Full Read-Through - Pt 1
Morality: Shaped by Systemic Change, Socialization, and Connectivity
Started with a question: why doesn’t my morality align with my actions or moral obligation/duty? This inquiry was sparked by the inhumane nature of factory farms.
What Influences Our Sense of Right and Wrong?
Morality is the set of ideas or principles about what is right and wrong behavior. It guides how people treat others, make decisions, and act in ways that are fair, kind, or responsible. Think of it as a compass for deciding what’s good or bad in our actions and choices—like whether to help someone in need or tell the truth.
External Factors Shaping Morality
Moral values are primarily influenced by systemic structures, socialization, and connectivity rather than arising intrinsically:
- Socialization: For most people, their moral framework is a product of socialization—the influence of culture, religion, education, laws, and community norms.
- Example: Many people believe stealing is wrong, not because they arrived at this conclusion through deep reflection, but because it is universally condemned by society, taught as bad in schools, and punished by law.
- Systemic Change: Moral beliefs evolve as societies change. Laws and governance enforce moral standards that individuals internalize over time. Consider historical shifts:
- Example 1: Slavery: The abolition of slavery in the U.S. was driven by legislation, activism, and economic shifts rather than a sudden moral awakening in the populace.
- Example 2: Factory Farming: This remains legal despite recognition of animal suffering, showing how systemic inertia can uphold morally questionable practices.
Lack of Intrinsic Morality
While some argue that humans may have innate empathy (e.g., helping someone in distress), this does not always translate into consistent or universal moral principles.
- Even intrinsic tendencies, like empathy or fairness, are heavily influenced by environment. For example:
- A child raised in a culture where meat-eating is normal may feel no ethical dilemma about consuming animals, despite having the capacity to empathize with animal suffering.
- Conversely, someone exposed to strong vegan advocacy might adopt a moral stance against factory farming, even if they previously saw it as harmless.
Deeper Dive Into External Factors & Moral Inconsistencies
- Concerns about animal cruelty.
Deciding What is Moral
Challenges:
- Subjectivity of Morality: Different cultures and systems have varying ideas of right and wrong.
- Power Dynamics: Morality often reflects the interests of the powerful. For example, systemic inequality persisted under slavery because it benefited the ruling class.
Possible Solutions:
- Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill): Prioritize actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering.
- Reflective Equilibrium (John Rawls): Use reasoned debate to align individual moral intuitions with broader societal principles.
- God as the source for morality?
- ?
Fitrah and Contradictions in Moral Consistency
What is Fitrah?
- Fitrah, in Islam, is the innate human inclination toward recognizing good, truth, and submission to Allah. However, atheists might interpret fitrah as the natural empathy or moral compass evolved in humans.
Contradictions Between Fitrah and Modern Practices
- Humans have empathy toward animals but rationalize factory farming by creating distinctions between humans and animals. This is a contradiction in applying the fitrah of compassion consistently.
Example: Factory Farming vs. Fitrah
Islam teaches kindness toward animals, yet consuming factory-farmed meat often involves supporting a system that inflicts suffering (or killing animals during Eid).
- Argument 1: “Fitrah Does Not Apply to Animals”
- Counterpoint: If fitrah means recognizing suffering and acting justly, ignoring animal suffering contradicts this principle.
- Argument 2: “Animals Are Not Equal to Humans”
- Counterpoint: True, but that does not negate the obligation to minimize unnecessary suffering, especially when alternatives exist.
- Thought Experiment:
- Imagine if humans were treated like factory-farmed animals (e.g., confined in small cages, mutilated, gassed). The fitrah of empathy would condemn such treatment. Why then is this not extended to animals?
When Fitrah Alone Fails
- While fitrah offers an innate sense of right and wrong, external influences (culture, economic systems, legal structures) can corrupt or override it.
- Example:
- Slavery was once normalized in societies where fitrah might have recognized it as unjust, but cultural and systemic acceptance allowed it to persist.
Final Reflection: Speciesism and Symmetry
Speciesism
- Many moral inconsistencies stem from valuing humans over animals based solely on species membership.
- Slavery was seen as immoral because the enslaved were humans, but animal suffering is dismissed due to species differences.
- Symmetry challenges this by asking, “If animals share key traits like consciousness or suffering, why is their exploitation moral?”. Does it only apply once it can be demonstrated?
- If a superior alien species were to invade us, are they morally justified to cause us suffering?
Conclusion
- Morality is not intrinsic but shaped by external forces like cultural norms, laws, religion, and education, etc.
- Hedonism and hypocrisy often prevent individuals from aligning their actions with their moral beliefs.
- While challenging ourselves to reduce suffering, our focus should be on eliminating unnecessary suffering, as some suffering (e.g., challenges that foster growth or resilience) can have meaningful value.
- Systematic change, through laws and cultural evolution, is essential for progress.
- Fitrah offers a baseline but must be combined with critical reflection and societal progress to overcome cultural and systemic biases.
Are our morals actually being tested anymore?