[Back to Morality]

Introduction

(By Paul Hazelden; this was circulated as an introduction for a discussion.)

When we say the war in Ukraine (or anything else) is immoral, I would like to know what we mean by this. Are we only saying, as some people suggest, that we disapprove of it? Is morality just a statement of personal or group preference? And, if not, then what is it? Can we find out what is moral by voting on it, or is there some other method we can agree upon?

I'm not suggesting we talk about a recent UK Supreme Court decision, but it seems a very relevant example of the kind of struggle we have here: many people were quick to tell the world that the decision was right/wrong, but can anyone suggest any grounds for judging the morality of this decision, beyond their personal preferences and allegiances?

Initial Comment

(By Richard Morris.)

Perhaps a couple of generations ago, "moral" might have been simplistically thought of as the opposite of decadent (whatever that latter word meant). "Morals are going downhill in this country....", a conservative reaction to the emergence of hippy culture in the 1960s? Or did the older generation feel threatened by an increasingly vocal younger generation, and the word "moral" became their weapon in a culture war?

I remember a conversation with a work colleague, probably in the 1990s, where we contrasted the words "morals" and "ethics". His suggestion was that "morals" implied something rather circumscribed. Ethics allowed for a wider, less prejudiced, debate about what might be considered right or wrong in particular circumstances, for example in medical practice. "Ethical" suggested a more humanist approach compared with a more traditional religious approach.

Since then, my personal view is that "moral" has been far less used as a term. In fact, "ethical" (or "unethical") has taken its place, ironically also becoming increasingly value-laden. Though often used to describe wider social choices, rather than merely individual (e.g. behaviour of financial institutions or the food industry), it has also become a stick for one group of individuals to beat another with. "Moral" now seems to represent a term used in more extreme circumstances.

Still, Paul's question remains about what we actually mean? Can any single group purloin the term simply to bolster their own world view? My faith in democratic debate to establish morals or ethics is being eroded daily, as media outlets and heads of state insist they only are right and others are so VERY wrong. However our rapidly changing world requires our unsettled human race to find a foundation, and an agreed approach to morals which is flexible yet reliable.

I guess several of us in this group would still seek foundation in our ancient faith, though sadly aware of its contribution to much of the mess we find ourselves in. Without open, non-judgemental debate, we are unlikely to progress, and so I have to end by commending the purpose of "Just Human"!