• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moral Primitives

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is about moral primitives not about primitive morals.
A primitive is a basic element, like elementary particles are primitives in physics or a phoneme in linguistics.

While many view well being as the single primitive to that all morality can be traced back, I assert that at least three primitives have to exist for a full explanation of morality.
Well being is, of course, one of them but without
equality (fairness) the set is not complete. (In my personal view equality is even more important than well being but for the sake of argument I will assume that all primitives are of equal importance.)
But sometimes even well being and equality can not solve all moral questions. We also have to have
self-determination as a moral goal.
So, basically, Liberté, Egalité. Fraternité.

Do you agree?
Do you have a primitive to add?
Do you think the set can be reduced?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree about the equality one. Many moral codes simply don't seem to employ this in the same way modern western people would.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I quite like this: Hillel instructed him, "Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn."

The discussion of why this is the most fundamental (primitive) root is here: Judaism’s Golden Rule
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I quite like this: Hillel instructed him, "Whatever is hateful and distasteful to you, do not do to your fellow man. This is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary. Go learn."

The discussion of why this is the most fundamental (primitive) root is here: Judaism’s Golden Rule
I think I also like it.
It combines equality (treat others equal as you want to be treated), self-determination (don't force your will on others) and, given that you want to be well, well being.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I disagree about the equality one. Many moral codes simply don't seem to employ this in the same way modern western people would.
Yes, older morals that were based on exceptionalism missed that important detail. I think equality should be included. Outrage over unfair treatment is one of the most basic emotions that can be linked to morality. Given that morality has its origin in the evolution of behaviour in social groups and even macaques show disdain of unfairness, equality is definitively a primitive.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Outrage over unfair treatment is one of the most basic emotions that can be linked to morality.
It just doesn't seem to be though. We practiced slavery the world over for millennia. We subjugated women, children and even some men who didn't match up. Non-royals were treated very differently to royals even in what colours they could wear and that's leading right up to the 17th century. Up until the early 20th century, most people couldn't vote; only the men of the landed gentry and above. So it appears to me that it was obviously not a huge concern until just about 100 years ago, if that.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It just doesn't seem to be though. We practiced slavery the world over for millennia. We subjugated women, children and even some men who didn't match up. Non-royals were treated very differently to royals even in what colours they could wear and that's leading right up to the 17th century. Up until the early 20th century, most people couldn't vote; only the men of the landed gentry and above. So it appears to me that it was obviously not a huge concern until just about 100 years ago, if that.
It was a concern in the French Revolution (1789) .
And the fact that the political reality wasn't ideal doesn't mean that it was accepted as moral. Ask the US citizens, they are just now having a discussion about equal treatment.
I think the ideal of equality was always there but not always had the weight we put to it today. I attribute the current focus on an evolution of morals.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
This is about moral primitives not about primitive morals.
A primitive is a basic element, like elementary particles are primitives in physics or a phoneme in linguistics.

While many view well being as the single primitive to that all morality can be traced back, I assert that at least three primitives have to exist for a full explanation of morality.
Well being is, of course, one of them but without
equality (fairness) the set is not complete. (In my personal view equality is even more important than well being but for the sake of argument I will assume that all primitives are of equal importance.)
But sometimes even well being and equality can not solve all moral questions. We also have to have
self-determination as a moral goal.
So, basically, Liberté, Egalité. Fraternité.

Do you agree?
Do you have a primitive to add?
Do you think the set can be reduced?

And it harm none, do as thy will.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
It just doesn't seem to be though. We practiced slavery the world over for millennia. We subjugated women, children and even some men who didn't match up. Non-royals were treated very differently to royals even in what colours they could wear and that's leading right up to the 17th century. Up until the early 20th century, most people couldn't vote; only the men of the landed gentry and above. So it appears to me that it was obviously not a huge concern until just about 100 years ago, if that.

You thinking that slaves didn't revolted, that peasant didn't revolted, that women didn't revolted before a 100 years ago is very cute, but oh so wrong. The fact that they achieved lasting successes in the last century doesn't mean that those fights were not a hell of a lot older.

@OP

I would say that your three elements could be grouped together for sake of simplicity in a single primal moral standard: human flourishment.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
You thinking that slaves didn't revolted, that peasant didn't revolted, that women didn't revolted before a 100 years ago is very cute, but oh so wrong. The fact that they achieved lasting successes in the last century doesn't mean that those fights were not a hell of a lot older.
They did but that's not the point. The point is there were slaves to begin with and slavery lasted for a very, very long time; this means that the majority of people found no fault with it, and definitely that equality is not in our nature otherwise slavery would not have existed to begin with. To some slaves in some places obviously there were disputes, but the concept of slavery overall was clearly not the issue.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
They did but that's not the point. The point is there were slaves to begin with and slavery lasted for a very, very long time; this means that the majority of people found no fault with it, and definitely that equality is not in our nature otherwise slavery would not have existed to begin with. To some slaves in some places obviously there were disputes, but the concept of slavery overall was clearly not the issue.

Equality and fairness is in our nature, we are extremely gifted to detect inequality and unfair deal. It's an essential skill to survive in a group. Yo must know when you don't get a fair shake, but we are full of contradictions too. We are gifed to detect inequality, but terrible at identifying privileges. We are very bad at knowing when we are unfair, but great at detecting when people are unfair to us. We are also very self centered. We want fairness, but we also want to win and be better than others. Slaves never were happy to be slaves and never really thought it was just and fair, but the masters didn't care all that much even though sometime they did. Slavery and subjugation as a "necessity" for the prosperity and wealth of a nation was a common justification. Slaves were always "others" not "us" and the condition that would throw someone in slavery was always "that which makes you an other and not one of us". Humans are fantastic at compartimentalising beliefs. The great success of that brought slavery to an end wasn't a more refined vision of justice, but a less "othering".
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
You have yet to prove this and history disagrees with you.

What about experiments on the behavior of children? Give a small child a candy and compliment for a drawing, but don't do it with another and watch the one who got nothing try to get the same treatment immediatly and react negatively extremely fast. Here's a psychological study that shows that children as young as three years old react strongly to unequal treatment. While they do not talk in terms of fairness and justice until the age of 5 ot 6 as their brain and language skills develop, they certainly don't like unfairness from the get go. This demonstrate that fairness is a fundamental desire of all humans irrespective of culture.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

I have also address the concept of slavery and others throughout history under the principle of "othering". All moral imperatives are contingent on prior categorisation and our ability to identify fairness and unfairness varies in accord with our position.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
What about experiments on the behavior of children? Give a small child a candy and compliment for a drawing, but don't do it with another and watch the one who got nothing try to get the same treatment immediatly and react negatively extremely fast. Here's a psychological study that shows that children as young as three years old react strongly to unequal treatment. While they do not talk in terms of fairness and justice until the age of 5 ot 6 as their brain and language skills develop, they certainly don't like unfairness from the get go. This demonstrate that fairness is a fundamental desire of all humans irrespective of culture.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

I have also address the concept of slavery and others throughout history under the principle of "othering". All moral imperatives are contingent on prior categorisation and our ability to identify fairness and unfairness varies in accord with our position.
'I want what he has' is very common, yes. Children will also tantrum because 'it's not fair when she gets a cookie, just because she did her homework and I didn't!' This is not a good measure of anything, especially in light of the fact that our brains are not developed until 25, according to modern scientific theory.

If equality meant so much to us, it would have appeared so much earlier in human history, but it simply didn't. We prioritise our own well-being and if our own well-being profits from slavery, we will do that. Human societies exist in tiered groups when they exist on a large scale; we have seen time and again that trying to make everyone equal does not and apparently cannot work.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
It just doesn't seem to be though. We practiced slavery the world over for millennia. We subjugated women, children and even some men who didn't match up. Non-royals were treated very differently to royals even in what colours they could wear and that's leading right up to the 17th century. Up until the early 20th century, most people couldn't vote; only the men of the landed gentry and above. So it appears to me that it was obviously not a huge concern until just about 100 years ago, if that.
But if you're born into a world where such things are the norm, would most people even recognize them as unfair? Especially if your religion teaches that Almighty God ordered things this way?
Tom
 
Top