Human morality has acquired two faces.
On one side there is the friendly face directed inward toward the group, the inner morality, our main focus up until this point. It strives for equality and reciprocity and is forgiving. It guarantees smooth and enduring cooperation.
The second face of morality, our outer morality, is rather ugly. A separate set of criteria governs treatment of outsiders. Outer morality aims to keep outsiders at arm’s length unless they are deemed either beneficial or, conversely, a threat. “There seems to be a special, pejorative moral ‘discount’ applied to cultural strangers—who often are not even considered to be fully human and therefore may be killed with little compunction,” writes Christopher Boehm in „Moral Origins“.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.It is true that morality has, historically, been applied more consistently to the in group and discounted, at best, to the Other.
I think it's not that there are two moralities, but rather two realms. There was a time when interaction with other tribes was limited to trade, largely as a function of necessity, and when there were sufficient disputes around those relations, it led to war or famine or both. Interactions were limited, guarded, and often negative.
Today our relations with other "tribes" are more sophisticated in some ways, and hardly different in others. The impetus to tolerate more difference comes from the effective shrinking of the world via affordable, fast and easy travel and commerce and the instantaneous and nearly free communication facilitated by the Internet, and doubtless in the future, by the perspective of a spacefaring society. Old boundaries are becoming blurred, and we're having some challenges absorbing and adapting to that.
mordant
Level 8
Apr 19, 2019
0
I believe there has been shown to be biological correlates to this idea. Emotional empathy creates in-group, out-group tribalism. Oxytocin, a hormone released when a newborn child nurses evokes emotional empathy. In contrast, cognitive empathy erases these between-group barriers and is evoked when we hear narratives about others that suggest our common humanity.
Gmak
Level 7
Apr 19, 2019
0
Leon Festinger, in his work on groups, noted that in cohesive groups governed by the sharing of a rather rigid set of beliefs and values act in a very controlling manner. People outside the group are treated as a lesser "other." Within the Group, if a member acts in a manner that violates the norms of the group, the group cajoles him gently, reminding him of the norms. If he or she continues to violate the norms, their pressure mounts and becomes more coercive. If the violation is viewed as major enough and if the violator does not conform, he or she will be expelled from the group and treated as a lesser, untrustworthy heretic.
Of course, this most true in groups dominated by adherence to strict dogma -- social, religious, political, or economic.
wordywalt
Level 9
Apr 19, 2019
0
I see truth in that statement. I see it all the time, with others and recognize it myself.
Freespirit64
Level 8
Apr 19, 2019
0
"Morality" is wholly subjective.
KKGator
Level 9
Apr 19, 2019
2
@Matias Your assumptions belie your arrogance.
Just because I didn't offer any reasons for my disagreement doesn't mean those reasons are not "good (rational) ". It's got nothing to do with following my gut or intuition.
I've just lived long enough to know when it's worth my time to engage in debate with someone, and when it is not.
I don't "owe" you, or anyone else, any explanation for why I may hold the positions that I do. Just because you may want one means nothing.
That anyone would feel they are owed an explanation is downright laughable.
Yet another reason why most "philosophers" are full of shit.
They're arrogant and think they're so much smarter than everyone else.
While it seems incongruous, I can see the benefit to mankind for that type of split morality in terms of survival. Surely a well-knit, spirited group would have a better chance of survival than a fragmented, unhappy group. Competition between groups is just a natural and healthy aspect of our natural environment, serving various survival roles. Competition seems to be an integral part of life. For that reason a soldier’s morality is a valuable thing to possess IMO.
I don’t see morality in absolute terms. What is moral in some situations might be immoral in others. Being kind to strangers seems reasonable up to a point, but being a bit wary or even fearful is totally understandable also. With familiarity strangers might become friends, but in some cases they might prove to be dire threats.
Our true and higher essences are united, but on the bodily level the law of the jungle prevails, and for good reasons.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Apr 19, 2019
1
My experience as a JW was like this: first the interested person was love-bombed with expressions of love and idealism. When you were officially in, then the apologetics began for why it wasn't as loving and idealistic as it was made out to be. The people in the group were 'brothers and sisters' and the outsiders were 'worldly people'.
brentan
Level 8
Apr 19, 2019
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.