Objective or non-objective morality

Bill: social conservatism and perhaps an instinctual tendency towards certain moral patterns?.

Erimitus: I do not understand what this means. What is social conservatism and what about social conservatism and instinctual tendency towards moral patters are you asking or positing?

BB: there are natural constraints on viable moral systems, but these constraints underdetermine first-order standards of moral evaluation, resulting in moral relativism.

E: Moral relativism, if I understand correctly, means that standards vary depending on where and when.


Erimitus: What are first-order standards of moral evaluation?

Erimitus: First-order moral standards are explicit standards of conduct against which actions are measured for their moral value. (your basic thou shalt nots)

Erimitus: A second order standard is implied by first order standards but not consciously enforced. These standards are followed naturally (instinctively) and unconsciously. (Is that correct?)

One might instinctively save a drowning person although there is not actual rule that says one has to do that. (What do you think???)

I mean that, because people are typically socially conservative (suspicious of and resistant to cultural and social innovation), most potential moral codes are actively prevented from developing, in favour of the contemporary prevailing moral codes in a society. So most "mutations" in culture are kept in check and cultural norms are regulated.

As for instinctual tendencies towards certain moral patterns, I mean that perhaps we are biologically conditioned to fall into certain patterns of moral behaviour, the same way we have an instinctual tendency towards being able to walk and talk.

A second-order standard is an implicit standard which the first-order standards must meet. A standard for the standards. So the standard that ignoring a drowning person is wrong or cowardly would not be a real first-order standard for behaviour unless it met the second-order standards I have in mind. One such second-order standard might be (as an obvious natural constraint) that first-order standards must be conducive to the survival of society. The first-order standard you mention meets this, and it could perhaps be generalised: people ought to help those whose lives are in danger. This is obviously conducive to the survival of society, since it will improve the chances of the survival of people. A first-order standard which instructs people to ignore the plight of others, on the other hand, would clearly not be conducive to the survival and stability of society. Hence, the former first-order standard is found in all known societies, while the latter is much less prevalent and would be considered an anomaly.

Socially conservative means resistant to social innovation. The socially conservative actively oppose innovation and favor current standards.

A portion of any society will tend (in varying degrees) to be socially conservative and a portion of any society will tend (in varying degrees) to be socially liberal. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that a more authoritarian the society will have a greater portion of social conservatives and the less authoritarian society will have a greater proportion of socially liberal. However, since force results in resistance, authoritarianism may actually result in an increase in the number of (ostensibly conservative individuals) who are actually secretly socially liberal.

The result of a balance of social conservatism and social liberalism is restrain and regulation of cultural norms. This is called the Goldie locks effect, not to hot and not to cold, not to liberal and not to conservative, and not to authoritarian and not to anarchistic. And, if such a balance is achieved, (we are led to believe), we will live happily ever after.

Bill: As for instinctual tendencies towards certain moral patterns, I mean that perhaps we are biologically conditioned to fall into certain patterns of moral behavior, the same way we have an instinctual tendency towards being able to walk and talk.

Erimitus: This could be. I cannot argue for or against it. The idea seems to be correct. Those who do that which is right (correct) will survive and breed. I cannot understand the mechanism of how behavior patterns are passed on to offspring. Apparently it happens to twins in Minnesota frequently enough to form a pattern; the study tells us what, but there is no explanation of the how. (Any ideas??)

OK, thanks for the response; this one is going to take me a while. I am slow, and not very sure.

What always amuses me is the way people say 'instinctual' like it explains something and they know what causes such behaviours, lol. My only impression of biology is of its ignorance.

Eastender: ?people say 'instinctual' like it explains something and they know what causes such behaviors?

Erimitus: Instinct (inherited behavior patterns) is observable, observed, and documented. Kittens know how to be kittens, puppies know how to be puppies, and human babies know how to be babies, all without being taught. When I say (write) instinct that is what I mean and when I hear (read) instinct that is what I understand it to mean.

Erimitus: I do not know nor do I pretend to understand the cause of inherited behavior. However, I can and do observe the phenomena. My inability to understand or explain the phenomena does not make it unreal.

Erimitus: You are not alone in your belief that behavior patters are not inherited. It seems to me that they are. Maybe if we call each other insulting names we can resolve the issue. You are a ?a ?well I can?t think of anything pejorative right now, but If there is something that you are, or do, that society would consider unacceptable, then that is what your are (or do). So There! Ha! Consider yourself insulted. And don?t use the old excuse that it is an inherited behavior pattern.

Bill: A second-order standard is an implicit standard which the first-order standards must meet.

A standard:

A standard is a basis of comparison that is considered (by general consent) as that which things are compared to in order to establish some degree of conformity.

First order standard:

A first order standard (basis of comparison) is explicit. (Fully, clearly, and unequivocally expressed)

A space between two points that is considered to be and is generally accepted as a meter is used as a basis of comparison when measuring length. The meter is a ?First order standard?; it is fully, clearly, and unequivocally expressed.

Thou shalt not(s) are ?First order standards? of behavior because they are fully, clearly, and unequivocally expressed.

Thou shalt not murder is a fully, clearly and unequivocally expressed ?First order standard?. A behavior may be compared to this ?First order standard? in order to determine if a behavior was murder.


Second order standard:

A second order standard (basis of comparison) is implicit; (i.e.) implied by a first order basis of comparison.

If a person is drowning and another person who is able to save the drowning person does not save the drowning person, then the drowning person has been murdered. The Second order standard is implied from the explicit ?First order? thou shalt not murder. The implication is that allowing a person to drown is murder.

Bill: A second order standard is a standard for the standards.


Erimitus: The ?Second order? (implied) standard (basis of comparison) is (the basis of comparison for the ?First order? (explicit) standard (basis of comparison).

Erimitus: The implied basis of comparison is based on the explicit basis of comparison.

Erimitus: is that correct?

Bill: The standard that ignoring a drowning person is wrong or cowardly would not be a real first-order standard for behavior unless it met the second-order standards

Erimitus: yes, allowing a person to drown would be a violation of second order morality.

Bill: One such second-order standard might be (as an obvious natural constraint) that first-order standards must be conducive to the survival of society.
Erimitus: I do not understand.


Bill: The first-order standard you mention meets this, and it could perhaps be generalized: people ought to help those whose lives are in danger.

Erimitus: Yes, although not explicitly stated, it would not be moral (good) to allow another person to die if it could be prevented. (I (for example) eat far more than I need for sustenance while people around the world are starving to death.) This is a second order standard and I could be considered immoral. I do not believe that anyone in my social group (society) is starving and if they were I would feed them so I suppose that I am not immoral. Point of view I suppose.

Bill: This is obviously conducive to the survival of society, since it will improve the chances of the survival of people.

Erimitus: yes

Bill: A first-order standard which instructs people to ignore the plight of others, on the other hand, would clearly not be conducive to the survival and stability of society.

Erimitus: I suppose that those who do not contribute to the society could be ignored (allowed to starve or drown) without endangering the survival of the society. Actually such people are a drain on society and their loss would be societies gain. Hmmm?. (From the standpoint of the survival of society) would it be moral to put such people in airtight rooms and fill the rooms with poison gas. (Probably not)

Bill: Hence, the former first-order standard is found in all known societies, while the latter is much less prevalent and would be considered an anomaly.

Erimitus: Explicit standards for conduct are universal. I, personally, have never much liked ridged rule enforcers who cannot be flexible when a situation is not covered by the rules. On the other hand, what is the point of having rules if they are not followed?



[I seem to have made everything bold and I do not know how I did it and I do not know how to un-do it. I was not trying to make any point with the bold. It was a mistake]