centre of moral issues. Robbing another of this right constitutes a violation. Be it theft, rape, murder or even intellectual matters like voting against marriage rights or race discrimination, infringe on another’s right to self-determination. The only time I would say the right to self-determination should be infringed upon is when their self-determining behaviour directly infringes on that of another’s. In that instance the onus is on the primary actor (like the smoker in my prior example, or to be more extreme, the rapist or murderer) to curb their action so as not to violate the other.
The subtleties of what constitutes a “violation” are constantly at the root of moral debate. Morality, like all things, I think should be examined rationally and viewed through a scientific lens. Going back to my smoker example one cannot deny the harmful affects of cigarette smoke. In my grandma-clothes example there is no such harm. Her objections would be purely subjective. If tobacco were entirely benign and caused no discomfort I would not argue against a smoker’s rights to smoke where they pleased, at least from a moral standpoint. Same with everything: is undesired harm done? Is one’s right to self-determination being violated by an outside actor? I think most humans, when cultural cues are removed, inherently desire to self-determine and not be forcefully harmed.
Probably not.
no, everyone is different, ever culture is different. but usually stuff reappears like “do not kill” or “do not steal” but also those direct statements can be manipulated.