Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Manners, Morality, and Law

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Manners, Morality, and Law

    There have been several threads lately which I've found to be very interesting dealing with what could loosely be called "morality." This has lead me to think about how morality, law, and manners are intertwined - it seems to me that "manners" forms the base, "morals" can be derived from good manners, and then codified as law. It isn't that simple, but this gives you a rough idea.

    The abstract problem I've been thinking about is this - is there some kind of base line set of manners (polite behavior) from which a system of morality and law could be derived?

    For example, there is the famous "golden rule," which states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

    I don't like this as the basis for a system because it puts the entire burden of good manners on an individual, while completely ignoring the fact that context - surrounding events and conditions - change things. Somebody who adheres strictly to this rule would not be able to act in self-defense, for example, if attacked, because the rule tells one that, if you do not want to be struck, you cannot strike anyone else.

    I would prefer "the golden rule" to be phrased like this: Respect others, and expect others to respect you. This seems to me to be more balanced because the responsibility for actions is put on the heads of everybody who interacts, and allows context to be taken into account when acting.

    What do you think? Is there a way to begin at square one and create a civil society based on one or two simple, underlying ideas? If so, what would you suggest those ideas should be?
    Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.


    #2
    Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

    I don't know. First of all, laws aren't always equal to "morals" but rather a set of rules a democratic society (or rather its representatives) lay out in order to keep things running smoothly. For example, paying taxes (which is ENTIRELY necessary if your society values things like public education and health care) isn't a moral act, but they're sure as hell necessary. It's not immoral to drink in public parks but some countries (not mine) have decided it's too much trouble. Etc.

    Second of all, I might believe that morality is relative, but that doesn't mean a society can't set its own legal guidelines in order to keep social and economic order. And I REALLY REALLY REALLY do not think that keeping it to a few simple ideas cuts it. If people were that responsible, you wouldn't have had an economic crisis in the US (and most of the world that didn't have better regulations), and you wouldn't -need- law enforcement. If you don't value economic and social stability as a society, I suppose it could work, but mostly people need guidelines to keep that level of order. There might not be some outside force that dictates right or wrong, and we are the ones that create those rights and wrongs under the constructs of our society, but once we've done that we HAVE to create laws, rules and regulations in order to make sure those values are upheld.
    Last edited by DanieMarie; 17 Mar 2011, 04:56.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

      Yes, that's true. There are a lot of laws which are "smooth running" laws (which is why I pointed out thast I was simplifying).

      However, a great many laws are actually based on the notions of morality - for instance it's illegal to steal - because stealing is "wrong." Even anti-drinking laws such as you've mentioned are frequently (at least in the U.S.) based on notions of the "morality" of drinking (there are still dry counties here, left over from prohibition, and places where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays, or until noon on Sunday, or something similar).

      It is true that these laws also help things to run smoothly, but their origins - and frequently the justifications for them are based on ideas of morality.
      Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

      Comment


        #4
        Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

        Societies and communities need some sort of behavioral guidelines so that the individuals can live and work closely together without murdering each other.

        It's usually when cultures meet that cause the greatest conflict in morals, ethics and manners - and people forget that cultures aren't just people from a different place, they're also people from different times. North America in 2011 is not the same as North America 500 years ago, and it's definitely not the same as say, Jerusalem in 100 c.e. Trying to expect modern people to live under the same types of moral codes as existed back then is a little ridiculous.

        As far as trying to sum up a moral code under which people can live in a unified manner in a single sentence? I don't think it can be done. It's kind of like asking a djinn for world peace.
        The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

          Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
          Yes, that's true. There are a lot of laws which are "smooth running" laws (which is why I pointed out thast I was simplifying).

          However, a great many laws are actually based on the notions of morality - for instance it's illegal to steal - because stealing is "wrong." Even anti-drinking laws such as you've mentioned are frequently (at least in the U.S.) based on notions of the "morality" of drinking (there are still dry counties here, left over from prohibition, and places where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays, or until noon on Sunday, or something similar).

          It is true that these laws also help things to run smoothly, but their origins - and frequently the justifications for them are based on ideas of morality.
          I guess some of those (like the drinking laws) are hard for me to understand. Where I grew up, drinking laws were definitely a "preventing hassle" sort of thing and drinking was rarely associated with "morality." And here in Germany that whole concept earns a giant "WTF" from most people.

          I think even stealing and stuff is more based on a keep the order sort of thing. They may have stemmed from a sense of morality way back, but now it's just a necessity. Can you imagine a society where it WASNT illegal to steal or murder? I can really imagine that it wouldn't be smooth sailing, and you'd have people banding together to protect each other, and they'd probably form rules that you couldn't steal from or murder people in your band (or tribe or whatever you want to call it). So BAM you are back with rules. It's not that it's wrong in an absolute sense but it doesn't invite stability and I bet that's how it worked its way into most moral codes in the first place, not the other way around.

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

            To Perzephone -

            You can go even further than that - each group has it's own culture, and, as people move from one group to another, they change their behavior to match the culture of the group they are in. For instance, there is a culture in my house, which my daughter is a part of when she in there. Her friends at school have a somewhat different culture, and she matches her behavior to the culture of that group when she is with them.

            I know that it's not possible to find anything, which all people will abide by - it's a fact of nature that, as soon as you have a law or rule, you also create a system of enforcing that law or rule, for the very simple reason that not all people will obey the law or rule.

            However, I'm thinking of some sort of fundamental principle, which would allow people to live in greater harmony (if they abide by it), without imposing undue limitations on personal freedom. It seems to me that an ideal of mutual respect would come closer to doing that than anything else I can think of.

            ---------- Post added at 11:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

            Originally posted by DanieMarie View Post
            I think even stealing and stuff is more based on a keep the order sort of thing. They may have stemmed from a sense of morality way back, but now it's just a necessity. Can you imagine a society where it WASNT illegal to steal or murder? I can really imagine that it wouldn't be smooth sailing, and you'd have people banding together to protect each other, and they'd probably form rules that you couldn't steal from or murder people in your band (or tribe or whatever you want to call it). So BAM you are back with rules. It's not that it's wrong in an absolute sense but it doesn't invite stability and I bet that's how it worked its way into most moral codes in the first place, not the other way around.
            Actually, I can imagine such a society - they have existed in different forms.

            But ask yourself this - why is it wrong to steal? I could argue that a society in which stealing was considered a reasonable way of acting would develop it's own system of regulating when, how, and under what conditions stealing was acceptable.

            The idea that "stealing is wrong" is a moral idea - as is the idea that killing is wrong, and that drinking alcohol is wong. Societies have existed, do exist, and will exist in the future where these moral statements are not accepted - and they (each society) develop systems to keep things running smoothly despite that.
            Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

              Sure, but that still backs up the idea that it's relative and not absolute.

              HOWEVER we as our own society have decided it creates too much disorder, and I think this precedes it being "morally wrong." At some point, wayyyyy back it created everyone too much hassle, so they told everyone not to do it and it got worked into religion and shaped the moral values we have. We might have deemed it "immoral" but that doesn't come from nowhere (or an outside force). It came from ourselves and our system of creating order.

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                I can think of a few cultural groups where stealing is ok - as long as you don't do it among your own people - the Romany (aka Gypsies). North American tribes also used to steal from one another - even though people were hurt or even killed during raiding, it was seen as a source of good times for all. Even around my parents, certain types of theft were perfectly rational and ethical - my mother's family had moonshiners & horse thieves, & my father's family had bootleggers. Not everyone has a rigid sense of 'ownership' or 'property', hence all the trouble that happened when settlers came to America & encountered the native peoples.

                I've always liked the concept of 'live simply, so others may simply live'. It would fit in a Buddhist or Hindu culture easily, and most Third World countries because communal life is how they live. If one person sucks up all the resources, their entire village suffers. It's very hard to convince an American to give up their material possessions because the sense of entitlement to those things, and the concept of 'single owner' is ingrained so deeply in our way of life. A good portion of our laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion - they all concern protecting an individual's or business' property.
                The forum member formerly known as perzephone. Or Perze. I've shed a skin.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                  Originally posted by perzephone View Post
                  I can think of a few cultural groups where stealing is ok - as long as you don't do it among your own people - the Romany (aka Gypsies). North American tribes also used to steal from one another - even though people were hurt or even killed during raiding, it was seen as a source of good times for all. Even around my parents, certain types of theft were perfectly rational and ethical - my mother's family had moonshiners & horse thieves, & my father's family had bootleggers. Not everyone has a rigid sense of 'ownership' or 'property', hence all the trouble that happened when settlers came to America & encountered the native peoples.

                  I've always liked the concept of 'live simply, so others may simply live'. It would fit in a Buddhist or Hindu culture easily, and most Third World countries because communal life is how they live. If one person sucks up all the resources, their entire village suffers. It's very hard to convince an American to give up their material possessions because the sense of entitlement to those things, and the concept of 'single owner' is ingrained so deeply in our way of life. A good portion of our laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion - they all concern protecting an individual's or business' property.
                  Yes exactly, because that's what Western society has deemed "important"....great post!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    There have been several threads lately which I've found to be very interesting dealing with what could loosely be called "morality." This has lead me to think about how morality, law, and manners are intertwined - it seems to me that "manners" forms the base, "morals" can be derived from good manners, and then codified as law. It isn't that simple, but this gives you a rough idea.
                    Morals are how you should behave in the society that you live in, manners are how you should behave in smaller groups, and Laws are things that you are not allowed to do in the society. I see them as building off of each other, as you suggest, but I think this is going to be harder to nail down than Jell-o.

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    The abstract problem I've been thinking about is this - is there some kind of base line set of manners (polite behavior) from which a system of morality and law could be derived?
                    No, at least, not IMO. As has been mentioned, culture plays a large role in morality/manners/etc, however, I think that the world has evolved since the last time this topic was seriously visited by the general masses. Honestly, I'm finding that there's a lot to be desired in cultures such as ours: Rules were developed for survival, held onto for sentimental value (despite itself), and are kept out of some sense of obstinate "that's the way we've always done it!"-ness...

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    For example, there is the famous "golden rule," which states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
                    My personal favorite (of course, modified by common sense )

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    I don't like this as the basis for a system because it puts the entire burden of good manners on an individual, while completely ignoring the fact that context - surrounding events and conditions - change things. Somebody who adheres strictly to this rule would not be able to act in self-defense, for example, if attacked, because the rule tells one that, if you do not want to be struck, you cannot strike anyone else.
                    Well, yes, but I would expect that these brains that we've got should be able to recognize the difference between killing someone for their sneakers and defending themselves from attack

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    I would prefer "the golden rule" to be phrased like this: Respect others, and expect others to respect you. This seems to me to be more balanced because the responsibility for actions is put on the heads of everybody who interacts, and allows context to be taken into account when acting.
                    What you're neglecting is that people tend to use phrases like this and not really apply them to themselves anyway How it's phrased, IMO, is far less of a problem than just people in general

                    Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post
                    What do you think? Is there a way to begin at square one and create a civil society based on one or two simple, underlying ideas? If so, what would you suggest those ideas should be?
                    Yes, and I've attempted to come to grips with how to explain it so that I don't sound like a complete loon. I've actually been working on the idea for a little over a year...if you think it's worthwhile, I have a domain purchased and I can set up some discussion groups there. Let's see how much action this thread gets

                    Honestly, I think that the biggest problem is currency, followed by the insistence of society to do things the "hard" way out of selfishness, than the "easy" way out of responsibility. I would elaborate, but I don't want to give up too much at once

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                      It's also hard to convince Americans to give up their stuff because they were born into a society where that stuff is common. I'm not going to give up my car, for instance, because I've always had one, and, since I've always had one, a car is deeply entranced in my life (I could not get to work without one, for instance, and almost everybody I know lives miles and miles away from me).

                      It's very hard to get people to give up that which they are used to, but what they've never had is of little real importance to them - for instance (again) I have a cheap cell phone which I almost never use because I grew up in a time when people didn't have things like that, and I've never developed he habit of relying on one. But for people who grow up in a time when cell phones are commonplace, giving it up would be much like giving up an eyeball.

                      In societies where "modern conveniences," like metal cooking pots or steel knives, were introduced (such as South American Indian tribes – or North American tribes at an earlier date), it's pretty rare to have them rejected for "philosophical" reasons (as happened when the Japanese, in - I think - the 16th century stopped using guns in warfare because it was more "honorable" to fight with a sword).

                      I'm going to be curiously watching third world countries to see how they react to concepts of “property" and “ownership” when their standard of living improves. It’ll be an interesting natural experiment.
                      Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                        The Russians are interesting when they accumulate wealth. It's pretty similar to what you just said.

                        These are people who grew up with nothing (you weren't allowed to have personal wealth under their regime), but now a few people are making money and they take flaunting it to EXTREMES (people here use the words "very tacky" to describe them, but I don't think that's fair really). I used to work in a luxury department store and the way the women dressed and would spend money was pretty crazy compared to "old money" Germans.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                          Originally posted by B. de Corbin View Post

                          However, a great many laws are actually based on the notions of morality - for instance it's illegal to steal - because stealing is "wrong."
                          Not necessarily. If you took an axe or a gun, say, from a man who was intending to use them to attack passers-by, that would technically be stealing, but not necessariy wrong on account of the fact that the theft would prevent a great evil...
                          www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                          Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                            I was thinking about this on my way home from work, and it occurs to me that the bigger problem may not be morality, manners, or the law, but judgement. As in, personal judgement.

                            We know that psychologically we tend to be biased toward ourselves - stealing is wrong (unless *I* "really" need it), murder is wrong (but that guy was a real douchebag). We are not taught (by and large) to have "good judgement". We are told what we can and cannot do, but that's not the same thing.

                            For example, if people had good judgement, we wouldn't need laws against drunk driving - simply "driving dangerously" covers that just fine. So then we get into the questions of how you can make something against the law for the people with poor to no judgement, while not screwing those that have GOOD judgement (I've got news for you - generally the people that have good judgement are the ones that get fucked).

                            Thoughts?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Manners, Morality, and Law

                              Originally posted by Roknrol View Post
                              I was thinking about this on my way home from work, and it occurs to me that the bigger problem may not be morality, manners, or the law, but judgement. As in, personal judgement.

                              We know that psychologically we tend to be biased toward ourselves - stealing is wrong (unless *I* "really" need it), murder is wrong (but that guy was a real douchebag). We are not taught (by and large) to have "good judgement". We are told what we can and cannot do, but that's not the same thing.

                              For example, if people had good judgement, we wouldn't need laws against drunk driving - simply "driving dangerously" covers that just fine. So then we get into the questions of how you can make something against the law for the people with poor to no judgement, while not screwing those that have GOOD judgement (I've got news for you - generally the people that have good judgement are the ones that get fucked).

                              Thoughts?
                              I agree with you up to the 'generall the people that have good judgement are the ones that get f*****...' bit. Because the ones with the really good judgement tend to see trouble coming. Maybe there are degrees of good judgement do you think?
                              Maybe there is good judgement up to a point where you make good calls.... but don't see the end game.
                              And maybe there is very good judgment where you plan it out right until you can say 'checkmate' and hit the other bloke's king over?
                              www.thewolfenhowlepress.com


                              Phantom Turnips never die.... they just get stewed occasionally....

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X