View Full Version : The Good, the Bad and the Ugly part II
1) Good and Evil are empty concepts. Moral judgements are more a reflection of the preferences of the subject than relating to any assumed heaven or overarching ethic.
2)Morality is a social construct. It is relative and reflects the values of a particular time, place and people. One is bound to the moral only insofar as one is bound to the community to which one is a part.
3) Morality is the product of revealed religion. Through chosen prophets the Divine put forth the law. The law, contained within the cannon, is moral because it reflects the Divine will.
4) Morality is a utility best described by perpetuation of the species. The end justifies the means.
5) Morality has its impetus within the self. Such knowledge is intuitive and finds force because it is a reflection of the Divine to which the subject is also a part. Subsequently, the individual is constrained only by the self.
6) Morality is defined by power. Who has the means to enforce their will is justified by their success.
This is a second attempt. In the first go, I pushed the wrong button. sorry. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
i voted for 2, it`s not a nice description of humanity but it is the most accurate choice available. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
I would choose 2, except that I think the second part of the stament is misleading; it appears to imply that by locatingb morality in society,m it thereby becomes optional. Thats not true at all - yes I think morality is a social construct, but people feel it just as genuinely. I would have gone for 2 but felt I could not on that basis.
I can't subscribe to any of these alternatives - they don't seem to leave room for a humanist who believes you should live a moral life without qualification; it's not optional (that's the whole idea of morality - it is categorical). I agree with Squippy - the options (not just 2) often seem to bundle up two statements that aren't necessarily connected. Specifically:
1 - I might agree morality partly reflects preference, but that does not mean it is empty.
2 - I might agree morality partially reflects societal norms, but that does mean you only follow it if you dig your neighbourhood.
3 - Obviously not relevant to a humanist.
4 - I might agree morality partially reflects evolution, but that does not entail the ends justify the means.
5 - I might agree morality partly reflects the dictates of ones conscience and therefore the self, but that does not mean only the self constrains you. Plus there is a Divine reference in there that is not relevant to a humanist.
6 - Seems just amoral.
I am curious, Pindar, are you religious? Because I can only see the religious being happy with these options ie they can subscribe to number 3 and damn the aethists with when did you stop beating your wife? type alternatives.
Simon:
Humanism is not a single approach. It was originally the product of the Enlightenment its precurser being Christian humanism i.e. Petrarch or Erasmus. In its Eighteenth Century incarnation most self described humanists, those coming off of Newton's 1688 Principia would be deists. These individuals were still part of a Christian ethos and thus still subject to the underlying metaphysic that defines Christian belief, meaning there is still a reference to an absolute as source.
Perhaps the humanism you appeal to is not part of any of this, but rather the idea that the dictates of reason alone are sufficient grounds for a moral life.
You mentioned a catagorical. By this I assume you are wanting to say morality has a deonitc quality ala Kant. If I am correct in positioning your approach, it may be helpful to remember Kant was himself a Luthern (though not particularly devout). In his Groundwork where Kant lays out the catergorical imperative in its most common form Kant mentions that he is not creating a new morality rather he is giving voice to the natural impulse that lies within men. He is attempting to explicate in rational terms the ought but does not attempt to explain its origin.
Rationality is a tool and not in and of itself either moral or immoral. If an amoral system then is the sole reference to determining a moral course I would assume coherence is the structure of the system adopted. Further, following a catergorical imperative methodology no deviation can be tolerated once a position has been properly determined. For example, if lying is determined to be wrong, one can never lie as that would be a violation of the categoraical. So, what does one do when the Nazi knocks on your door and wants to know if there are any Jews in the house, and you know there are?
Quote[/b] ] I might agree morality partly reflects preference, but that does not mean it is empty
Empty here refers to the Logical Positivist view that moral utterance is emotive. Such are empty of metaphysical meaning. Saying stealing is wrong is given the same weight as sayng I like vanilla.
Quote[/b] ]I might agree morality partially reflects societal norms, but that does mean you only follow it if you dig your neighbourhood.
This is a reference to the Aristotelian notion that man is a political animal. What I wrote does not obligate one to follow societal strictures. Being bound to the community may be a personal choice.
[/QUOTE]I might agree morality partially reflects evolution, but that does not entail the ends justify the means.
Quote[/b] ]
If species survival is the key factor, the rubric is naturally utilitarian. If the greater good requires what would normally be a prohibitive act, it is justified. For example, if the subject must kill one in order to save ten. The act is just, the end jusitified.
I might agree morality partly reflects the dictates of ones conscience and therefore the self, but that does not mean only the self constrains you.
Quote[/b] ]
Where does the conscience come from? Under this approach the conscience's locus is the self and ground is given for some kind of transcendant appeal as well to provide added force. If the subject has direct access to the divine will no other justification is required to act. Thus, Abraham tkaes his son to the mountain without feeling the need to speak to any other about his intention.
The list is not a complete listing moral possibilities, but meant to entertain and invoke thought.
I am curious, Pindar, are you religious? Because I can only see the religious being happy with these options ie they can subscribe to number 3 and damn the aethists with when did you stop beating your wife? type alternatives.[QUOTE]
I don't think any of the views presented have to do with being happy. Eudaimonism is a differant moral positon I did not include. Rather, they have to do with what is right according to the constrains of each view. Under the number 3 view you mentioned: (assuming the Bible as the example)the Joshua character was required to slaughter every man, woman, and child in Cannan as part of the Israelite conquest. I don't think that is a happy place to be. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Simon,
Seems my quoting got a little messed up in my reply to you. I hope you can make sense of what I wrote.
A.Saturnus
09-16-2003, 13:31
Damn, I posted in the other thread before seeing this. However, I still chose 2, but as you describe it, 1 is also right. Ethical sentences are aesthetic sentences. But what is morally right still is determined by social processes.
As I said in the other thread, perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with biological evolution.
When Simon speaks of himself as humanist (as do I), he probably means that human rights are the base of morality without being given by a higher entity or nature. My own ethical concept is that of a relativistic utilitarism of rules. That means that I see the well-being of the greatest mayority achieved through rules that apply equally to all, without founding this deontologic principle on any justification itself. This view is a position between morality of principles à la Kant and complete utilitarism à la Bentham. It evades the problems of both, but has their strengthes.
It is a thought-provoking poll, Pindar, as was your response although I think you rather dodged my question on whether you have religious beliefs (no problem about that - my question may have been impertinent).
Morality is an interesting subject for aetheists like myself. As intimated by your poll options, for an aetheist, it is not hard to see that morality has many origins: from evolution, through the social and political, to the impact of religious and other teachings, and into the psychological. But that does not mean moral imperatives are not every bit as compelling for us as for the religious. I am not sure I can find an analogy for this situation - maybe it is like loving someone passionately, despite knowing that at some level the attraction has a biological or chemical basis. The rather abstract intellectual understanding does not undermine the real life commitment.
I still can't subscribe to any of your options. How about:
7 Morality is a product of our nature and our culture, but striving to live by it helps give meaning to our lives and provides the standard by which we judge each other.
Quote[/b] ]7 Morality is a product of our nature and our culture, but striving to live by it helps give meaning to our lives and provides the standard by which we judge each other.
if that choice had been available, i would have taken it instead of 2. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
as an atheist i automatically rejected the ones mentioning god or the devine, that got rid of one third of the available choices
for me morallity and religion rarely go together, much evil has been done for the sake of religions.
ToranagaSama
09-16-2003, 19:51
I would say a combo of 3 and 5, leaning very much toward 5, except that the Divine as you put, is the guide for Self. So, I'll vote for 5 with a qualifier.
See my post, Questions for Atheist and Agnostics. Guess its a good time to post it.
Simon,
Quote[/b] ]7 Morality is a product of our nature and our culture, but striving to live by it helps give meaning to our lives and provides the standard by which we judge each other.
This is intertesting. If one is moral by nature. What is the nature of that morality? How does one explain evil? How would you make the distinction between this idea and culture? Does this mean there is a moral gene? If so, would that mean those without this gene should be eliminated if not fixable?
(I didn't answer the personal belief question becasue I thought it would distract. But, since you asked again: I do believer in a God).
Katat,
Quote[/b] ]That means that I see the well-being of the greatest mayority achieved through rules that apply equally to all, without founding this deontologic principle on any justification itself.
Would this mean that if pass a law that says any who convert to Judaism or refuse to renuonce it can be removed from the body politic I would be justified given the universal nature of the edict?
arghhh I just reread what I wrote. Too many spelling errors.
71-hour Ahmed
09-16-2003, 21:25
Morality is an implicit force in humans at a fundamental level, with further levels of morality added by the culture. So I would say 5 with some of the others.
The fundamental internal morality is discernable with the level of understanding that develops in an adult. No sane adult considers murder OK.
Some things are always wrong to all humans with a bit of quibble room on the rest.
If morality is solely cultural then the culture can do things solely based on the majority within its limits. Given that the nazis are considered immoral its safe to say no one seems to feel that way (given they saw themselves as moral in their culture).
There is one area I think is kinda grey on this though. Sane adult is the criteria I think exists for true morality as it requires understanding: I'm not sure you can apply the moral/immoral to those who cannot understand or emphasise with others. They aren't truely immoral, just amoral.
Amorality is something that should be eliminated through mental correction if it can be done, as such people are dangerous to themselves and others.
Rant over and out.
71 hour,
Quote[/b] ]Morality is an implicit force in humans at a fundamental level,
Where does this implicit force come from? why?
What would be an example of this implicit morality, murder?
Would executing the mentally retarded be murder?
Would an Aztec sacrificing a captured prisoner to the sun be murder?
Would a samurai in Feudal Japan lopping off the head of a peasant who didn't bow low enough be murder?
Would a Crusader Prince executing a host of captured muslim prisoners who had no ransom value be murder?
If one argues morality can be expanded upon, by and through, culture, is it also possible for cultures to minimize and erase this moral sentiment? If so, how fundamental can this sense be?
ToranagaSama
09-16-2003, 22:56
Quote[/b] ]The fundamental internal morality is discernable with the level of understanding that develops in an adult. No sane adult considers murder OK.
Ahhh...and herein is the falacy. Quite correct to then question insanity.
For if morality is defined by self, then a sane person can consider murder, as his morality is defined by Self and so too can sanity.
If the Group (society) collectively defines morality, then so too can a different Group define a different morality. A morality which can be in conflict with the first. The same can be applied to sanity. So which group is moral and which insane?
Without a Divine authority to define morality (and thereby insanity), then the truth is that morality cannot exist and the idea of sanity is a falacy.
Without the Divine, the world is in rather a Catch-22 situation. There is no morality nor notion of sanity which one need respect.
Pindar - on the links between morality and nature, one can see signs of this when looking at animal behaviour. You only have to own a pet dog or cat to know that it can feel guilt about breaking some house rules in an all too human way (I guess this example also relates to your morality=power option 6).
More nobly, the way parent animals protect their young is very reminiscent of the kind of altruistic behaviour most systems of morals praise. Social animals often extend this kind of altruism to their wider group. One optimistic view of humanity's moral development is that we are gradually widening our circle of concern so that we are now distressed when seeing people in countries far away suffering.
Now part of this moral behaviour is socialisation (the highest form of which being through culture). Even among animals, I believe, some have to have had good parenting to learn how to be a good parent in turn. But there is probably a genetic predisposition that makes such learning possible - natural even - and this is a root that culture has built upon. Ever wondered why young animals of so many species look so cute - big eyes etc - and behave so endearingly? Probably to elicit feelings of love and affection from adults and especially their parents. Just as they are hard-wired to send such messages of vulnerability and lovability, we are probably hard-wired to respond to them. With highly social animals such as the primates we evolved from, it seems clear why those with some such aspects of morality - particularly those fostering cooperation - would flourish.
I believe it may be true that some individuals - sociopaths - are simply hardwired not to have the same degree of empathy as most people. Obviously such people should not be eliminated, as you put it, in any final solution sense. That would be as horrific as anything the sociopath could dream up. But personally if I was a parent in a future time and could influence the genes of my children, I would try to avoid such a deficiency as much as today we try to avoid, say, Down's syndrome.
Simon,
Quote[/b] ]on the links between morality and nature, one can see signs of this when looking at animal behaviour. You only have to own a pet dog or cat to know that it can feel guilt about breaking some house rules in an all too human way
Quote[/b] ]With highly social animals such as the primates we evolved from, it seems clear why those with some such aspects of morality - particularly those fostering cooperation - would flourish.
So, morality is not a distinctly human trait? Is this the same with all animals or only some? If a wasp lays its eggs on the body of a stunned spider that then hatch and eat the spider while it is still alive is that an immoral act? If you reserve morality only to higher spieces how/why is this determined? If a chimp kills and then eats its young is that murder? Is that an evil chimpaznee?
Quote[/b] ]I believe it may be true that some individuals - sociopaths - are simply hardwired not to have the same degree of empathy as most people. Obviously such people should not be eliminated, as you put it, in any final solution sense. That would be as horrific as anything the sociopath could dream up.
Under this rubric, why would the forced liqudation of the unfixable and inherently dangerous be wrong? Particularly, given the basic justification for the state is protection.
Pindar - saying morality has some recognisable roots in animal behaviour is not the same as saying moral terms can be applied to animals. Just as saying Christianity has recognisable roots in Judaism is not the same as saying Christianity is Judaism.
But now you challenge me on it, I am not sure morality is a uniquely human trait. Scientists have gotten quite far communicating with primates and it would not surprise me if primates can make sense of terms such as good or bad in similar ways to young children. Insects obviously could not.
I don't think chimpanzees often eat their young but I have seen a mother chimp deceive her daughter for personal gain. I know there are many common aspects of chimp behaviour - bullying, rape, warfare etc - that we would judge immoral if done by humans. Using a quasi-utilitarian calculus, it would not seem inappropriate to judge such acts, as opposed to the actors, as bad. As to the agents, whether chimps can feel any guilt or remorse at such acts, I don't know. It would not surprise me if they could did. It may even vary with the upbringing and character of the chimp, just as it does with humans.
On eliminating sociopaths: If we can know with great confidence that, for psychological reasons, somebody is very likely to do others serious harm then I think the state would be justified in incarcerating them to protect others. I believe such preventive legal powers exist in the UK today and are applied in a few cases. Why you would want to kill dangerous mentally ill people rather than keep them in secure mental hospitals, I don't know.
A.Saturnus
09-17-2003, 15:28
Quote[/b] ]
Quote
That means that I see the well-being of the greatest mayority achieved through rules that apply equally to all, without founding this deontologic principle on any justification itself.
Would this mean that if pass a law that says any who convert to Judaism or refuse to renuonce it can be removed from the body politic I would be justified given the universal nature of the edict?
No, with 'rule' a more principle code is meant. Converting to Judaism is too specific to be a rule in itself. The underlying rule would be 'it is acceptable to prosecute a person for it`s believes' which would certainly reduce the well-being.
Quote[/b] ]
Without a Divine authority to define morality (and thereby insanity), then the truth is that morality cannot exist and the idea of sanity is a falacy.
Morality can exist on a relativistic basis. That two groups can define different moral codi means morality is not universal, not that it doesn`t exist. If it were so, even the existence of the divine could not save it. On what basis could any divine being define morality? What would stop me to adopt another morality? If you answer this divine power stops me, then you say that morality is defined by power and not by divinity itself. The truth is that there is no rational argument that could refute any consistent ethical system, and therefore morality is relative.
About sanity, the question is to define that term. Is 'sanity' a philosophical term or a psychpathological term? In the first case, I think sanity IS universal and that independent of any divine being (again, if a being is divine or not cannot change it`s approach and access to the universality of sanity). In the second case, it`s simply a scientific question whether one is sane or not and that is answered by a scientific consensus. Elaborating on anu of both would lead us too far away from the purpose of this interesting thread.
I went with 2, morality is a social construct. I'm no great moral philospher or anything like that, however I majored in history. I focused on modern European but studied American, and classical as well. The most pronounced trend that I saw was how the concept of morality, or to put it another way, what a given society would accept, evolved over time. As the needs of a society in a given time period shifted so to did their concept of morality. Morality becomes idealized as we look back into the past. In 19th century Britain, for example, the middle ages and the moral ideal of chivalry were very popular. In order for the morality of the middle ages to be held up much of medieval history had to be ignored, specifically those parts that made the middle ages seem no more moral than the modern world. The romanticized vision of the middle ages, and its moral order as symbolized by chivalry, were in reality a reaction to the social changes of the industrial revolution. What this seems to say is that morality, or at least the perception of it, is two fold. First it is unfluenced by the social, political, economic, and cultural environment of the present and second the current morality is often compared to a romantic notion of past morality.
Simon,
Your comments on animals is interesting. I think the link to children that you draw is telling. One response would be that children are not moral agents. Morality (as I believe you stated earlier, though I confuse who wrote what) requires a certain understanding/awarness.
Quote[/b] ]Why you would want to kill dangerous mentally ill people rather than keep them in secure mental hospitals,
Depends what one sees as the role of the state. Why does the state have to maintain an obvious threat? Certain moral systems equate individuals with having an inherent worth. However, without that precept, the course of the community could be quite different particulary under a utilitarian approach.
Saturnus,
Quote[/b] ]That means that I see the well-being of the greatest mayority achieved through rules that apply equally to all, without founding this deontologic principle on any justification itself.
Quote[/b] ]No, with 'rule' a more principle code is meant. Converting to Judaism is too specific to be a rule in itself. The underlying rule would be 'it is acceptable to prosecute a person for it`s believes' which would certainly reduce the well-being
I'm confused, majority...rules that apply equally and without founding...on any ...justification seems to suggest that popular will applied universally is adequate grounds to eradicate an unpopular position (or lifestyle). You say a more principled code is required, why? What is the basis of principled if not the criteria you already laid out: majority consent and universal applicability?
Further, why is specificity suddenly a block to moral decisions? If one were to state the wanton execution of POW's is forbodden but still allow for criminal execution dependant on the nature of the crime against the state, why shouldn't a political body be able to make those distinctions? My sense is that your general principles stance would require an all or nothing decision. It is not clear, however why.
No, its not clear why there should have to be an all or nothing decisions.
Public morals - as distinct from private morals - are necessarily social negotiations about when and under what circumstances the state applies its santions: violence.
There is no particular reasons to expect this agreed set of public morals will be agreed by all, but that is a problem resolved by political systems.
As it is, I would point out, in a theistic monarchy. Public morals merely indicates the morals of the ruling class imposed on their subordinates. There can only be real human korality in the absence of god, all other alleged moral systems are merely coercion.
A.Saturnus
09-18-2003, 13:00
Quote[/b] ]You say a more principled code is required, why?
Otherwise, utilitarism becomes inconsistent. Utilitarism wants the highest possible sum of well-being, eudaimonia, we might call it. If however specific rules are allowed, we might design rules to prosecute individual for no other reason that we don`t like them. We can justify any inhumanity with the assumption that it will serve a great cause (as the Nazis did with the Holocaust). In the end these inhumanities well reduce eudaimonia. More principled rules make such inhumanities (almost) impossible. This ethical system is founded on the assumption that eudaimonia will be served if we grant human rights to everyone.
Aurelian
09-18-2003, 16:17
Enjoyable poll.
Morality is an interesting concept. It contains within itself a couple of very different sources of motivation.
Much morality is ultimately based on empathy. If your morality is based on empathy you don't murder, cheat, steal, rape, etc. because you have an understanding of the effect that these actions have on their victims - and an unwillingness to inflict such effects on another being. Similarly, if your morality is based on empathy, you will be much more likely to want to reach out to your fellow creatures and assist them in any way that you can. Your morality is based on a fundamental identification with and understanding of others. This is of course the basis of the Golden Rule which one finds at the heart of many of the world's major religions - and in the morality of 'virtuous pagans'like myself and many others on these boards.
The other basis of what we often refer to as morality is condemnation. Morality based on condemnation focuses on identifying behaviors and characteristics that one feels to be different or disturbing in some way - and condemning them. One might commonly condemn homosexuals, or non-church goers, gamblers, felons, prostitutes, communists, etc. The rewards for this form of morality are feelings of moral superiority, the intensification of group identities, and enhanced social status. 'Condemning morality' is primarily a useful tool of social engineering, and is often used by organized religions and states to promote behaviors that are in keeping with the goals of the group/institution.
What is commonly known as morality is a combination of these two sources, with each person's morality being a particular blend of each motivation.
Squippy,
Quote[/b] ]As it is, I would point out, in a theistic monarchy. Public morals merely indicates the morals of the ruling class imposed on their subordinates. There can only be real human korality in the absence of god, all other alleged moral systems are merely coercion.
That depends on whether one allows for the theistic monarchy to actually be receiveing divine guidance or not. Further, there are examples of different types of this model: for example the Old Testament state of Israel after having rejected the rulership of Judges for divinely appointed kings nonetheless maintained a separate priest class independant of kingly decree and capable of reproving the monarch i.e. the prophet Nathon's condemnation of King David for the slaying of a servant in order to have the fellow's wife. lastly, state sponsered coercion is not so much the issue (given all law contains a coercive element) as is whether it can be justified or not.
Saturnus,
Quote[/b] ]Utilitarism wants the highest possible sum of well-being, eudaimonia, we might call it....We can justify any inhumanity with the assumption that it will serve a great cause (as the Nazis did with the Holocaust). In the end these inhumanities well reduce eudaimonia. More principled rules make such inhumanities (almost) impossible. This ethical system is founded on the assumption that eudaimonia will be served if we grant human rights to everyone.
I don't believe a utilitarian position requires a eudaimonian stance. The good may be defined as a type of happiness, but it could be any other catergory i.e. justice.
I think the sticky point here is your appeal to principled to ground the system. How does one define this and why should it be excepted once defined? Under this rubric, your previously mentioned majority consent and universality now become second order elements to the system. If such a principle is established why then does it require a popular mandate. For example: if one puts 'murder is wrong' in this position then whether the majority agrees or not seems irrelevant. One must recognize the principle in order to be moral. The system has now become deontic instead of utilitarian.
Aurelian,
Quote[/b] ]Much morality is ultimately based on empathy. If your morality is based on empathy you don't murder, cheat, steal, rape, etc. because you have an understanding of the effect that these actions have on their victims ... Your morality is based on a fundamental identification with and understanding of others. This is of course the basis of the Golden Rule which one finds at the heart of many of the world's major religions - and in the morality of 'virtuous pagans'like myself and many others on these boards.
The other basis of what we often refer to as morality is condemnation.
Empathy may be an important feature to a moral system. What one has to answer is why should it be? You point out such a view would then naturally lead one away from many normally condemned behaviors (rape, murder, etc.) But what If I say morality is based on the a system where the strong need to be encouraged because the strong are superior. The most fit should lead and the determination of the fit is determined in the arena of life. Then the natural culling of the weak to produce the strong may indeed justify rape or other such acts. Why should this kind of approach by condemned, simply becasue it is different?
I also don't think the idea of the golden rule is at the heart of many of the major religions of today. If you look for it, the idea can be found. But finding the concept does not mean it is the central principle that informs the system. For example: Chapter one and two of the Bhagvad Gita (sp) includes a story of a young prince who begins to think along the empathetic lines you described. He is then reproved for such thoughts by an avator of God who reminds him that as a Khisatrin (sp) warrior class his duty is to kill, not to worry about ties or bonds with others.
The condemnation order of morality, you refer to, I think would be described by the proponent of such a system: as a necessary element of any ethic that recognizes good and evil to be meaningful concepts. i.e. one must condemn human sacrifice, if so proscribed by the system, regardless of whose feelings get hurt.
Aurelian
09-18-2003, 21:26
I didn't state that one's morality should be based in empathy, or that it needs to be. In fact, I stated that each person's version of morality is usually their own particular blending of these two impulses: empathy and condemnation. A viewpoint of morality based on the necessity of advantaging the strong against the weak falls comfortably towards the condemnational end of the spectrum. The 'weak' in such a system are the condemned who are 'different or disturbing in some way'. Societies and religions often take such a position, particularly when it reinforces in-group bonds and rationalizes the oppression of a particular group. I'm sure the Spartans felt that way about the Helots, the Nazis felt that way about the Jews, and KKK members in the US feel the same way about African Americans.
Note that I didn't say that the golden rule was at the heart of ALL of the world's major religions, nor that it was necessarily followed or realized by most of the members of those religions. However, it shows up very clearly in the teachings attributed to Jesus, the Buddha, etc. Unfortunately, institutionalized religions are corralled into serving numerous social needs for their societies that are often outside of the teachings of their founders. These usually include justifying the existing social order and providing support for warmaking. It is in these contexts that condemnational morality is often invoked in systems that might seem to have originated in compassion-oriented morality.
Krishna's instruction to Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita has to do with cultivating detachment about the effects of your actions in order to be able to perform your duties truly. Good and evil don't really enter into it. But, I take your point.
Again, the motivations behind people's systems of morality are often a blend of compassion and condemnation. However, being against human sacrifice is actually a perfect example of morality originating from compassion. Why should you care about human sacrifice? Compassion for the victims. That is the justification behind labelling human sacrifice as evil. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Aurelian,
Quote[/b] ]Much morality is ultimately based on empathy.... The other basis of what we often refer to as morality is condemnation...Morality based on condemnation focuses on
I took this to mean you were arguing two different types of moral system.
Quote[/b] ]However, it shows up very clearly in the teachings attributed to Jesus, the Buddha, etc
I don't think you can aruge the golden rule is a fundamental position of
Buddhism: rather, the Four Noble Truths. Primative Buddhism is epistemic in its initial orientation.
To tie this back to other posts. Where is the basis for moral judgement?
Archlight
09-19-2003, 02:14
You people make my brain hurt. That's my moral judgement...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I need to get to reading, and more reading, and MORE reading.... I have some Scientologist friends I wish I could get to come post here... hehe. That would be interesting...
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 18 2003,12:34)]
Quote[/b] ] That depends on whether one allows for the theistic monarchy to actually be receiveing divine guidance or not.
No it does not. Thats the whole con trick at work: the assertion that despotism is OK becuase its a despotism favoured by god, guided by god.
And I agree that there are different forms and structures, but this to me is explicable as the negotiuations of power groups to establish a form of public morals that commands sufficient consent. But a priest class that backs the ruler or King - like the medieval catholic church, crowning the Emperor - shows that the main purpose of this morality
is to legitmise rulership and the extortion of wealth from the many by the few.
A.Saturnus
09-19-2003, 11:53
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 18 2003,19:55)]I don't believe a utilitarian position requires a eudaimonian stance. The good may be defined as a type of happiness, but it could be any other catergory i.e. justice.
Well, the utilitaristic position has always been that happiness is the goal to achieve. There are in fact several ethical systems that favor justice instead but these aren`t called utilitarism.
Quote[/b] ]I think the sticky point here is your appeal to principled to ground the system. How does one define this and why should it be excepted once defined? Under this rubric, your previously mentioned majority consent and universality now become second order elements to the system. If such a principle is established why then does it require a popular mandate. For example: if one puts 'murder is wrong' in this position then whether the majority agrees or not seems irrelevant. One must recognize the principle in order to be moral. The system has now become deontic instead of utilitarian.
Actually, I didn`t mention any 'majority consent'. I think in fact that the majority is not a necessary element in defining utilitaristic goods. And this thought is congruent with a lot utilitarists. The opinion of the majority is in so far important that the principles we want to establish are meant to help everyone. If the majority hates this principles we may have a problem. We must either convince the people to like the principle or drop it, whatever serves eudaimonia.
This system is indeed more deontic than utilitarism. Utilitarists have always thought they could establish an ethical system without any deontic element. But - as Hume has proven - this is impossible.
Squippy,
Quote[/b] ]That depends on whether one allows for the theistic monarchy to actually be receiveing divine guidance or not.
No it does not. Thats the whole con trick at work: the assertion that despotism is OK becuase its a despotism favoured by god, guided by god.
Your point seems to focus on the big lie. However, my arugement wasn't whether corruption exists, rather, if one has sanction and guidance from a perfect source it's difficult to argue that moral decisions will be inferior to decisions left totally to the devices of men. Denying this as a possibility is a separate issue.
Saturnus,
Quote[/b] ]Utilitarists have always thought they could establish an ethical system without any deontic element. But - as Hume has proven - this is impossible.
Agreed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.