Of Zombies and Morality

[Gordian Knot]

Not at all sure this is an appropriate subject for this forum. So I’ll throw it out there and if no one is interested in responding so be it. The concept of morality has always held a fascination for me. Particularly the fluidity of moral standards in different cultures, and at different periods in history.

Should morals be set in stone? Are there certain moral codes one does not break, no matter the circumstances? And if so what are the ones that are not to be broken?

Or are morals flexible depending on the situation. In a civilized environment are morals more important than in an uncivilized one? Or are they even more important in the latter.

Does one have the luxury of morals in a post apocalyptic setting where just surviving is never guaranteed from one moment to the next?

Over the years I have explored this scenario in books and film from Alas Babylon of a few decades ago to my currently reading Stephen King’s Under the Dome.

There have been plenty of films that cover this type of story; the one I’m watching now (the latest episode that prompted this thread) is a TV series called The Walking Dead. Most of you probably have heard of it. The ever popular Zombie Apocalypse has occurred. The undead outnumber the living thousands to one. Their only purpose in life is to kill anything that is alive.

But they are just one of the threats and maybe not even the biggest. Because in the fight for survival those who are still human have to face moral choices every day where the ‘right’ decision is rarely clear. For many, morals are a luxury that can no longer be afforded. It is back to Might makes Right, or more to the point Might keeps you alive.

Even for the people who strive to do-the-right-thing, the choices are agonizing and by civilized standards, horrifying. If anyone watches the show and has seen the latest episode, you will know what I am talking about. What are the limits of morals in a world gone to hell.

Or probably more to the point, what would I do if faced with these scenarios; had to make these decisions.

Does anyone else here ponder these things, or am I just weird. Well, I know I’m weird, but you get my drift.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Good one! I don't have anything to add, but I'll be looking closely at this one, there are one or two posters I would like to hear from on this.

 

[Tadashi]

The concept of morality has always held a fascination for me.

The same with me. And it eventually lead me to believe in God.

Are there certain moral codes one does not break, no matter the circumstances?

I'd say yes.

And if so what are the ones that are not to be broken?

I think there are many (and I'm not sure if I know them all perfectly), but if I were to name a couple, they'd be, "every human life is sacred"; "do not harm others." (I guess they're more of the same, huh?)

But if you face a moral code violator, for example, if the only way to stop a murderer from murdering others (or yourself) is to use deadly force, it is not wrong to do so imo. But others, especially some Christians (and Buddhists too, maybe?) may disagree, which I totally understand.

It is back to Might makes Right,

When our minds go back to the original animalistic state and lose the connection with the divine, this is what'll happen.

If anyone watches the show and has seen the latest episode, you will know what I am talking about. What are the limits of morals in a world gone to hell.

I can't ever watch a horror movie/show. I'll suffer nightmares and I get, call me a girl(no offense to brave women out there!), scared when I'm up late alone.

But I think I know what you're saying about the limits of morals...
(or if I'm not getting your point because I've never watched the show, let me know.)
My answer is, even when the world had gone to hell, our moral codes do not change since they were given by God.

Does anyone else here ponder these things, or am I just weird. Well, I know I’m weird, but you get my drift.

No, I don't think you are weird. But I am weird too (and proud of it!), so my saying "no, you're not" may not really count.

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

We have the same situation right now. We don't need to wait for the zombie outbreak. In Syria right now people who don't want to fight are force to fight because if they don't they will be kill. Killing zombie will not be as bad because they are dead already but fighting living people in the real world is far worse

Hi Swedenborgian, welcome to the forum

Yea, you're right. There has always been hellishness in some part of the world or another. Living a privileged life, we tend to forget that... Let us pray for those people.

Tad

 

[Quirkybird]

Morals are a difficult area, because scenarios change and they cannot altogether be set in stone. Whilst I believe it wrong to commit murder, steal, tell lies and cheat on my husband, I could visualise circumstances where I could just possibly murder, steal and tell lies.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

honestly I am not sure that morals really exist at all, I mean most people are full of contradictions and do what they need to do in order to get buy.

 

[Nothingtoknow]

honestly I am not sure that morals really exist at all, I mean most people are full of contradictions and do what they need to do in order to get buy.

This is my take on the subject of morality:

Is there morality in nature i.e outside the human mind? I don't think so.
Morality concept is within the human psyche.

Is the subjective morality absolute? No it's relative. To suit our survival.

Let me share an example. I was born in a family which accepted eating fish and eggs as 'Ok' but not meat. During my teens, I tasted chicken and then continued. My mind accepted it. It would not however accept eating beef (because of strong conditioning, I suppose)

Later in my 30s, I began questioning the issue of morality in killing another animal to satisfy my hunger. I felt there was no difference in killing another human. I quit everything immediately and converted to vegetarianism.

Now, I cannot even imagine eating meat or even fish. But, as one of my friend pointed out- would I not wear leather bets and shoes?

Further, at a cellular level, there is no difference between plants and animals, so one could use this logic to continue eating meat.

I feel comfortable being a vegetarian and use my logic of relative morality to justify my using leather etc.

I dont try to convert others to change their believe and follow my idea of morality, because I don't think there is anything called morality, it's only what makes you comfortable with your conditioning and beliefs.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

on the subject of Zombies, its symbolic Zombies represent the brain dead masses the poor wage slaves programmed by propaganda and school damage, the sleeping bulk of humanity, they will eat your flesh if you are alive and different to them.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I think, in theory at least, regardless of the circumstances we may find ourselves in, our moral code and obligations do not change. Right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong. In practice however, we may find it necessary to blur our definitions of right and wrong for the sake of the greater good.

 

[Quirkybird]

I think right and wrong can be very blurry sometimes!

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thanks for the responses. Fascinating to note that every one who has responded thus far agree that following morals depends on the circumstances. Even Tad, who wrote the closest to morals are absolute, gave an exception for those who violate moral codes.

Not sure where Sweden's original post went - he brings up a good point about there being parts of the world where civilization, and its morals, have gone by the wayside.

Which is part of where I was going with all of this. My perception is that the veneer of morality is very thin indeed. It is more or less followed by people in a stable civilization. Rip the civilization away and morality goes with it. We have so many examples of this happening in parts of the world today, it is difficult to view it any other way.

What do you do when your family is starving to death, and you find someone who has food but won't share?

What do you do when you are part of a subset of humanity that is being decimated because of race, or religion, or whatever the perceived imperfection?

 

[Tadashi]

Thanks for the responses. Fascinating to note that every one who has responded thus far agree that following morals depends on the circumstances. Even Tad, who wrote the closest to morals are absolute, gave an exception for those who violate moral codes.

Perhaps the way I wrote was ambiguous, but I believe absolute morals exist. I just don't always know exactly what they are beyond any doubt. I think when we argue "what is the right thing to do?", we are arguing what absolute morals are. Because if they don't exist, what's to argue about?

If there are no absolute morals, each person should follow their 'subjective' sense of morals, and shouldn't have a say in other people's moral standard, no? But we often say, "that's wrong!", don't we? as if our 'subjective' moral values are more correct than the 'subjective' moral values of others. If morals are subjective, it's wrong only to you, and not to others, so why do we judge others with our subjective morals?

Murdering any human being is wrong. It's still not right to kill even bad guys, but letting them murder the innocent is far more morally wrong imo. We often have to choose the lesser evil. I'd say trying to minimize the damage to humanity is one of the absolute moral codes. Though others may disagree, that doesn't mean absolute moral codes don't exist, it only means that we don't always agree on what absolute moral codes are.

In my humble opinion, morals are not simplistic enough to be written down and say "these are the rules." For example, during WW2, if you're hiding a runaway Jew in your basement, and the Nazis come to your door looking for him, the morally right thing to do is 'to lie'. In this case, you're standing up to moral code violators, which is the right thing to do.

What do you do when your family is starving to death, and you find someone who has food but won't share?

Yea, this is a tough one. Again, from my perspective, the right thing to do is to minimize the damage to humanity, so if he had enough food for many others and won't share, that in a way, makes him a moral code violator in my view. But he only had enough for his family, it's wrong to steal to feed others. And also, if the reason I have no food is because I've been lazy or playing around and hadn't gone to work, that's another story...

What do you do when you are part of a subset of humanity that is being decimated because of race, or religion, or whatever the perceived imperfection?

This actually reminds me of the movie "The Mission"(with Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons. It won Cannes Palme d'Or in 1986), one of the best movies I have ever watched.

Jesuit priests try to protect a remote South American Indian tribe in danger of falling under the rule of pro-slavery Portugal that sent out an army. In the end, many of them pick up a weapon and fight, but the Jesuit leader adamantly insist against violence and he and his church followers simply walk into a firing army and get killed... I always wonder what I would have done, if I was one of the priests. I can't say either was wrong.

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

If there are no absolute morals, each person should follow their 'subjective' sense of morals, and shouldn't have a say in other people's moral standard, no? But we often say, "that's wrong!", don't we? as if our 'subjective' moral values are more correct than the 'subjective' moral values of others. If morals are subjective, it's wrong only to you, and not to others, so why do we judge others with our subjective morals?

A secular society can have agreed upon morality which is more or less clear.

Morality only matters as long as it is discussed. If it is never questioned it is suspect. But as long as it is re-evaluated, even silently but one, it is kept alive. And knowingly doing the wrong thing, because the alternative is worse, still makes one a moral person.

 

[Tadashi]

A secular society can have agreed upon morality which is more or less clear.

I didn't mean to imply anything about secular societies not being able to have morality.(Is that how you took my statement?) I'd be the last one to say so, because I'm darn pound of my country Japan for people having a high moral standard, and the majority of them are nonbelievers. I was more trying to say 'moral relativism' doesn't make sense.

Perhaps I should've said 'objective morals' to avoid the wrong impression that one can't have morality without believing in the absolute(=God). I said absolute morals, because that's how GK phrased it and also because I happen to believe morality comes from God.

Morality only matters as long as it is discussed. If it is never questioned it is suspect. But as long as it is re-evaluated, even silently but one, it is kept alive.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying here... Could you give me an example?

And knowingly doing the wrong thing, because the alternative is worse, still makes one a moral person.

You and I agree here, right?

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

I didn't mean to imply anything about secular societies not being able to have morality.(Is that how you took my statement?) I'd be the last one to say so, because I'm darn pound of my country Japan for people having a high moral standard, and the majority of them are nonbelievers. I was more trying to say 'moral relativism' doesn't make sense.

I just found a bad typo in my post above that may totally confuse readers...

"I'd be the last one to say so, because I'm darn pound of my country..."

I meant to say,
"I'd be the last one to say so, because I'm darn proud of my country..."

Sorry about that...

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

One thing at a time, we first need to pin down our first confusion, because I have a hard time following you.

If there are no absolute morals, each person should follow their 'subjective' sense of morals, and shouldn't have a say in other people's moral standard, no?

I'm saying that my subjective moral can be in line with the subjective moral of my culture and I can thus "that's wrong!" to someone (of that culture) who violates those subjective morals.

So I'm saying, yes, I can go around telling people off...but I don't...

I was more trying to say 'moral relativism' doesn't make sense.

Could you elaborate on moral relativism, in your own words, and tell me why it doesn't make sense. I know it's a pain but we're talking past each other I think.

 

[Tadashi]

Could you elaborate on moral relativism, in your own words, and tell me why it doesn't make sense. I know it's a pain but we're talking past each other I think.

Sure I'll do that. But I'm currently a bit busy preparing for an upcoming business trip. Could you give me a few days?

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Sure I'll do that. But I'm currently a bit busy preparing for an upcoming business trip. Could you give me a few days?

Tad

Sure, three days, that's it!
...fine, take all the time you need, you're such a nice boy.

 

[Tadashi]

I'm saying that my subjective moral can be in line with the subjective moral of my culture and I can thus "that's wrong!" to someone (of that culture) who violates those subjective morals.

I know. But what if you happen to be in a society with wrong values and mentality where everyone around you seem to be on the wrong side of things? (e.g. Germany, Japan, during WW2) That's what most Germans and Japanese thought during WW2. They (the majority) were in line with the subjective moral of their cultures and decided the wars they started were morally 'just' for whatever reasons.

Their 'subjective' moral was in line with their leaders (Hitler, Tojo) and their countrymen... (or the dictators manipulated the people and got them in line with their 'subjective' moral, I should say...) and they thought "Jews are wrong! They're greedy bad people deserving of being stripped of their properties." or "Americans are monsters, and we are the descendants of the Shinto gods, so we should rule the world."

If there's no objective morality, there wouldn't be 'right or wrong', because it's merely one's subjective opinion. If morals are subjective, we should rephrase the term "that's wrong" to "I don't like it", since what one feels right or wrong to him would merely be his personal preference. Just like you like Swedish meatballs (pardon the generalization), but I like sushi. There's no right or wrong in choosing either because individual's taste for food is a 'subjective preference'.

So, should morality (the concept of right and wrong) be determined in the same way by an individual's preference? If morals were subjective preference, we can only say "I 'preferred' Germany(or Japan) didn't start a war..." And only when the majority of the world population felt the same way the war becomes wrong?

This is what apologist W.L.Craig often says in his debate, "If the Nazis had won WW2 and successfully brainwashed the rest of the world (or killed everyone who disagreed with them), and everyone now believes the holocaust was a good thing to do. But it still doesn't make the holocaust morally right, or does it?"

Just because someone succeeds in getting the majority to agree or even getting unanimous consensus doesn't make the holocaust morally right, which means there's something 'objective' about morality that transcends the individuals' subjective opinions.

So I'm saying, yes, I can go around telling people off...but I don't...

(The emphasis is mine)

I think you will as I would.

An example. Your next door neighbor is physically abusive to his wife, and you sometimes hear her scream and see her with bruises...

So, when you see her alone after her husband had gone to work, you ask her, "Does your husband hit you? You have a black eye..." And she answers, "It was me that caused him to get angry. I didn't do things the way he told me. It was my fault... " You see her totally being conditioned in thinking she's at fault and her husband is right for what he did to her.

I'd say, both of the couple's moral standards are messed up, but I can only say that because I believe there's objective morality that applies to everyone, no matter what their subjective opinions are.

Otherwise, what they believe (a wife must do exactly how her husband instructs and he can beat her if she fails) are their 'subjective' moral values that they share. So I shouldn't go around telling them off? Should I not go to her husband and tell him "what you're doing to your wife is wrong!"...?? You'd go tell him that, wouldn't you?

If some things are intrinsically right (ex. love your family and friends, help the needy and the weak) and some things are intrinsically wrong (ex. inflicting pain on anyone just for the fun of it), no matter what the circumstances or no matter what the majority says, then objective morality exists.

Could you elaborate on moral relativism, in your own words, and tell me why it doesn't make sense. I know it's a pain but we're talking past each other I think.

I think I elaborated on moral relativism as much as I could with the aforementioned examples by trying to illustrate what objective morality is. (Moral relativism takes the position that objective morality does not exist.)

I tried my best in explaining my views, but I'm saddled with a language handicap, so perhaps you may want to hear a seasoned apologist explaining it?

Greg Koukl - Moral Relativism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsGNsxcms-c&list=PL0F074B09D330C32B
(Please ignore the religious stances he takes on some issues and religious statements he makes at the end, since you probably won't agree with him. But try to get the core of what he's portraying moral relativism to be.)

By the way, the concept of objective morality is not confined to only theistic worldviews. There are some atheists who support the concept too (e.g. Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty), but they just don't think it comes from God.

Tad

P.S. I was able to find some time today to put my post together... but I'm gonna be really busy the next couple of weeks, so no hurry in replying, I probably won't have much time for posting anyway...

Hope everyone is having a great weekend

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

That was a lot of text, I'll do the first part for today.

I'm saying that my subjective moral can be in line with the subjective moral of my culture and I can thus "that's wrong!" to someone (of that culture) who violates those subjective morals.

I know. But what if you happen to be in a society with wrong values and mentality where everyone around you seem to be on the wrong side of things? (e.g. Germany, Japan, during WW2) That's what most Germans and Japanese thought during WW2. They (the majority) were in line with the subjective moral of their cultures and decided the wars they started were morally 'just' for whatever reasons.

Their 'subjective' moral was in line with their leaders (Hitler, Tojo) and their countrymen... (or the dictators manipulated the people and got them in line with their 'subjective' moral, I should say...) and they thought "Jews are wrong! They're greedy bad people deserving of being stripped of their properties." or "Americans are monsters, and we are the descendants of the Shinto gods, so we should rule the world."

Indeed, I have to live in a world with a lot of morality that I don't agree with. For me, morality is a function of society (but I think for any given Christian, morality is a function of their relationship to their god) and it evolves with the culture but largely follows the path of human nature. It's a bit like a social contract, we, as a group, agree to treat each other a certain way. And we all trust each other to uphold that contract.

When morality is a function of society I very much prefer morality being subjective the objective. It was the objective truth of German and Japanese racial superiority that was used as an excuse for...anything. As long as morality is subjective we can only validate it so far.

If there's no objective morality, there wouldn't be 'right or wrong', because it's merely one's subjective opinion.

Here is a difference in definition I think. If there is no objective morality, then the highest level of morality is my opinion of what is right and wrong. " I think that's wrong". You argue from the position of objective morality, but since I can't see one, or have faith that there is one, all I have is the subjective one, and that will have to do.

Just like you like Swedish meatballs (pardon the generalization), but I like sushi. There's no right or wrong in choosing either because individual's taste for food is a 'subjective preference'.

I do like my köttbullar, but I think this example is far removed from morality, and we have already established that there are many different kinds subjective morals which makes it subjective and not objective.

So, should morality (the concept of right and wrong) be determined in the same way by an individual's preference? If morals were subjective preference, we can only say "I 'preferred' Germany(or Japan) didn't start a war..." And only when the majority of the world population felt the same way the war becomes wrong?

This is what apologist W.L.Craig often says in his debate, "If the Nazis had won WW2 and successfully brainwashed the rest of the world (or killed everyone who disagreed with them), and everyone now believes the holocaust was a good thing to do. But it still doesn't make the holocaust morally right, or does it?"

Just because someone succeeds in getting the majority to agree or even getting unanimous consensus doesn't make the holocaust morally right, which means there's something 'objective' about morality that transcends the individuals' subjective opinions.

I think I might have already answered this by now, but yes, I live in a world where some people have the opinion that the holocaust was morally right. Since there are no objective morals in my universe the holocaust was neither objectively morally right or objectively morally wrong. It is simply morally wrong for me. I understand that must feel horribly cold for someone who believes what you believes, but the world I live in is very, very cold.

I'll get to the other sections at another time, feel free to comment on this now or hold off until I've done all of it.