Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 03-19-2005, 09:54 AM

will--

in your second response, you repeat the problem i have been trying to address: morality is a particular way of framing social norms. the entire post above about nietzsche addressed this, i do not see the two terms as identicai--i basically am asking you to demonstrate, somehow, why you would think they are.

written law is also a particular historical development. written law, social norms and morality are not like three sets you can lay over each other and thereafter see as identical. this should be obvious.

that a social subject would internalize the rules of behaviour that obtain at a particular period is also self-evident---they are elements within a broader rationality (in weber's sense) that would enable a social subject (an "inidividual") to function at all.
morality does not account for all of rationality. it simply does not. there are a myriad ways of interacting with others, with the world, that are structured socially but are not linked in any direct way to "morality"

i too operate within the rationality that obtains in the context within which i find myself. so i have not killed many folk of late. because of my relation to this same grid, i probably would not do it in a war situation either--a context in which the dominant "morality" would sanction killing others.

what is right and wrong is a function of how inside and outside a community is defined---so for hundreds of years, it might have been right for memebers of one kinship network to kill members of another over some grievance, becaue this boundary would be mapped along the boundaries of the kinship network. the prohibitions on killing do not follow from an absolute prohibition on killing--rather they are shaped by the boundary inside/outside, which is a social-historical variable. if you play the right/wrong game, then you run into all kinds of problems: capital punishment or war in the present, the state's "monopoly on legitimate violence" in general--historically the actions of the inquisition, of european colonialism, the american genocide of native populations, on and on and on.

lots of societies have understood right and wrong differently than you might will. maybe that is because the idea that there is anything like an absolute on this is a particular philosophical perversion.

03-19-2005, 09:54 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	will-- in your second response, you repeat the problem i have been trying to address: morality is a particular way of framing social norms. the entire post above about nietzsche addressed this, i do not see the two terms as identicai--i basically am asking you to demonstrate, somehow, why you would think they are. written law is also a particular historical development. written law, social norms and morality are not like three sets you can lay over each other and thereafter see as identical. this should be obvious. that a social subject would internalize the rules of behaviour that obtain at a particular period is also self-evident---they are elements within a broader rationality (in weber's sense) that would enable a social subject (an "inidividual") to function at all. morality does not account for all of rationality. it simply does not. there are a myriad ways of interacting with others, with the world, that are structured socially but are not linked in any direct way to "morality" i too operate within the rationality that obtains in the context within which i find myself. so i have not killed many folk of late. because of my relation to this same grid, i probably would not do it in a war situation either--a context in which the dominant "morality" would sanction killing others. what is right and wrong is a function of how inside and outside a community is defined---so for hundreds of years, it might have been right for memebers of one kinship network to kill members of another over some grievance, becaue this boundary would be mapped along the boundaries of the kinship network. the prohibitions on killing do not follow from an absolute prohibition on killing--rather they are shaped by the boundary inside/outside, which is a social-historical variable. if you play the right/wrong game, then you run into all kinds of problems: capital punishment or war in the present, the state's "monopoly on legitimate violence" in general--historically the actions of the inquisition, of european colonialism, the american genocide of native populations, on and on and on. lots of societies have understood right and wrong differently than you might will. maybe that is because the idea that there is anything like an absolute on this is a particular philosophical perversion. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-19-2005 at 10:00 AM..