Kindness and Morality

Post Reply New Topic

I thought I'd make this thread dedicated to kindness an morality and why they are different.

Let's start with morality. We are born without morality but are born with the capacity to become moral. Morality is just a set of rules we learn and follow. The ten commandments of the bible are a form of morality, but then again the code of the Nazis was technically a from of morality too as was the code of the Soviets and the rules followed by Westboro Baptist Church. Someone has "moral strength" if they are better at restraining themselves to follow a moral code, but that means that a Nazi with a strong moral code is less likely to rebel against his Fuhrer. Sometimes I think that the morality and the human "lust for freedom" as you might call it are two parts of the human psyche that are opposed to one another since morality makes us follow rules and the lust for freedom makes us ignore them.

Kindness is different. I'm not sure if kindness is an emotion or an instinct or whatever, all I know (mostly from self-psychoanalysis) is that kindness is something that we are born with. We are not just born the capacity for aquiring it and we have it our whole lives. We can supress our kindness but we cannot erase it altogether. Kindness tells us "Do something to help!" when we see someone suffering, especially of that person is someone we know personally and have an emotional attachment to. We feel less kindness for those who have wronged us in the past.

I believe that one's capacity for morality and one's kindness differs from person to person based on genetics (and gene expression, and whatever else I forgot to mention, you get the picture). I also believe that many people supress their kindness because of bad life experience and that bad experiences with authority figures can cause a previously moral person to begin acting amorally.

The main reason I made this thread is because I'm tired of hearing religious radicals say that morality can only come from god and that everyone would start eating babies if there were no morality. They don't get it. Morality can come from many places besides god and even if there were no morality ther would still be kindness.

As you can imagine, I consider myself a kind man but I don't consider myself a very moral man.

Morality is a social construct that has no intrinsic worth. Kindness is an expression of altruism, which is a result of kin selection or expectation of reciprocity.

But since most of us have to live in this society, it makes sense to adhere to the basic tenets of morality, if only for personal gain. Treat people as you want to be treated yourself is pretty much the only rule you need follow, unless you're a masochist.

I guess all those times I used the word "moral", I really meant "kindness".

Kindness is the act of thinking of others besides yourself. Of course not everybody does that, but it's kindness that helps people survive in my opinion.

Morals on the other hand, have their uses for every culture. One person's morals isn't always good for another person's, but they do their job of keeping things in balance.

DMK,

I agree in that morality is learnt , but I believe its basis is in "empathy"- that universal and intrinsic part of us.
That being the case , morality is a construct and kindness would be an analogue that arises out of this chain.



So, I don't think there is any other basis than what a given society agrees for defining/determining what is right /wrong. Such agreements have varied quite dramatically in different times and places. For example: infanticide is fundamentally abhorrent in that a desire to protect one's young is intrinsic to human nature and would therefore be central to any moral code. But Roman infants that had the appearance of having a disability were exposed, and 17th century British merchants were able to consign black infants to slave ships from which they had small chance of emerging.


More interestingly, though, there is something in here about appraiser relativism versus agent relativism. That is, does one judge another's action by our lights (we being the appraiser) or theirs (they being the agent)? This is relevant in the context of a "multicultural" society where those living in the same location may feel themselves party to differing and possible conflicting agreements. Such a society cannot function( it seems to me) on the basis of agent relativism, because that would be the negation of the 'agreement' . The then only agreement would be, "it's OK for everyone to act in accordance within the dictates of ones conscience".

Society functions on the basis of appraiser relativism; that is, people agree to collectively of what is right and wrong (and what can safely be left to the individual) and judge the actions of individuals according to 'the collective standard', rather than the standard they may have made up for themselves. This is the heart of the difficulties facing heterogeneous societies.

I love these types of forums! Anyway, I think morality is, like you said, not an inborn trait, but an instinct to follow societal expectations and rules. Morals can mean doing the right thing, but sometimes it is just following unneccasery rules. Everyone has the capacity to learn morality, but sometimes it's a choice not to.
Kindness is also an inborn trait, but some possess more of it than others. Kindness can be the blank, "Oh, it's OK, you're going to be fine," but sometimes, it's helping others who are different. Kindness is accepting others for who they are, and helping them find their true self. Kindness is caring about something and the drive to do something about it. Kindness is a real emotion. It's real, but it's dying out. People aren't acting as kind as they used to...all they seem to care about are superficial things...
Well, that's my opinion anyway. Thanks for making a forum!

My morals are a matter for me and my conscience. There are times that I have acted contrary to my morals, and it is for me to deal with the consequences.

My ethics are in a more public sphere. They are rules for my behaviour for which, if I violate them, others can hold me to account.

Kindness strikes me as a mode of behaviour in which the interests of another person are taken into account.

Suppose I have a patient with a terminal illness. What is the "kind" thing to do? Well, in practice that varies from patient to patient. Some are distressed by learning this. Others are distressed by not knowing what is happening to them.

This is where ethics puts an objective lens on the decision. The kind action might vary from patient to patient. The moral action might vary from doctor to doctor. But the ethical action is clear for everyone.

A sense of morality is common to most people across cultures although the exact behaviors will be culturally determined. Genocide, murder, and rape, though, would be universally wrong.