Quote:
Originally posted by wilbjammin
Ah, now I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. I am a champion of choice, a perennial existentialist above anything else. I choose, and would choose for all mankind... that is, I find that my morality and actions backing up my morality are what I would choose for anyone else if I were in their shoes. I would prefer that others gain their moralities through Good Faith, but I accept it when they don't. I can think of many "morally deficient" actions that I would be indifferent to or maybe even have support of.
|
This presents three scenarios, in the macrotic view. First is that you are morally deficient. Second is that you are morally apathetic (ie you know wrong from right but do not care enough to bother yourself with it). Third is that....
Damn. Lost my train of thought. Do NOT try to argue philosophy the Morning After.
*time passes*
Nope, still not coming up with it. Damn. Moving on.
Quote:
"There is no justice; there are only limits" - Albert Camus
We do not have radical absolute freedom, and yet I don't feel personally bound by anything to follow standard cultural morality and attempt to impact structural change if I find something I do not wish to follow. Of course, generally I follow standard cultural morality out of convenience and agreement, and there are some things I am willing to work towards creating social change for. Ha, I guess you could say that my "moral deficiency quotient" is low... but it does exist and do not abhor it in the least, in myself or others (even if their "moral deficiency quotient" is high).
|
You are, by the comments in this paragraph, holding true to the Social Contract. As I said earlier, I don't care why you hold true with common morality, only that you do.
Quote:
|
If I disagree with the action (meaning I think to myself, "I would not do that personally"), this only helps me decide for myself. We tend to like macro-level morality because it does ensure property protection (including that of personal safety). I agree that I like these things generally, but there are exceptions. I think of "Do the Right Thing" when Mookie breaks the window in the pizzaria and starts a riot. This would be a morally deficient act that I don't have a problem with. I wouldn't personally do it, I didn't think it was particularly helpful in any way, macro-culture wouldn't like it, but the choice was his. Or to address your Manson Family example, I personally disagree with what they've done, but I understand that they made a moral choice that had meaning for them. I don't like it, but I don't view it was immoral either.
|
You have contradicted yourself. How can one be a self-proclaimed champion of choice, yet consider murder to not be immoral? Is not murder the ultimate denial of choice? When someone is murdered, every choice in their life has been denied from that point forward, yet to you, it is not immoral. I cannot fathom this sort of... I cannot even facetiously call it "reasoning".
Quote:
|
Like your example of traveling to another country, I don't like child abuse, and my feelings may have me acting against it, but I understand that the person who abuses children does it because he or she thinks that is the right thing to do or does it compulsively (needing mental help).
|
Needind mental help? Why? If their actions are not immoral, why would you think they need help? If the are being consistent within their own view, what makes you consider them candidates for mental help? I am again thinking that you are being inconsistent here.
Quote:
|
All there are is are choices and consequences. Morality is a representation of the interaction between action and beliefs. Right and wrong is still determined by the individual. Stepping in line with the macro-culture is as valid as stepping out of line with the macro-culture... the only difference is that there may be some hard consequences for stepping out of line. I understand your feelings on the matter, it just doesn't ring true to me.
|
You have said, in this paragraph, precisely what I have said in earlier posts, barring the validity comment as I've not made any sort of validity arguments. I am unsure as to why you consider my statements untrue.
My turn to ask questions.
Do you consider your laissez faire atitude towards morality to be healthy?
Do you think that more people should hold true to your attitude towards morality?
Do you think your culture would be a better lace if everywhere had your attitude towards morality?
Do you think your culture could survive with your attitude towards morality?