Could a society survive without morality?

[Chaotic Neutral]

Suppose a first world country, lets say... Germany woke up tomorrow and everyone no longer cared about right or wrong. Could the rule of law keep the country intact?

[Formless]

No. First of all because nations do not exist in a vacuum; they exist alongside other nations. So the first thing this country is liable to do if it does manage to organize itself is piss off its neighbors who do give a shit about right and wrong, thus giving them every reason to invade the Merry Land Of Sociopaths. Or nuke them.

Also, without "right" and "wrong" you can't form meaningful human relationships. Forget the law, basic social functions/institutions like family and friendship, or hell even proper communication free from dishonesty are impossible without morality of some kind. Society itself is going to disintegrate at the roots in this hypothetical. There is a reason we evolved morality, you know.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. There are a tremendous number of ways to screw people over that are not illegal, or that are illegal but are such that the laws against them are unenforceable. That alone would bring Sociopathland down; people interfering with each other on the petty level because they were annoyed for some trivial reason and decided to take it out on the other guy, for instance.

[Akhlut]

Suppose a first world country, lets say... Germany woke up tomorrow and everyone no longer cared about right or wrong. Could the rule of law keep the country intact?

The problem is that the rule of law is dependent upon at least some people retaining a notion of morality. If the police don't give a shit about morality, why should they enforce laws? And why should their superiors punish them for not enforcing the laws if they have no concern over morality? And so we enter a nation that might have a ton of awesome laws, but absolutely no enforcement of them. There is de facto no rule of law.

The only argument that could possibly exist is rational self-interest. The problem with this is that it only applies to individuals, not to societies as a whole. It is in everyone's self-interest that we have an honest and fair welfare system and don't try to game it; however, it is in my best interest to try and cheat the system out of as much as I possibly can. This also leads to a cascade effect once people start gaming the system, as everyone starts to realize that there is no benefit to be honest with the system, as it is a finite system and so it would be better to try and snatch up as much as one can from it. Thus, with everyone acting in their own best interest, the whole system comes crashing down.

[Nephtys]

Except what is 'right' or 'wrong'? That's the greater question.

If you say 'right' is stuff like not eating shellfish or observing sundays off, then well. Hell no, you don't need that for society.
If 'right' however, is just basic survival behavior on a communal level, well. That's inherently required for a society. It is almost the definition of what runs a society.

People don't need to be darling angels as long as laws and regulations maintain an order that'll propagate the society.

[Formless]

A distinction should probably be made here: we are talking specifically about human society. Not Chimp society; not ant society; not prairie dog society. Humans, with human needs. What Nephtys describes is the very minimum of what you need for a society assuming we aren't talking about any specific species, but as soon as you talk about humans it gets a little more complicated than that. We are social animals: I cannot stress enough that the human society described here would fall apart at the very seams because of this. Anti-social people aren't necessarily happy people, not only because they often find themselves behind bars but more fundimentally because no one likes them or wants to associate with them. Human company is surprisingly important to humans, and loners are the exception not the rule. This means that the resulting society would be in no way shape or form a happy place to live, even if it managed to find ways to enforce rules that allowed its continued propagation. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan could just as easily describe a mafia as a kingdom or dictatorship, but I doubt anyone here would want to live under any of those three systems of government.

This also means that there is another form of competition between human societies at work here. Lets assume for the moment that the society manages somehow to create the bare bones morality that Nephtys describes, and that mass sociopathy isn't the root cause of this amorality. As soon as we put a "nicer" human society next to it run with more complex rules designed with human psychology and needs in mind and let their respective cultures interact, we should expect to see the bare bones society gradually start to take on more and more of the characteristics of the more complex society that caters to human needs. Reason being that people in the bare bones society aren't blind idiots, they can recognize (whether grudgingly or not) that the society next to them is better run and nicer to live in. Some might immigrate (possibly causing friction between the two in the process), some might work towards creating social change in their own society. The "nicer" society will win out, because it is better suited for governing humans specifically. If you look around the world and at history, I think you will see many examples of this process in action (though again, its gradual and not necessarily peaceful).

[Metahive]

I don't think there can be an amoral society, some morality, even if it's as basic as might makes right will immediately creep back in after the initial loss.

[PeZook]

Even loners need human interaction: just less than most people. And not just any kind of interaction, but one where you can let your guard down and relax: drinking with your buddies, hanging out with your family, fishing with a friend, etc. all have one thing in common: you don't have to constantly watch out for these people to try and screw you over/steal from you/kill you.

You also don't expect the same from your neighbors when coming back home. When I go out to lounge about in my garden I don't need to turn the alarm on in fear the neighbor will steal my car. Living in society where you would have to be on alert 24 hours a day and couldn't have trusting, meaningful relationships with anybody would be immensely stressful.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Well, because the intellect of all people has not been raised in this scenario, I suspect that the society would collapse. If, however, the intellect of individuals was raised, then I suspect that much of the morality which is necessary for society to prosper would continue to be present out of pure rational self interest; people would realize that it's a bad idea to steal from your neighbors, because now you've opened Pandora's Box and you have to be afraid that they'll steal from them. No-one's going to just shrug off a murder in broad daylight, because, hey, they'd like not to be murdered themselves tomorrow. Society would continue because a large enough majority of the population has an interest in not letting it collapse. Of course, this brings up the question of how much of our morality is just rational self interest. I suspect that, as an atheist, a large amount of it actually is, in that I like society, though I typically claim my morality to stem from a root of 'the greatest amount of human joy/least amount of human suffering' or some similar, and I would like to think that this does have some impact on my moral code. The vast majority of people are not rational enough or do not put enough time into introspection and inspection of their moral code, and thus, would follow behaviors which would lead to a societal collapse without morality.

If, however, religious people were still convinced of their religion, then I suspect that very little would change, as they'd be afraid of divine punishment after death. Unfortunately, this is the function of religion in our current society; it keeps people who do not sufficiently reason out their own moral code from going 'rogue', acting against the best interests of both society and themselves. Regrettably, it also typically adds on all number of unnecessary restrictions, usually to isolate believers or suppress some minority group (thus leading to cohesion in the members against this 'other'). This is a necessary factor in a religion's early success, but later, it becomes superfluous.

[Spoonist]

If, however, the intellect of individuals was raised, then I suspect that much of the morality which is necessary for society to prosper would continue to be present out of pure rational self interest;

That does not follow. Intellect does not remove negative self interest. If it did then the top schools would have less of cheating and backstabbing than the control. I can guarantee that is not so.

No-one's going to just shrug off a murder in broad daylight, because, hey, they'd like not to be murdered themselves tomorrow.

This is counter to much of human psychology. So its ignorant in its basics.
Why would intelligence have any effect on intervention? I could equally well argue from ignorance that the more intelligent you are the less you would be likely to risk youself. Because you fully understand the risks.

Of course, this brings up the question of how much of our morality is just rational self interest.

It is an evolved feeling displayed in lots of flock animals. However where it works best is where it not only encompass the self but rather the group.
Without morality the rational self interest will be stronger and thus less effective. It would be a society of sociopaths & low functioning aspergers.

If, however, religious people were still convinced of their religion, then I suspect that very little would change, as they'd be afraid of divine punishment after death.

Its actually the other way around, the religious are less likely to do the right thing due to them having "an out".
Statistics show this for negatively for crimes, social misbehavior (like infidelity) and on the other spectrum positevely atheists & agnostics are more likely to help unknowns of other cultures or spend money/time to charities.

[CJvR]

Suppose a first world country, lets say... Germany woke up tomorrow and everyone no longer cared about right or wrong. Could the rule of law keep the country intact?

The first spontaneous reaction is No. But once I think a bit more I would have to say yes, if you replace morality with terror. It hardly matters if people obey the law because it is the right thing to do or out of fear, as long as they obey some form of society can continue.

[Rye]

Terror still has right/wrong morality attached (there's certainly nothing to stop the guys doing the terror getting carried away), and things like prudence and rational self-interest are moral decisions. If you completely detached empathy from the equation, why would you care about what a future version of yourself would be feeling relative to yourself now? Why should you?

[Chaotic Neutral]

If you completely detached empathy from the equation, why would you care about what a future version of yourself would be feeling relative to yourself now? Why should you?

The same reason you don't want to be punched in the face, it's unpleasant.

If the police don't give a shit about morality, why should they enforce laws? And why should their superiors punish them for not enforcing the laws if they have no concern over morality? And so we enter a nation that might have a ton of awesome laws, but absolutely no enforcement of them. There is de facto no rule of law.

People like having money and getting payed.

[PeZook]

People like having money and getting payed.

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want. If they can't tell right from wrong, that's what they'll do, and nobody will care enough to stop them: if anything, their superiors will want a cut, which they will either get or get shot by te underlings.

Then the Army will roll in and take the money for themselves, promptly disintegrating once they start fighting over the spoils.

[Ilya Muromets]

Hell, at that level, you wouldn't even need money. The very concept of money operates on some kind of trust in that it's a given that other people would honor the value it's supposed to have and accept it in exchange of an actual thing or service that you need. Without morality, why the hell would you respect whatever value some colored piece of paper has? Along the same lines, why would you bother stealing a bunch of colored papers? Why not just take whatever thing you want to use the money for?

[Akhlut]

If the police don't give a shit about morality, why should they enforce laws? And why should their superiors punish them for not enforcing the laws if they have no concern over morality? And so we enter a nation that might have a ton of awesome laws, but absolutely no enforcement of them. There is de facto no rule of law.

People like having money and getting payed.

And some officers like donuts; why would you need to get paid when you can simply have the baker give you protection donuts? Same with everything else the officer needs/wants. Anyone with a gun has the power to do what they like to the unarmed, and the other people who are armed will get into an arms race. And a shitload of people are going to die as theft becomes widespread and rampant because no one gives a shit.

[Formless]

Oh god, anyone who advocates "rational self interest" in any shape or form (I'm looking at you, Soldier of Entropy) ought to shut the fuck up immediately for they are stone fucking ignorant about psychology and political actuality. Just the cognitive dissonance of knowing that others suffer the same as you and that that's the only reason you consider some things good and bad when they happen to you would be enough to drive a sane person nuts. This is before we get into the issue of empathy. And if you are one of those wankers who says "but isn't that too a form of rational self interest?" get a fucking dictionary (there is a dozen of them on the web) and look up the words "rational" and "circular logic".

And that's also without getting into the absurd assumption that competition between humans is harmless or even good for society. Akhlut already covered why that's idiotic.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Fine, point conceded. I admit, what I posted was just idle speculation, and I have no real data to back it up. I was unaware that it was so completely incorrect, and I apologize.

[Simon_Jester]

The "nicer" society will win out, because it is better suited for governing humans specifically. If you look around the world and at history, I think you will see many examples of this process in action (though again, its gradual and not necessarily peaceful).

Would you mind listing some examples?

[Formless]

All of Europe during the "Age of Reason"? Well, its a prediction in any case. I can't think of any better explanation for why modern society has tended to grow more humanistic over time. Can you?

[Rye]

The same reason you don't want to be punched in the face, it's unpleasant.

But you're not getting punched right now.

People like having money and getting payed.

You don't need money if you have no morality.

[Chaotic Neutral]

But you're not getting punched right now.

I said no morals, I didn't say "idiots".

You don't need money if you have no morality.

Please state an alternative way of acquiring objects that doesn't have the police involved.

[Chaotic Neutral]

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want.

No, they are captured or killed by other officers who like getting payed.

If they can't tell right from wrong, that's what they'll do, and nobody will care enough to stop them: if anything, their superiors will want a cut, which they will either get or get shot by te underlings.

So they will start a rebellion just for "TEH EVULZ"?

Then the Army will roll in and take the money for themselves, promptly disintegrating once they start fighting over the spoils.

Right....

[Simon_Jester]

But you're not getting punched right now.

I said no morals, I didn't say "idiots".

CN, aside from the part where I thought you conceded, the fundamental problem is that most people in real life who lack what we'd call morals have this problem. They get so caught up in how pissed off they are, or how great a right they think they have to whatever they want, that in the absence of a sense of right and wrong they just... ignore consequences. It's one of the reasons that disregard for the consequences of one's actions figures so prominently in diagnoses of psychopathy.

Removing personal ethics doesn't mean removing emotions, and the effects of emotions on an amoral person's judgement are going to be huge.

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want.

No, they are captured or killed by other officers who like getting payed.

Why would these other officers not likewise take up banditry? Do we now have to make policemen millionaires to keep them at their jobs? How is that different from a protection racket?

If they can't tell right from wrong, that's what they'll do, and nobody will care enough to stop them: if anything, their superiors will want a cut, which they will either get or get shot by te underlings.

So they will start a rebellion just for "TEH EVULZ"?

Actually, what PeZook describes really happens in some lower-end third world countries: the police force starts acting like a bandit troop, randomly stopping people and hitting them up for bribes, because they know they can get away with it.

Give the average man a gun and no obvious restraints on his behavior, and he will be more likely to rob than to do what you tell him.

Also, I think you grossly underestimate the role of personal ethics and honor codes in making police agencies work. Do you have any actual experience with the police?

[Chaotic Neutral]

CN, aside from the part where I thought you conceded, the fundamental problem is that most people in real life who lack what we'd call morals have this problem. They get so caught up in how pissed off they are, or how great a right they think they have to whatever they want, that in the absence of a sense of right and wrong they just... ignore consequences. It's one of the reasons that disregard for the consequences of one's actions figures so prominently in diagnoses of psychopathy.

So your saying that without morals people become horribly short-sighted idiots?

They're police. They have guns. They can just take the money from whoever the fuck they want.

No, they are captured or killed by other officers who like getting payed.

Why would these other officers not likewise take up banditry? Do we now have to make policemen millionaires to keep them at their jobs? How is that different from a protection racket?[/quote]

Policemen will continue to do their job, or be fired, I see no reason that everyone will immediately go crazy and attack everyone..

If they can't tell right from wrong, that's what they'll do, and nobody will care enough to stop them: if anything, their superiors will want a cut, which they will either get or get shot by te underlings.[Actually, what

PeZook describes really happens in some lower-end third world countries: the police force starts acting like a bandit troop, randomly stopping people and hitting them up for bribes, because they know they can get away with it.

Good thing this isn't a 3rd world country we're talking about.

Also, I think you grossly underestimate the role of personal ethics and honor codes in making police agencies work. Do you have any actual experience with the police?

I try to avoid the PD.