September 16, 2007
-
Universal Moral Values
Are there Universal Moral Values? What are they and why are they universal?
Let's start by giving "universal" a fairly wide definition - something along the lines of "Almost all societies we know of have included some form of this moral value".
Even with that permissive start, I think the list is still pretty short.
The first universal value seems to be:
1. Respect for the culture's moral rules and traditions
This is an obvious one, without it the culture would not really be a culture, just a random collection of individuals with little in common.
2. Protection and nurturing of the culture's children
The idea that children need to be cared for seems to be instinctive in animals and this includes humans. What's curious is how differently cultures have interpreted this value down through the ages. This nurturing includes passing on the culture's value system and teaching the child to be a productive member of society depending on that culture's concept of what such a person should be.
3. Prohibition of murder
This is a shaky one, probably because of the wide definition of "Murder"
4. Prohibition of incest
Sure, there are notable exceptions to this universal moral value - the Ancient Egyptian culture is the most well-known. The exceptions seem mostly to be because of the way the rulers were viewed (As super-human or God-like), but incest was and is prohibited in almost all cultures - of course incest itself is subject to pretty wide cultural definition.
This is a pretty short list. what have I forgotten?
Comments (12)
In South Africa where I live we have multiple cultures mixed together. From European, to African to Eastern. In terms of point nr 1 how do you apply the principle in a multicultural country?
I tackled this question from the perspective of the "Golden Rule." I think all laws and moral imperatives boil down to a "do unto others attitude." If we want our own culture's traditions and mores to be respected, we must respect those of others.
The protection and nurturing of a culture's children is connected to the golden rule, but is also a biological imperative, so in some ways it carries more weight. However various cultures have approached the nurturing of its children in different ways. For instance, ancient Romans carried the power of life and death over their children. If their child displeased them, they could lawfully kill that child. This had the affect of fostering respect for the parent in the child, certainly a type of nurturing, but not necessarily the kind we could get behind from our society's point of view.
Murder is definitely the stuff of the golden rule, but as you said, it's on shaky ground with todays definitions of exactly what murder is. Some might say the taking of any life is murder, but many argue against the Peta admonishment that everyone should be vegan. Is meat eating murder when we are capable of a completely vegetarian diet?
I would suggest that the prohibition against incest does not belong on the list however. It is biological common sense, but has nothing to do with morals in so far as incest has been consentual in other cultures. Once a culture learns the consequences of inbreeding (knowledge of genetics aside), incest becomes a natural prohibition, but I don't think prohibiting incest is necessarily any more moral than prohibiting piercings. True, I think both repulsive, but if it's consentual, it's none of my business.
Zeal's point is well-taken. Just as Canada is bicultural, so South Africa is multi-cultural. The fact that you can recognize the vast cultural differences demonstrates that neither of these countries is a "Culture" or "Society" and aside from proximity and the desire to recognize themselves as "Canadian" or "South African", the citizens of these countries probably have very few values in common and those they do have are probably interpreted differently by each culture. The U.S. went through this stage of development - or perhaps is still developing a common culture.
Harmony's idea that the idea of a wish for reciprocal treatment is universal is an example of a pseudo-value. Any so-called value that is IN ALL CULTURES so often mouthed and so seldom acted upon might be called a dream or ideal but a true social value must be the stuff of action not hypocrisy.
My goodness, that sounds pretty harsh doesn't it? Remember, I'm grumbling about the idea as a universal value, not the admirable concept.
How do we arrive at definitions for things like 'murder' and 'incest?'
Cultivating children is certainly a good one. . .
Murder. . .do you cosider suicide murder (you could say it is of the self. . .) I think it's intersting how some societies say the Egyptian, were all for suicide.
If you had problems, you would go to a couseling the religious leaders would give you. . .if they couldn't heal you of your troubles suicide was certainly fine as an option out.
Other time/place if you tried to commit suicide and failed you would get the death penalty. . .I think that's crazy. . .you tried to kill yourself. . .so we'll kill you ?
I even did an entry on this topic
http://www.xanga.com/PacifismPlease/581938233/item.html
I think that we're all slowly killing ourselves. I don't think that suicide means you'll go to hell, because then we'll all be there. Smoking a cigarette? You just removed five minutes of your life, etc.
We're killing ourselves and each other, just not at once.
Suicide is certainly not a universal prohibition. There have been several historic cultures/societies that activly encouraged it. The Cathars of medieval France and the Hindu practice of suttee are well-known examples.
Murder and incest are both culturally defined. In the pueblo indian culture of the ASmerican Southwest, relations with any member of the same clan, blood related or not, was incest.
Hi!
RYC and responded!
Take care, and I hope you have a great day!
Brianne
1. Respect for the culture's moral rules and traditions
This is an obvious one, without it the culture would not really be a culture, just a random collection of individuals with little in common.
Creed: Is one culture superior to another? Do you think one ought to conform to a culture? Can a culture be currupt? Can a culture be mostly bad or good?
2. Protection and nurturing of the culture's children
The idea that children need to be cared for seems to be instinctive in animals and this includes humans. What's curious is how differently cultures have interpreted this value down through the ages. This nurturing includes passing on the culture's value system and teaching the child to be a productive member of society depending on that culture's concept of what such a person should be.
I live in a culture that thinks it's okay to murder an unborn child. Is that counter-instinctive? I see this as a terrible flaw and something beyond instinct but in the soul of a culture. There is another culture that wouldn't dare murder an unborn child but would indoctrinate them to strap a bomb on and blow up other children on a bus. That seems closer to instinct but still not instinct. Interesting. What are theses two culture's concepts of a person: Culture 1) a child is inconvenient and hard work ...not valued. Culture 2) destined to be a martyr....valued. Interesting eh?
3. Prohibition of murder
This is a shaky one, probably because of the wide definition of "Murder"
What is murder?
OF COURSE one culture is superior to all others. OURS!
More seriously, Children of every society have little choice but to conform to their society's values and mores (Their culture).
They are taught their cultural roles, beliefs, and basic values from the time they are hatched . If they don't accept and conform, they are diagnosed as somehow socially deficient, perhaps even psychotic. What we see as major diversions from the cultural norm are usually quite minor rebellions. Major rebels are kept locked away or killed in most cultures.
Most cultures value living children much more than fetuses. Most cultures recognize the difference and realize how seldom a fetus actually becomes a child (Less than one-fourth of pregnancies actually come to term and are delivered live even in our "advanced" culture).
Murder in most cultures is defied as including the unsanctioned killing of another living human.
How could our culture be improved at the basic level? What basic value changes would we have to make?
Thou asketh: "How could our culture be improved at the basic level? What basic value changes would we have to make?"
After thou saideth: "If they don't accept and conform, they are diagnosed as somehow socially deficient, perhaps even psychotic."
Creed: Catch-22? If I prevent that I guess I could remove all judgements, become neutral in all things to prevent socially deficient and psychotic children/people. Like Sheryl Crow said: "To prevent war we just need to not have enemies." ...I would add .."like totally". I think people of your persuassion want ultra-compassion and reduced standards. If I introduce standards and compassion equally your type bemoan my "intolerance". I will refrain from offering my thoughts on changes to make and ask what would you do? I'm guessing more compassion is the answer for you?
Actually, Creed, cultures change all the time. What they mostly do is re-interpret their existing Basic Values to fit the new situation.
A well-known example is the culture change regarding racial attitudes that has taken place in America during the past fifty years.
Can you think of any simular value re-interpretations or additions that wuld make America a better place?
Perhaps we need stricter moral standards or stricter comittment to those we have?
Wonderful beat ! I would like to apprentice while you amend your site, how could i subscribe for a blog site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea