In this week’s lecture, we touched on the topic of ethics, discussing various theories and scenarios. Having had a prior interest in this area, I felt it was very beneficial to view and discuss these theories in a class environment. However, having read articles on the matter and having previously read the works of philosophers who discuss this, I am left quite confused; what is morality? And who decides its parameters?
The 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once described morality as having been invented by lesser and weakened men in order to hold back the great men. I feel that Nietzsche had a point here. Was something considered immoral if the person in dictating such matters could not bring him/herself to do the act in question, and therefore had it frowned upon? Either way, history has shown us that, as human beings, we tend to go off the handle when there is no moral compass. This can be seen in present day Ireland when, as more people move away from the Catholic Church, more radio talk shows are filled with people describing our society as in decline or in a state of regression in terms of crime and the justice system.
Morality is, of course, community-dependant. This means that there are an uncountable number of morality theories out there. However, we are in a way a global community when it comes to tackling new issues such as ethics on the web and in technical communication due to our simultaneous access to these topics. The main issues these days are those regarding intellectual property, such as illegal music downloads, and whether it is considered a right to have access to this. Who decides when everybody has a differing opinion due to the irrelevance of ancient teachings in these matters? Where do we go from here?
Image source: http://btr.michaelkwan.com/2011/09/30/morals-and-ethics-are-culture-specific/
New media communication in TW4116 
As to Ireland – is it not the case that Catholics and Protestants would shoot each other on the streets for many many years? There is no connection between religion, values and morality. Religious people borrowed those concepts and claimed them their own.
Morality IS community-dependent. It is shaped by the environment you live in therefore it is not within the human being that it is decided if values are good or bad. There is a very interesting video on the subject here.
Not necessarily but I see the point you’re making, there was a lot of conflict in the name of religion. However, I am not suggesting that religious authorities invented morality or values. I am simply stating that as a community, Ireland has become reliant on the Church to guide our values and moral decisions and now that people have begun to move away from the Church that bit more, there is a space left over that we have to interpret into practical values. Without the ‘catholic guilt’ people feel our country is in a state of regression, morally speaking.
As for what you say about the decision on good/bad not being in the human being, and simply the community, I do not agree with this because communities are formed by people with similar ideas, ideas which they impose on future members of the said community. As a result of this, it is people who decide on what to interpret as good or bad, and eventually this becomes the moral guide for this community.
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate your input and the video, and I hope that you take the time to respond to this also.
No person is born with the senseof good and evil. It is learned. This is why the Aztecs would find it perfectly normal to kill children as a sacrifice to gods; why throughout the ages Protestants thought it was fine to kill Christians, Christians claimed you must kill the Muslim; why in France it is fine to live in a homosexual relationship and in other parts of the world you would get stoned for that. And by stoned I do not mean intoxicated. People are born with the need to socialize with others, maybe even a predisposition to xenophobia is locked somewhere in the DNA, but no person is born a killing machine. A soldier and a terrorist is the same thing – a killing machine deliberately created by the environment.
“As a result of this, it is people who decide on what to interpret as good or bad, and eventually this becomes the moral guide for this community.” People make that decision under the influence of their environment . If a person was locked in a dark box without any contact with reality they could not possibly make any judgement about good or evil, because they have no concept of it. The concept of morality is passed from one person to another and is created by interaction with the environment.
Of course we are not born with this sense, but people decide, originally depending on their needs/wants, what way they would like their world to run and then impose this on the community. The environment most definitely affects this, our entire personality is composed of our experiences and interactions so how could it not? So lets consider your dark box theory. They would have no sense of good/bad so if they were released and allowed to form a community, they would see things they like and want as good, and things they don’t like as bad. This, although extremely basic, is what I mean by originally morality is decided upon, it is not innate.
Also Protestants are Christians, as are Catholics, just so you know. And all of your examples are religiously based, even the French one because that is only possible due to the secularism of the state. This highlights what I mean by religious organisations ‘guiding’ our moral decisions, although not necessarily inventing morality.
Yes, I meant Roman Catholics there, of course. These words are very similar.. someone should come up with a clearer nomenclature.
I have lost the sense of conversation when you said “morality is decided upon, it is not innate.” because I was trying to prove the same point. 😀 Either one of us convinced the other or.. We AGREE! 🙂
Haha I think you’re right, one or the other. Either way good debate 🙂
Morality is not completely community dependent. People require a certain degree of freedom for human flourishing to take place.
Well that’s debatable because I think it mainly comes down to what the individual is exposed to, as you have mentioned about exposure to freedom, but wouldn’t the exposure to freedom be dependent on the community in question? People born in to a strict dictatorship, for example, will not question the morality of their community because they will not know that there is another way and they will not see anything wrong with this community.