That is a good answer. I understand what conscience is. Nevertheless I suspect that babies are not born with a conscience, and that it is something they develop the more they grow and become socialised. If this is true does this imply that ethics is contingent upon the society or world that we are raised in?

That is a good answer. — bloodninja

Thanks. :)

If this is true does this imply that ethics is contingent upon the society or world that we are raised in? — bloodninja

I think the theory that morality is determined by culture is almost brain dead in a way because all you have to do is find a culture that says women are inferior and the way that a man proves his love to a woman is through rape. Now this is obviously something I just pulled out of my head, but the point stands. What if there was a culture that okay'd that? Isn't there something inside of us that just says no to that sort of thing?

At the same time society can definitely correct those kinds of things.

Isn't there something inside of us that just says no to that sort of thing? — MountainDwarf

I think there is too. However I'm having a real hard time seeing how this inside something is separate from, or different to, cultural norms...

I think I've become cultural relativist.

Are there any strong arguments against cultural relativism? There are some virtues that appear in all cultures however this doesn't disprove the idea that morality merely an expression of, and is contingent upon, conformist social/cultural norms. All it shows is that aspects of different cultures are structurally similar.

'Ethics is the majority's common interests' is an ethical theory. It has good points and bad points. What are they? How do you answer the challenges that this theory will meet?

If you are inclined to consider the down sides as well as the up sides of the theory, then you can study ethics. Otherwise, probably not.

"What does the pecived majority of humanity desire? And how does that compare with what I desire for our fate, is it common enough with my vision for me to bother participating? Or should I simply focus on what I wan't for my own life(given that the majority would win out against my efforts). What would you call that specific area of study? Am I on the verge of needing to coin my own term?"

No need for a new term. It's an ethical theory. A theory with big holes, but still a theory. Tell us about its positive and negative points as a theory. Then you're studying ethics. Otherwise you are adhering to a theory without examining it.

Its a rather simple formula: do nothing to sabotage that which is preceived as the highest common interest of all sentient beings. — XanderTheGrey

That formula assumes that ''the highest common interest of all sentient beings'' will be good. Is this a good assumption?

Slavery was once thought to be morally permissible. So was infanticide in some countries.

It looks like, sometimes, ''the highest common interests of all sentient beings'' aren't good.

but not good by what standards?

but not good by what standards? — bloodninja

That's a fundamental question nobody knows the answer to.

I was just pointing out the error in supposing "the highest common interests of all sentient beings" = good.

I think there is too. However I'm having a real hard time seeing how this inside something is separate from, or different to, cultural norms... — bloodninja

I don't believe that cultural norms define morality, rather the opposite. Humanity is naturally desirous of virtue even if there a weakness within man.

If morality determined cultural norms like you say, and given that cultural norms change, does this entail that morality changes? Also would it entail there being as many different moralities as there are different cultures in the world? If this is so then your morality is merely a morality and not Morality. Again I can't see what the difference is between conformist cultural norms and morality.

If morality determined cultural norms like you say, and given that cultural norms change, does this entail that morality changes? — bloodninja

Maybe humanity is just catching up to morality. As we (society) evolve we ascend into higher forms of morality, whereas in the ancient times certain cultures would enslave others or oppress others we can now see from history that this is wrong and advance. Truly society ( or better yet, humanity) is being "sanctified" in loose terms. Look at human civil rights in the past fifty to sixty years for example.

Also would it entail there being as many different moralities as there are different cultures in the world? — bloodninja

Un-evolved societies are not as moral as technologically advanced societies. With knowledge comes power and responsibility. The power to create new things advances a society, but that society should not be selfish. Instead, it should seek to advance not only itself but the world. That's the responsibility part.

Make sense?

As we (society) evolve we ascend into higher forms of morality, whereas in the ancient times certain cultures would enslave others or oppress others we can now see from history that this is wrong and advance. — MountainDwarf

But by whose standards is this wrong? By your contemporary culture's generic norms?

Un-evolved societies are not as moral as technologically advanced societies. — MountainDwarf

Are you xenaphobic?

Are you xenaphobic? — bloodninja

Whoa whoa whoa, your mind went there. Not mine.

Although fancy me this, are you a secularist? And, define xenophobia.

How am I the one that's xenophobic when I just want to see societies advance and reform?

But by whose standards is this wrong? By your contemporary culture's generic norms? — bloodninja

The ever increasing consciousness'. Law itself may very well be eternal meaning that it just is. We're just getting around as a species to identifying what the standard is. Therefore we realize we don't have the right standard through postmodernism.

Sorry if I offended you. I have never had to consider myself a secularist. Probably because I was brought up in a godless world (New Zealand)... My family is not religious, and neither were my school, friends, society, etc.

Our discussion is about how the virtues/moralities are grounded. My view is that the virtues and vices are grounded in the way cultures function. The way cultures function changes with time, and the virtues and vices change with it. To me, there seems to be no plausible argument that the different moralities are determined/grounded by anything other than how our different cultures function.

Given that this is my view, for you to claim that other cultures are less moral because they do not share our 'advanced' value structure seems from my point of view to be prejudiced. For you to make this claim, you must be grounding the virtues in something other than the way cultures function. What is it? God? Reason?

A culture where it is acceptable to deceive women into thinking they can have a better life overseas and then forcing them to work as sex slaves is, at any rate, not superior to a culture where this is not acceptable. So the question is "Where did I get the notion that one of these cultures might be better than the other?". It's a reasonable question. But there's no reason to assume that, if I can't say where I got the notion, then the notion must be false.

I know that Japan is bigger than Surrey. I have no idea how I know that or whether anyone has ever previously used the sentence 'Japan is bigger than Surrey' or what size either Japan or Surrey is even to the nearest thousand hectares. But from this complete absence of grounding for my knowledge we may not deduce that Japan and Surrey are the same size.