[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hmm. Under this theory, the healthier we get (or able to cure diseases, etc.), the fewer and fewer moral restrictions we have on ourselves.
I don’t buy that. I am not sure if you came up with the idea or someone else did, but that ignores the range of moral philosophy/examination we have had available since antiquity.[/quote]
Just choosing this one point for further discussion (as you may still be addressing others above) since I find it interesting.
There are different types of moral strictures. One such as doing unto others as you would have them do unto you probably isn’t a “health” issue.
It’s more of an empathy issue. We know that we don’t like to be harmed and via empathy we can understand what it is like to someone else when they are harmed. Empathy may seem like a touchy-feely concept, but it is real.
However, if someone dislikes empathy, then there is the safety in numbers concept which implores a species to preserve itself… meaning it is better to cooperate to some degree.
I’m getting off topic, but the idea is that there are plenty of ways to come up with and define “morals”. We can also be told about them by our parents or by our religious leaders.
Back to the particular issue at hand, I think you can often pick out “why” a particular moral was adopted or stated based on some criteria, be it health or otherwise.
When society changes, or the underlying original reasons for the creation of a “more” have changed, then it’s possible for society to disregard it, and come up with new standards.
However, keep in mind, that without the acceptance of a divine judge, selection of appropriate moral codes is highly subjective. Should we have prohibition or not? Should prostitution be allowed or not?
Bear in mind, I’m not arguing for the lack of mores, or that we should all be able to do absolutely anything we want at any time.
I am arguing that as factors of daily life change, the decisions people make, collectively, have a shaping effect on society. Cash is invented and trading patterns change. Roads are created and trade routes are established. New ideas circulate the settled world faster.
While these things don’t appear to have any direct effect on our morals, over time such changes lead to behavioral shifts, which then have the ability to conflict with our views of an appropriate society.
The nuclear family is a good example. Financial pressures, which are not really directly related to mores, are eroding it. Women that work are certainly not immoral or bad. Erosion of the nuclear family may be, but that is a subjective view.
And that leads to the whole problem. Who is to say that erosion of the nuclear family is good or bad? Maybe it will be bad if it leads to higher alcoholism, higher crime, lower education, or other negative events.
While not a “health” issue, it is still the outcome of the change, and it’s positive or negative impacts, that appear to be how it is judged. Surely the reasons to desire a nuclear family are more defined than “because I had one” or worse “just because”?
Anyway, this whole long winded post is just an attempt to discuss my belief that as the negatives involved in violating a commonly held moral are reduced, the moral itself may lose it’s meaning.
Of course, there are many morals that are not losing their negatives. We don’t need to change those ones.
However, for example, women as second class citizens seems to have no place today, so that one has changed… and in today’s society, it is much easier for women to exist without being dependent upon a man. It was not always so.
In my opinion, there is much more subjectivity and relative judgment involved than most would like. To tie back into the thread topic, the other source of morals, religion, does not change to reflect the changes in negatives and positives associated with behaviors, and thus conflicts between religions and societies are bound to occur from time to time.
I hope I haven’t been repeating myself too much…