Does a child abuser have a line where even the abuse goes too far? Or is that already moralistic... "Ab"use... The word itself tells you its wrong... So....
Does a person who beats...
No, does a person who hits...
No...
Does a person who loves their child and openly shares their pain with them... Do they have a line?
Okay, I deserved that. Should think about what I am writing but then I wouldn't get any writing done.
How to interpret Gary's forms and Fung Koo's absolute.
In the beginning there were people and the people decided they must get along. So, the people agreed to an interpersonal code of conduct. And, lo, other people around them agreed with that code of conduct so that the consensus grew. Verily, though, there were others who did not agree with that code of conduct and withdrew to develop to their own codes of conduct.
In the fullness of time, conflict arose among the differing codes and, auspiciously, conflict arose within subscribers to the same code. These dissenters became known as philosophers, sematicists, and lawyers. Over history, some of these groups adopted names such Hindu, Buddhist, Jainist, Confucian, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. Others adopted names such as Capitalists, Communists, the School of Chicago, and ornery old guys.
4 millenia later, the descendants of those from the beginning haven't reached consensus. The likelihood they will reach consensus, as estimated by the economists, is lower than 10%.
In the meantime, regardless of the name a given indivual adopts, the given indivdual acts according to the individual's own instant needs and desires. When these do not mesh with the name the individual is associated with, the individual shrugs and goes on about the individual's business.
Reflection on one's actions may produce guilt. Handling guilt includes a whole spectrum of behavior ranging from "Oh, well.....nobody's perfect....I'll try to do better next time...gee, that was stupid...I am not living up to the code's expectations...I am not living up to my own expectations...I'm not a good person...time to look for a new code." This itemization is not intended to be all-inclusive. it's a mere sampling of the possibilities.
Behavior quite often defies cause and effect particularly with respect to moral codes.
Nice little mythology there my man.
I find morality a strange argument, since it seems to me the things we call "morals" are often not really "morals" at all. Usually it's territory parading as morality. So following this functionalist definition you've illustrated...
If morality is a prescription for a certain type of person, as either aesthetic or ascetic...
...and, If political theory is a prescription for a certain kind of society...
...and, If political enfranchisement is individual responsibility for the body politick...
...then to what extent is individual morality reflective of socio-political morality, and to what extent is socio-political morality reflective of individual morality?
Or... If one is a member of an authoritarian multi-party democratic government (USA) how much congruency/certainty is there amongst the body politick of nationalistic morality?
Or... If one is a member of an authoritarian single-party republic (Iran, China, etc) how much congruity/certainty is there amongst the body politick of nationalistic morality?
Orrrrrr.... Are members of (western) democratic societies more or less likely to be amoral than members of (non-western) non-democratic societies?
And then... is western democracy as a proscriptive aesthetic more likely to produce ascetic individual morality? (extending Betham's panopticon theory -- individuals in society self-regulate toward the ideal relative to each other.)
Or is it really all just subjective?
If morality is classically the purview of religion, and the separation of church and state is to be desired, can any political code operate independently of morality? Thus, independently of religion?
Down the rabbit hole we go...
I find it perfectly within the bounds of normality that you and I and GW and Her Greatness can carry on a conversation representing differing POVs and yet no one threatens mayhem on the other; no cries foul; no one takes their keyboard and goes home. Yet, I am certain that the four of us do not come from common backgrounds other than being members of N.A. societal segments which are roughly congruent.
In the U.S. and A. individual morality is reflective of socio-political morality roughly equivalent to the media's beloved red and blue states with an error rate of +/- 3%; and socio-political morality is reflective of individual morality to the extent it will get the office holder re-elected.
If one is a member of an authoritarian multi-party democratic government (USA) the congruency/certainty amongst the body politick of nationalistic morality is directly equivalent to the efficacy of the sound-byte that will result divided by the sound bytes's probability of contributing to the re-election of the body politik.
If one is a member of an authoritarian single-party republic (Iran, China, etc) the congruity/certainty amongst the body politick of nationalistic morality is directly correlated with the age of the body politik versus the age of the leaders of the authoritarian single party.
Are members of (western) democratic societies more or less likely to be amoral than members of (non-western) non-democratic societies? More...or less if you are a member of a non-democratic society.
Western democracy as a proscriptive aesthetic is more likely to produce ascetic individual morality based on the importance of the individual's immediate social network to the individual's self-esteem.
Is reality just all subjective? Yes, except when it isn't such as at major sporting events.
When morality is classically the purview of religion, and the separation of church and state is to be desired, the political code co-opts morality exactly the same as the religions which it seeks to separate itself from?
I've always had a thing for rabbit holes.
So based on your answers, I'm guessing you don't think there's much of a real difference between societal Generally Accepted Morality, political Generally Accepted Morality, corporate Generally Accepted Morality, and individual Generally Accepted Morality? Or not?
I'd threaten mayhem, but it would just be silly. "Ooooh, that Hereford Eye is gonna get a knuckle sandwich right in the monitor..."Originally Posted by Hereford Eye
But that's just it... this is a chicken and egg kind of question. In a democracy, do the morals we hold reflect politics, or do the morals of politics reflect ours? Technically, it's supposed to be the latter, and that's supposed to be a good thing. Yet we resist the very idea and think it disingenuous. Pandering...and socio-political morality is reflective of individual morality to the extent it will get the office holder re-elected.
I'm inclined to believe that our individual morality reflects the political system, not the other way around.
A joke, but still reflective of the above idea. In a democracy, politicians are supposed to reflect our values and uphold them. When they do, or when they do so with a group we disassociate ourselves from, we call LIAR! on them. And by extension, if they're liars to one, then they're liars to all. So we have a culture run by people whom we think are universally liars and cretins pandering for votes. Yet that's how the system is supposed to operate. So why the divide? Aren't we just kidding ourselves?nationalistic morality is directly equivalent to the efficacy of the sound-byte that will result divided by the sound bytes's probability of contributing to the re-election of the body politik.
I'm not sure I buy traditionalism in a single-party system as any more present than in a multi-party system. In any democracy, people usually vote for who they already are, not for something new. New is scary, old is comfortable. But which political system best represents a consistent moral system?nationalistic morality is directly correlated with the age of the body politik versus the age of the leaders of the authoritarian single party.
Westerners are more likely to be amoral? I highly disagree. Dissent is built into the system - it is allowable, tolerated. Therefore, socially amoral behaviour by definition exists to a lesser degree in Western societies. There is less room to be amoral.Are members of (western) democratic societies more or less likely to be amoral than members of (non-western) non-democratic societies? More...or less if you are a member of a non-democratic society.
By comparison, of course, our normal, allowable, moral behaviour is seen as amoral by others. Likewise for us looking at them.
And yet it seems that Western societies give rise to "Dexter"'s at much higher frequency... When there is less room to be amoral, do you have to go so much further to express the limits of morality?
In a Sadist sense, if to know evil is to know good, when we strip away most of what's evil how do we know good? Isn't it frightening and wrong that I find Dexter to be a sympathetic character? Or am I just screwy on that one...
So then the next question -- is it possible to exist without enforcing your individual moral code onto another? Is not language and speech itself, the two+ people who find a consensus, an act to determine moral bounds between "others"? Applied more globally then, is politics not simply interpersonal relationship on a grander and much less personal scale? Is politics perhaps not the vehicle through which we determine morality? Is your political party not really your denomination?When morality is classically the purview of religion, and the separation of church and state is to be desired, the political code co-opts morality exactly the same as the religions which it seeks to separate itself from?
"We just did what we thought was right..."
"Only time will tell..."
Grrrrrroooooooossssssssss...I've always had a thing for rabbit holes.
You know that language thing we're always talking about, how can we answer this question:Would we not be required to set up working definitions for each of the moralities we wished to compare? And if we did that, would we expect to discover significant differences? Since I strongly suspect my morality is not congruent with U.S.A. political morality, based on this sample of one, I'd say we should expect differences. OTOH, to the extent that each of the moralities is hinged on economics, perhaps we should expect fewer differences.I'm guessing you don't think there's much of a real difference between societal Generally Accepted Morality, political Generally Accepted Morality, corporate Generally Accepted Morality, and individual Generally Accepted Morality? Or not?
Though I'd be tempted to start with our Puritan heritage and its devotion to sex and to a work ethic, I have no better grounds for such a start other than my own intuition. BTW, do Canadians suffer from that Puritan heritage or have you managed to devise your own curse?
Hahahah!!! It's all of you damned Americans that's our curse!!!
Canadian -- definition: NOT American. We repeat: NOT BLOODY AMERICAN.
Otherwise, we're very similar
--------
As to the other part... Isn't that what we're hashing out? If Gary's original question holds merit, then it remains to be stated where that certain kind of morality flows from to produce the aesthetic moral individual. If morality, defined as the result of a social process, an economy, tells us what our moral "style" is,and whether or not its looks good, then does not the aesthetic consideration differ depending on the source?
If it doesn't differ much from the source, then it seems to me that aesthetic morality speaks to a universally held morality between all such sources. If that's the case, then what does it come from? Chicken or egg...
Historically, Religion/Politics/Corporation/Individual were all one and the same. Each piece was a part of the puzzle, but your role was determined by bloodline/heritage, and the entire economic system was morality. Morality is maturity is contribution is value is aesthetic.
Modern democracy has attempted to separate at least these 4 distinct categories from the overall economic system, and each now carries the burden of (apparently) self-determined morality and self-fashioned aesthetics. So is that even possible? It seems unlikely...
So I guess what I'm wondering most at this point is (if we assume that morality doesn't flow from God/Whatever and that there's no ideal state of morality) -- Outside of human-human interaction, does a single person have morals? Or, do morals only exist when two or more people arrive at a code of conduct?
If a single solitary person cannot be moral, then there is no aesthetic moral individual. Aesthetics could only be pinned to a system and interactions, not to a person.
Maybe...
Morality comes from individuals. That's why they change over time. I do not embrace the morality I was taught as a child though some aspects form part of what I am today. I was taught that killing is bad but I spent 20 years as a soldier and an offspring is still a soldier. So, I can't say that I think killing is wrong. I have lots of thoughts about the topic but believing it to be wrong, per se, is not one of them. Mostly, my morality came about through reading, living, and thinking about how what I read matched what I saw.
Now, The Lady Who Shares Her Life With Me grew up with the same background. Her morality, obivously influenced by me over 4 decades but not controlled by me, has evolved to a point not as far as I have gone but fairly distant from where she started.
Which means between the two of us, we have an operating code that has changed over time as we make our accomodations with each other and it probably will change again.
We both come from large families. There are some in both our families who have strayed not at all from the morality of their youth. That's why we try not to discuss religion and/or politics with some of our siblings. All it can do is hurt someone. So, is there a morality hiding in both sides willingness not to discuss issues on which we will not agree? Imagine politicians who practiced such behavior. Well, maybe we don't have to imagine them.
Economics is a study of incentives. In the ideal, it embraces no morality, jsut examines how we actually act. Can we base morality on how we all act? Well, if I am acting morally and you are acting morally and TLWSHLWM is acting morally, perhaps we can. It may well be a morality of compromises. And that ruins the aesthetic, doesn't it?
Social morality? TLWSHLWM has a coterie of friends from her place of employment. I have a few casual acquiantances and one pretty good friend. His spouse would be counted on the fundamentalist side of the scale and that's where his inclinations run but he tempers those inclinations with continuous study. Funny how the older we get the more willing we are to open books. He and I have raucous, interminable debates over morality. Afterwards, I suspect he re-enters the world he is more comfortable with. Another morality based on accomodation.
In sum, my experience leads me to believe that what passes as morality in our world is the instant accomodation among our individual moralities that occurs when we get together.
Morality is the question: 'Where should I stand?' answered with 'Why is it good to stand, where I stand' ;-)
Have fun
If morality is no more than aesthetics, transforming the world before us into the image of what we think it should be, and there is no right or wrong beyond that effort, in fact if right and wrong is defined BY that effort, then where does our image come from? And how radically can it change? We've seen atrocities occur historically, so it's clear that our vision of the future of man can be easily manipulated.
What makes killing a child wrong? What makes genocide wrong? What makes adultery wrong? What makes lying wrong?
Hmm... interesting take. I like it. Instantaneous Morality. Or is it more accurately Momentary Morality?
Either way, I think you're on to something. I've always said that stereotypes exist for a reason, and that stereotypes are how we learn. For some reason I never really thought to deliberately apply that idea to morality, but it makes total sense.
Although, the problem is regret, loss, and guilt. As emotional considerations, don't they require something more lasting than momentary morality? Or is it simply a case of mental skill -- if you can dissociate your present-self's morality from your past-self's morality and consider all moral decisions as momentary and equally valid, then you can get around guilt and regret. If you don't have the skill, you get the emotions...
That's very Vulcan.
I'd be interested to hear your take on killing versus murder. If you've been over it elsewhere, then nevermind -- I'll search it out. But you might have a thing or two to say... In the context of the original question, if morality is a proscriptive aesthetic consideration, where does death-dealing fit in?
Can you clarify what you mean by "image": Self perception? Perception of others? Perception by others? Historical perception? Cultural identifiers?
Are we talking the individuals, groups, cultures? Whose image?
Not quite what I was after: not instantaneous but morality for that instant. We bring whatever morality we have to the occasion and reach an operating code with whatever morality everyone else brought. Failure to reach an operating code usually turns fatal.
Killing versus murder.
Another case of instant morality. When an individual kills aother individual, the instant morality of the community in which the event happens determines whether the killing is good, bad, or indifferent. That's why there is such a concept as justifiable homicide.
Where morality comes from:
We learn from our environment. According to a source I recently came upon, our parents have little to do with how we turn out. It's our peers that make a difference. Either way, as we mature, as we begin to think for ouselves, then we decide what we are.
Take any common moral code. Its adherents conform to the code as long as they decide that's who they are. The moment they decide they are not that kind of person, they act as they decide. Ergo, morality is individual. Extapolating further, attempts to force a morality on individuals can only lead to violence.
That's why we believe we can hold one another responsible for our actions within the instant morality.
Damn! I just wrote a long and detailed response and the site crashed. It disappeared! ****.
Anyway, my definitions are wide open. But by image I'm referring to that ideal, vague and muddled as it may be, of what it means to be good in this world. For some this isn't a variable. For a fundamentalist it's written for them and it's a matter of simple aesthetics - follow the footsteps and shape yourself into that image, that ideal. For most though it is a variable and the word 'good' is an adjective, much like the word 'beautiful'.
Guilt becomes a function of not conforming to that ideal, that image, as does remorse etc. For some the variable is much more fluid, and in societies where freedoms are more restricted, it's obviously less so, and it's less a function of the individual's whim, psychology etc.
Killing vs murder? Aesthetics and semantics. Killing is an action, murder is an aesthetic evaluation.
See, this is a difficult way to think of it though. In an instant, it might seem like the best option is something that is considered wrong, and you can be punished for it after the fact. Relegating moral considerations to the instant, and allowing for fault and differing views, you wind up a with a relativist system where literally anything could be excused. All you have to argue is "hindsight is 20/20, but in the instant, this is what I considered..." If instant morality is allowable, then there really isn't much in the way of wrong unless you admit you knowingly committed wrong in the instant.
Did you steal that chocolate bar? Well, at the time I was justified in the instant because I was hungry. Oh Hungry? Oh Henry.
I dunno... No one likes reckless drivers. Is it ok for me to run them off the road? This is kinda what Dexter plays with, and I'm not sure "killing in the name of" can ever really be justified.Killing versus murder.
Another case of instant morality. When an individual kills another individual, the instant morality of the community in which the event happens determines whether the killing is good, bad, or indifferent. That's why there is such a concept as justifiable homicide.
War is an inevitability, but should never be considered as the wise and just course of action. It is "killing in the name of," which is only the dislocation of responsibility from the individual to the state. Which is especially tricky in democracy.
But then I guess this is why there's the jury system.
After many years of coaching and teaching, I have this nugget to offer: When asked to rank the most important authority figures in their lives, kids rate Coaches as #1, Teachers as #2, and Parents as #3. By time, kids spend slightly less than half their day at school, more than half their day at home, and maybe an hour or two in a sport or other activity. You can substitute sports for any other extracurricular activity and you get the same result. The influence kids think others have on their lives is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent with that person. Less time = more important.We learn from our environment. According to a source I recently came upon, our parents have little to do with how we turn out. It's our peers that make a difference. Either way, as we mature, as we begin to think for ouselves, then we decide what we are.
Friends occupy a middle ground, roughly equivalent to Teachers. Kids often rank friends from extracurriculars as closer than school friends, since most school friends are merely acquaintances. Friends who occupy both school and extracurricular life tend to become mirrors of each other, and as such peers of that sort as influential to the same extent as parents are individually to each child.
If you look at that developmentally, it's pretty easy to tease out why kids think this way. Less time makes each moment more significant and less humdrum. We all know that when you do what you love all day, you get bored of it more quickly. Listening to your favourite song over and over makes you tired of it sooner. So emphasis is placed on low-investment time. Passion is fleeting and occasional.
Nevertheless, who do we end up being the most like as adults? Those we spend the most time with... So the perception of importance is drastically different than the reality. We might take one or two values from people who influence our lives in short bursts, but we embody those who we spend most of our time with. It's not peers so much as "extended family" -- which includes inseparable friends.
I think morality can only be communal. I can't see how a solitary person would develop a moral sense separately from influence by others. Morality is essentially the code of anti-selfishness. Pure self interest is amoral because the purpose of morality to help us get along with others. Studies of feral children prove this pretty conclusively. Morality is developmental and concurrent with language.Take any common moral code. Its adherents conform to the code as long as they decide that's who they are. The moment they decide they are not that kind of person, they act as they decide. Ergo, morality is individual.
So explain Stockholm Syndrome...Extrapolating further, attempts to force a morality on individuals can only lead to violence.
And yet when we spend time with the villain, we develop sympathy for the devil. Is instant morality then what leads to misunderstanding? I think so...That's why we believe we can hold one another responsible for our actions within the instant morality.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks