Over 16,529,957 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
Morality is a human construct which naturally developed as groups of people instinctively learned to distinguish between acts beneficial to their welfare and acts detrimental to their welfare, which probably had something to do with the development of values. Thus, laws were created and religious codes of conduct became common. Morals, thus, subjectively define appropriate and inappropriate conduct.
It's similar to ethics in that people naturally wished to distinguish between "good" and "bad" -- the will to find and understand the most ideal form of conduct. However, morality tends to arrive at conclusions via subjective -- predominantly aesthetic -- judgment, while ethics tends to arrive at these conclusions via objective -- almost scientific -- analysis.
Therefore, morals tend to be more irrational, while ethics are more rational. This doesn't mean ethics are superior to morals, however. Not all ethical conclusions are completely acceptable, just because ethics are more rational. For example, ethically, can we logically prove why it's wrong to murder someone, if no harm will come out of it? If ethics are completely objective and rational, without consideration for "human values," there's really not much we can say about murder. However, ethics tends to take human values into consideration -- just not as much as morality does.
Morals, however -- just because they are irrational -- aren't always unreliable and incorrect. With a great emphasis on human values rather than logical strictness, morals allow us to conduct ourselves in a manner so that we feel compassion for others, empathy for their conditions, and a sense of understanding of their values. With ethics, these matters are less considered.
But, ethics usually -- because they are rational -- tend to override morals in most situations. Morality is more "taboo," which is to say, morals are more based on irrational feelings, impulses, inclinations. So, as in the discussion of the problem of abortion, we tend to have more favorability to trust our ethical understanding of the situation, because ethics are rational, objective, standards based on reason, not necessarily feelings.
And when it comes to whether or not it's right to wrong to abort a pregnancy (terminate a fetus), we must place more emphasis upon the scientific scrutiny of the situation, rather than the religious impulses we all have initially. This is the only way to objectively evaluate the problem without erroneously basing our decisions on personal value biases.
So, ethically, abortion is not considered "wrong." Scientifically, we cannot verify that the termination of a fetus at a particular stage of development is literally "murder." However, many people personally feel that abortion is immoral due to irrational inclinations based on personal values. This is the reason for the distinction in the issue of abortion.
Do morals do us any good? Obviously, they do. Again, morals tend to keep our ethical inclinations under control, because they are based with an emphasis upon subjective, aesthetic, human values. Our ethical inclinations are based with an emphasis upon objective, rational, human reason. So, without a strong sense of aesthetics, we would live in a world largely dominated by strict human reason, which really wouldn't be pretty. Aesthetic appreciation is necessary and useful in life, which is why morals aren't "useless."
Do morals hinder us? Taboos do. Yet, taboos are a specific type of morals. There are "rational" morals and "irrational" morals, never-minding the fact that all morals are predominantly based on emotional human values. Taboo (irrational) morals are based entirely upon personal values, while common rational morals are based upon a more objective, universal aesthetic sense of right and wrong.
An irrational, taboo moral would be: "It is wrong to have sex with your sister." If the two adults are consenting, is there any rational reason why two related people shouldn't have sex with each other? Are not taboo morals simply based upon irrational disgust, then?
A rational moral based on a more objective sense of aesthetics would be: "It's wrong to neglect a person in need, if you are in a position to offer help." Ethically, you may or may not find it in your best interests, rationally, to help such a person, but morally, you are naturally obligated. And this sense of morality is necessary in keeping our extremely objective ethical views balanced with some sense of humanity.
Therefore, I think taboo morality hinders us because these type of moral codes simply regulate behavior for no good reason. Why shouldn't someone have sex with their sister for recreational purposes? Who has the right to make such a claim? On what rational basis? Why do manners matter? Why is it wrong to not say "thank you" when someone gives you a gift? Why is it inappropriate to not follow irrational forms of conduct which others mindlessly believe in?
Taboo morality is what hinders natural progress, because it stifles individual liberty without reason. Rational morals do not hinder us. Rational morals actually keep our ethics in check. And I personally consider any moral convictions/impulses with regard to abortion "taboo." Most often, objections to medical abortion are not based on rational reasons, but simple personal, instinctive impulses which cannot be rationally explained. It's just a form of natural disgust, like thinking it's wrong for someone to have sex with their sister. It's not true morality; it's taboo. And this is what hinders us, not rational morals.
