Morals: Absolute or mere convention?

HS #9   2016.4.5

Morals:  Absolute or mere convention?

I sometimes relax in the evening by watching old episodes of “The Rifleman.” (The theme tune is great!)  Recently I watched one about a young incorrigible boy – disobedient and disrespectful. Everyone else having failed to control him, the woman bartender in town agrees to provide him a home.  When the boy mouths off to her, she belts him across the face sending him sprawling. The subsequent lecture, “You will not speak that way to a woman!” is the turning point in the boy’s behavior and the climax of the story.

How interesting. Back in the 1960’s when that show first aired, the actions of the bartender were likely heralded as a model of discipline and virtue. Today, the show wouldn’t even appear. If it did, it would cause controversy and probably make the news for promoting child abuse.  How is it that our moral sensibilities have changed so much in fifty years?

Also about fifty years ago I remember two women of my church in rural Minnesota discussing how communist USSR forced families to send their young children to state-run daycare centers while the women worked, rather than devote all of their time to caring for their children. These Midwest women were aghast, and wondered if children so raised would grow into well adjusted adults.

Again, how interesting that twenty years after that conversation, childcare was part of everyday family life in the United States – brought on not by governmental dictum, but by economic reality. Again, our moral sensibility has changed significantly.

Notice that these two examples go in opposite directions. The first was accepted in 1960, but not today. The latter is embraced today, but was not tolerated fifty years ago. This seems to suggest that our collective sense of right and wrong is neither progressing nor regressing; instead our moral code is just in flux.

If morals are like tastes, fashions, or customs, this would be expected. (Presently no interest in bell-bottoms or pink bathroom fixtures.)  But if morals are tied to absolutes, then it is puzzling.  Why do they change? This raises the question: Are some of our present moral sensibilities tied to absolutes, while others are mere convention? If so, which are which?

Mathematics provides a nice analogy.  Can you divide this many objects # # # # # # into equal-sized groups (of more than one)? Surely.  ###   ###  is one way.   ##    ##   ##  is another.   Try the same with this group:  # # # # # # #.    We use the word “seven” to denote that number, and since seven objects can’t be evenly divided up, seven is called a prime number. The fact that seven is prime does not depend on opinion or culture or even human awareness.  Before conscious life even existed, it was already a true fact – an absolute.

Contrast that with the “fact” that we use these symbols to count: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.  That is, a collection with this many # # is labeled “2” and a collection with this many # # # # #  is labeled “5”.  Well and good. But why when we get to  # # # # # # # # # # do we not use yet another unique symbol (such as $) rather than use two of the previous symbols “10” ?   Answer: We use ten symbols to form all numbers  because we happen to have ten fingers.  If, like the TV cartoon Simpsons family, we had just four digits on each hand, we would use eight symbols to count.

  So although it feels like an absolute, using ten symbols to express our numbers is mere convention. Indeed, we could use any number of symbols, and, in fact, computer programmers must write numbers using just two symbols, since electrical switches are either “on” or “off.”

These examples aside, mathematicians often disagree as to which parts of mathematics are convention and which are absolute. So then how do we judge human behavior, which is much richer, more complex, and certainly less clear-cut than mathematics? Can we distinguish moral conventions from moral absolutes?  As culture evolves, how do we determine what moral principles stay steadfast, and which are dynamic? What if, for example, a future generation focusing on quality of life approves death with dignity or condemns the use of factory farms?  Should we embrace or resist such changes in our moral sensibilities? All good questions to ponder.