Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Anyway A while back I expressed my opinion IRL that the concept of morality is itself a social construct. I didn't get any retribution for that opinion (yet and mostly because it was both a throwaway comment and only 2 people heard it) but I want to make sure I got the definition of "Social Construct" straight

I did not imply that morality and ethics are unnecessary (In fact its obvious that the opposite is true, depending on how you define morality, and arguably essential for human survival) by that tangent I do not think that a good enough reason to become a psychopath (if there is a good reason for that I'd love to hear it), but relatively unusual compared to say animals (I'm pretty sure they have a rudimentary system at best but they apparently have no qualms killing random strangers [aka other animals or humans] for food or a wife),

so What do you think. What is a social construct? and Do you think that Morality counts by these standards?

To me, a social construct is basically a social norm. I would say that current social 'norms' would definitely play a part in development of morals. In my opinion, anything past level 1 of Lawrence Kohlberg's moral stages would be a product of social values or norms.

I don't know a lot about psychology, sociology or whatnot, but I think I'll chip in for this one. The reason why humanity has created a morality "code" is because we're an advanced species capable of caring for other creatures' needs. If we weren't caring of others needs, families, communities and so on wouldn't exist. We'd be a pretty tribal species without morality, as people would just take and take without regards for others.

Yeah, people made up "morality" just like people made up the unicycle and sweater vests. There's no reason to assume if say an alien species or super smart race of bugs would agree with our idea of morals. but, as far as our societal goals go (progress and human survival) they work pretty well.

it helps to mind yourself that most things we talk about we made up at some point. mathematics has been working out pretty well for the most part, but who are we to say that it's 100% a great cosmic truth? It works well for what we experience but who knows about the things that we don't?

all that being said, it's better off for regular people like you and me to follow these rules. you can argue with a judge about how morals are made-up and robbing a liquor store is fine, but unless you have a new idea that completely changes the game, you're going to jail

{ but they apparently have no qualms killing random strangers [aka other animals or humans] for food or a wife }

Can someone tell me where the world is getting this idea that "wild animals" are ruthless murderers with no social constructs or sense of "morals"?

What species kills randomly for food, or especially for a mate? Food is hunted by picking off the weakest/oldest/injured/slowest individual, it is certainly not random or indiscriminate.

Even non-pack animals keep to a social hierarchy based on age and status, when males of solitary species meet at water holes or maybe in a freshly ripe fruit tree, the younger males nearly always abandon ship, and if they don't it doesn't take much more than a puffing-up contest to send them running.

During the breeding season, males of all sorts of species get together in giant herds/flocks/groups and display and fight for mates, but they rarely ever kill each other or even do serious bodily harm. Every single one of them, across the entire animal kingdom, simply knows and agrees that dominance can almost always be settled without risking any lives.

Do these not count as social constructs and some sense of morality? I don't think a consistent aversion to intentionally ending the life of a rival male during testosterone-surging breeding seasons could be the result of anything but some sort of shared values, and I definitely think they're necessary for coexisting no matter what species you are.

Ethics and morals evolve from our basic sense of self-preservation and desire to succeed amongst peers.

Morals are not shackles which detain some sort of weird innate desire to kill, no, they are our rights and wrongs which we use to strive forth with life. If we act against others aggressively or purposely cause strife then you are doing nothing but "shooting yourself in the foot".

On a further note we live in an advance society where simply murdering someone for no gain is met with punishment, if you want to test that justice system then you are nothing short of a dysfunctional. You have effectively failed the base human function of preservation.

I believe that this subject is given too much thought, its almost as if people think that the population of the planet are inherently psychotic. I've seen this discussion many times before, sometimes people bring religion into the mix.

So the question is, would people behave differently if there were no social repercussions?

If there were no social repercussions, then yes, that person would do almost literally anything he/she wanted.
But i honestly can't think of an instance where there wouldn't be social repercussions to the things that you do.

So.. yea, thats the answer.

So.. yea, thats the answer.Most animals similar morality as us. Its not they are ruthless, for if they were, their species wouldn't survive very long.

Interestingly, studies have shown that when two different groups of students are made to do the same test, with an oppurtunity to cheat, but the first group gets to read an essay claiming that free will exists, and the second reading one arguing that it does not exist, the second group is far more likely to cheat.

The classical position is that the presence free will is a premise for morality. Without it, normative/prescriptive statements would be nothing but empty verbiage.

A deteministic view of the universe and the human being (which some interpretations of modernity and science would imply) would entail that free will does not exist, but the above experiment demonstrates that even if this is true, revealing this truth may have severe consequences.

MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:

…that the concept of morality is itself a social construct.

I disagree. In order for something to be a "social construct" society, or interaction with others, has to play a part in shaping it. While it is true that society plays a big role in shaping our ethics and morality, I think it's also true that people would develop their own ethics and morality if they were isolated from society. It may be vastly different from our own morality--it might even be more instinctual (what to eat, when to eat it, etc.) than moral--but I think it would still qualify under the definition of "morality."

…but relatively unusual compared to say animals…

You could argue animals--especially the social ones--definitely have forms of morality. Elephants have been shown to mourn when one of them dies and take special interest in the bones of the dead, passing them around the herd and feeling them. It's part of why the elephent graveyard myth came into being. Finding an intact skeleton was rare because of what other elephants did with the bones.

You could even argue basic instincts/evolutionary compulsions could qualify as a form of morality. A mother taking care of her youth when simply leaving them to die would reduce resource drain and improve her own chances of survival, a predator hunting certain species due to the advantages that provides, etc.

@lisa and xTSGx. Okay I'm gonna clear something up here. I agree with you regarding animal morality. I meant to say that the morality of the animal kingdom is relatively simple compared to the morality of humanity and you bring up some valid points about theit own social norms

(also TSG, I appreciate you answering the "Social construct" half of the thread)

In my opinion, social constructs are a "social construct."

The idea of social constructs is just an excuse for edgelord teens to act like idiots.

Would you care to elaborate on this?

I wouldn't say that morality is entirely a social construct but I would say that certain aspects of it are. Animals have been shown to show a sense of morality however it is a lot simpler than our own.
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/rats-chose-friendship-over-food
That being said I don't believe that morality actually exists in the outside world. It's more of a mental construct than a social one.

A social construct is something that is produced artificially through social interaction to try to establish some rules to social interaction. For example, gender is considered a social construct (as opposed to sex, which is biological) because of the fact that it serves a social role within interactions.

Morality by default is absolutely a social construct by conclusion.

The problem with morality is that personal morality and social morality often conflict in fringe issues. For example, a major issue that the transgender community faces is affordable access to treatment options. To a transgender person's morality, they deserve affordable treatment options because they suffer due to not being able to access treatment. Social morality may disagree though, outweighing the benefits for a minority to help better support society in general. Depending on the social morality, the transgender person's wishes may be granted (some cities/states/ect. do have laws to make financially accessible treatment for transgender people a reality) or denied.

This ends up causing serious flaws. The most noteworthy example I've noticed is probably regarding those who are born blind. Blindness by default is regarded as negative in society, and in general, most people try to "cure" or "fix" blindness, instead of assisting people with blindness. This ends up being a very serious problem because not only is a cure for all forms of blindness simply not possible right now with current technology, and not only is it neglecting problems that, if fixed, could help all blind people live independently, but also that some blind people don't really want to be sighted.

Many people born blind are curious about gaining sight but are afraid of having it for the long term, because it's such a foreign sense to them – to them, blindness is completely natural, and sight is a very unusual and exotic experience. This is difficult for most sighted people to empathize with unless they sit down and try to personally understand why they feel that way. It may seem more morally incorrect to allow those born blind to continue being blind and instead help improve blind accessibility, but this is based on a social standard that "blindness is bad", without really consulting how an actually blind person feels.

All in all, morality doesn't work ultimately with every situation but it's a decent general gauge. Just don't rely on it completely since it can fail in extreme cases as pointed out.