Many Western moral debates on issues like immigration, race, gender, and free speech are actually conflicts over identity rather than true moral dilemmas. Morality isn’t universal but shaped by the group a person belongs to.
First comes identity, which defines who someone is and what group they’re part of.
Then comes loyalty, which emotionally binds them to that group.
Morality follows as the set of internal rules that maintain group cohesion.
Universalist morality is a pseudomorality rooted in Christian thought for weakening group identity and loyalty.
Stable society must be built on a foundation of identity first, then loyalty, and only afterward, morality.
What do u mean by identity? Trying to put everyone in an identity box is fucking dumb. Everyone has their own set of beliefs and morals these beliefs and morals fit into many different identity boxes.
Trying to make identity first is only going to drive division and conflict. I think having identity first is the greatest mistake of the current political climate.
For a stable society all that is required is everyone to play by the rules of that society under the threat of violence. That’s essentially what a nation is.
I think a much more stable option would be morals defining your identity and being loyal to that.
I’m glad you posted the question - good to think about.
Identity and morality are way more heavily intertwined than your reasoning makes it out to be. Rules that maintain group cohesion is part of the group’s identity, but you’ve defined that as morality. For example, the mafia is known specifically for their lack of morality within their ranks and outside of it. Religious communities have similar reputations (e.g. hating minorities, others, etc.).
My biggest objection, though, is the idea that there must be an in-group. That implies that there is an out-group. A stable society is not one where there is inequality in any appreciable amount. People in the out-group will feel like outcasts and will literally fight to become part of the in-group. I don’t think anyone would call (civil?) wars a sign of stability*.
PS If you ask a less leading question you might get less downvoted
* They could be a sign of upcoming stability, though that’s not the same thing.
Morality only, everything else fails and leads to people finding it easy to step over others, but the group should be humanity (at least until we meet aliens, if we ever do, and then it would be extended to personhood if the situation calls for it). Also, really? Christian thought? Christianity is a Roman religion which co-opted the Abrahamic faith and the image of Jesus, the rabbi. At least get the terms right, cause Christianity was always a con and only superficially pushed people to “fear God and keep His commandments”… the recognition of objective morality is much older!
The reason why people in Gaza get together to have dinner in the middle of the rubble with their neighbours mid Israeli bomb run while people in… other places will turn to crime and immorality if their lives become the slightest bit uncomfortable. These people from… other places always seem so shocked that their leaders will invariably rob at the least, with rape and murder being very likely and expected, but y’all don’t believe things can be truly wrong or right, so what are you complaining about here? Is this not the result of your post modern, literally Satanic “nothing is true, nothing is forbidden”, ‘ideology’?
TLDR: without a shared ideology based around axiomatic moral values (a denial of moral relativism) you will remain uncivilised, just with better toys as time goes by.
Why are you assuming that the fundamental goal is a stable society, rather than (say) a society that promotes the welfare of its members?
Good point. North Korea is quite stable.
Good food for thought.
I agree in the sense that while universalist morality is desirable, only expanding the identity of the in-group is a reasonable way to achieve it.
Contrast 2 narratives:
- some people are different and we need to accept their differences (equal but separate)
- what difference? there is no difference they are a part of us (inclusiveness)
An issue with identity debates is both sides don’t recognize the other’s identity as valid
Everyone knows how the right does this with the bible thumpers saying you choose to be gay
The leftist version is on race, simplest I can put it right wing people believe race is an objective measurable ethnocultural grouping while leftist see it as a inherently exclusionary social construct
I think the problem is just too many people. Social structures don’t scale very well because you lose the individual connections at some point and then you stop caring about how your behavior impacts others, and there isn’t direct accountability for your actions.
Why would more people impede me to think ethically and care for my fellow human being? And what do you mean by direct accountability? If I do something mean I feel like shit because I am acting like a villain, shouldn’t that be enough to keep me walking the straight and narrow? My peers would rightfully call me out on it and even abandon me if I didn’t repent (because I’m a social danger who acts like a rabid dog), isn’t that more than enough?
I know in many places of the world this is not even a consideration, but that just shows us how far some of us have strayed.
I think their point is that in a large enough group there will be people who you cease to regard as peers.
I don’t know if that’s true. I can tell you that I can only socialise with and truly care for a limited amount of people (= I don’t necessarily want any more friends cause I don’t know if I could be there for them if my circle widened), perhaps that’s what he meant?
Yeah, I think you mis-read my comment and that we agree :)
