In my opinion, I think society has more of an impact on morality than much other things. I think that the way a person acts is dependent on the environment they were raised in and what is acceptable in their society. Just like Rachels mentioned, I think that there is no objective right and wrong and that it all depends on the culture and society that you were raised in. One thing that might be considered immoral or wrong in one culture could be valued and respected in another. Because of this, I feel that there is no objective right and wrong. You can’t tell someone that their values and how they were raised is wrong. In our minds, we think that our way of life and what we think is considered the right way. It’s just the way we were raised and how we thought. I think that Rachels theory works the best in the case that there is no specific right and wrong and that morality isn’t defined by something that God says because there are many different ideas on God’s existence and which God is the right one to believe. Because of this, I think that society and our cultural environment impacts morality the most, more than I think God’s existence does.
I think you make a great point and I can definitely speak to that. Having been born and raised in another country, I have had the privilege of being a part of two completely different cultures. For instance, in my culture the cow is considered a sacred animal, so it is considered wrong to consume it. However, in American culture eating cows is commonplace and perfectly acceptable. Therefore, it would be not be right to say that either culture’s values are wrong. Both are equally moral and depend upon the culture and society one is raised in.
A few weeks ago, I would have completely disagreed with your argument! Now that I have expanded my provincial thought and read the articles that you referenced, I can now see that there are no objective morals. For example, I, for the most part, believed that killing another was immoral, but I now understand that in other cultures, it is actually valued! Although this idea can be hard to fathom, I now see why both ideas can be considered moral.
I completely agree with you. Your point ties back to when Kurtz asked Craig whose God provides the basis for morality. Similarly, one society cannot provide an objective morality, because then we would begin asking whose society is so great that whatever they consider moral is what everyone should objectively consider moral. Perhaps it is possible for objective morality to be achieved within societies, but when comparisons start happening, I think that all has to be thrown out the window.
Julia I think your idea about society influencing morality is completely true. The society I grew up in is what I am most able to relate to, not the one’s my parent’s grew up in because values and norms change with time. Also I grew up in a different country than my parents did so my thinking is more influenced by that of my peers and their actions and beliefs than by what my parents believe to be right and wrong. I also found it interesting that you incorporated god into your argument. I think both Rachel’s and Benedict’s pieces didn’t really emphasize the debate about the presence of god for there to be morality. I like how you connected the two in the context of growing up.
Very interesting theory. You mentioned that you think that there is no objective right and wrong and that it all depends on the culture and society that you were raised in; so how does culture relate to morality if (in your view) there is no such thing as morality? Also values and morality are subtilty different; you noted that “one thing that might be considered immoral or wrong in one culture could be valued and respected in another” but in this case the argument becomes values vs. culture not morals vs. culture. So then, looking at this from the perspective of morals vs. culture: in the grand scheme of culture, you find quite the opposite of what you stated, in that: “I think that society and our cultural environment impacts morality the most, more than I think God’s existence does.” since one of the primary influences in culture is religion (or the absence thereof). Thus, morality comes down to beliefs, and questions if there is a God did He create set-in-stone morals?
I agree with what you have said and find what you mentioned about values and morality intriguing. I have found that the different values within society do not take away from objective morality. C.S. Lewis engages with this same topic of thought in his published collection of radio talks named Mere Christianity. A man questions Lewis about the morals of previous cultures. The example given in this particular scenario is that of the witch trials during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. He responds: “It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there” (Lewis). Rather than a moral advancement within cultures today, there is an advancement in knowledge and a decrease in ignorance. Lewis is not necessarily saying that it is right to kill witches, but rather that if today’s society truly believed that witches existed and possessed powers by which they desired to kill people then it would make sense for our society to act in such a way. Not that the act of killing is by any means justified, but the morality of culture remains unchanged while the values become shifted.
Boom.. so who makes the rules?