Occasionally i hear the phrase “there is no morality outside of human society”. I believe, what is meant by it, is that you cannot say whether something is morally right or wrong in nature, if it isn’t part of human society.
For example, when a turtle eats a bird (here’s a video about it), you cannot say whether these deeds are “good” or “bad”. It’s part of nature, it’s part of the circle of life, … if these things didn’t happen, the bird couldn’t be alive in the first place.
Now, i’ve had some interesting talks yesterday with a close friend about what “morality” really means. They very certainly assured me that morality is simply the construct and the set of rules that society uses to organize itself to make itself more successful. In other words, morality aids the fitness of the group, but not necessarily of the individual. Do you agree with this view?
And if so, would that entail that the beneficial effects to the group can overwrite the wellbeing of a single individual? Where do you draw the limits? Like if some republicans claim that some women cannot decide themselves who they are/should be in a relationship with … does that derive from that view of morality? What do you respond to that? I’m seriously wondering because all these discussions make my head spin and sometimes i wonder truly whether i even know anything at all… How can you find certainty in what’s morally acceptable and what is not?
It entails exactly what you see in the world. Humans trying to come up with some universal good and evil and then fighting each other because they believe their definition is better.
“Morality” in itself is a human concept, like every word in general.
This realization often entails a kind of nihilism too, unfortunately, as a sort of rebellious backlash against any ideas of harmony with others.
Vast majority of people don’t want to directly cause suffering to others. Then there’s a lot of opinions on how much you “should” (a thinly veiled callback to universal good and evil again) endeavour to reduce the indirect suffering you cause, and also how to define suffering.
Ultimately it’s always just people’s personal values clashing and best you can do is figure out what your values are, and find people who share them. You can’t really force people to value anything they don’t - you can only teach it if they are willing to learn. Or you can force compliant behavior despite their differing values - if your value system allows forcing. If your values allow for forcing compliant behavior on others, then you must of course accept that others will try to use force as well. If you don’t allow forcing, then you pretty much need to be prepared to die for the ability to live according to your values.