Quote:
|
I have a tendency to do that...
|
Is it because of communications difficulties, or because the root reasoning is difficult to grasp? I ask becuase I've been accused of such in the past. In my case, I determined that my writing style is obtuse.
Quote:
Ok, so then, you want to know perhaps, what is immoral then? (since I've said that I don't think even murder is necessarily immoral).
The answer is actually fairly simple. Immorality in my view, is only when I act against my personal morals. That is it.
|
Thus, a person could steal your car, murder your own mother, violate your dog, and bomb your house of worship, and you will still not consider them immoral? Let's turn the question around. Are those moral acts then?
Quote:
|
My point regarding your quotes was simply that even though I generally do follow the Social Contract, if there are at any times moments when I don't follow it, then I am not holding with the common morality... and I am ok with that. You didn't imply universal consistency, and I wanted to make damned sure that I didn't imply that either.
|
Right, understood, though it is still an odd way of expressing the idea.
Quote:
|
I find it difficult to think of a single act from another that I would deem to be immoral. Since I am not in that person's shoes, I imagine that in every case that the Social Contract is broken by someone it is because they value something about their morals over that of the system's morals. Then, even though the idea of what they've done may threaten me on a visceral level "I can't believe someone would do that and think it is ok", at the same time I can't get past thinking that the person actually thought it was ok enough to do (or compulsively couldn't stop themselves from doing). I would hope that most people would be against the idea of murder for the same reasons that I am, but if they're not I'm not going to judge them as immoral (because, for whatever reason, it is right for them).
|
I could understand this if you could not define what is moral. The idea being similar to the semi-famous California lawmaker that said, "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it". It sounds, however, as if you are simply either unwilling or unable to discriminate between moral and immoral.
Quote:
|
Since my scope for what is immoral and moral is limited to myself, defining for everyone else what is right and wrong for them is irrelevant.
|
This is one step removed from solipsism. If you claim to be incapable of definition and discrimination due to the limited perspective of individual existence, how do you relate? Why make argument for anything at all? Such a lack of perspective should, logically, lead to apathy and inaction simply because you cannot make any sort of discrimination between what is right or wrong in any given situation.
Quote:
|
I make exceptions for the mentally ill people that are incapable of making moral decisions. Quite simply - they didn't know any better. Sociopaths know what right and wrong is for society, and can't apply it to themselves.
|
Not "can't", it is "won't". The pathology of sociopathy shows consistently that the afflicted person chooses how to act. It is not that they are incapable of moral discrimination or moral action, it is that they choose immorality and then fail only to feel the common guilt, shame, and concern for consequence.
Quote:
|
But... arguing this any further is irrelevant because I don't have access to the inner-workings of people's minds and their moral structures that they operate under. I have to assume that everyone either breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons, or because of some mental breakdown that doesn't account for morality. Like Mersault in <u>The Stranger</u>, he killed the Arab, but it wasn't his intention. Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.
|
Wait, back up a second. First you say "I don't have access to the inner-workings of peple's minds" then you follow this with "I have to assume that everyone breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons". Please show how this logic works. I can't visualize the leap of intuition this took, nor can I fathom the tone of internal consistency. You also then state "Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.", and this makes zero sense to me.
I really do not follow when you absolve yourself of any need for discrimination out lack of perspective, then assert that breach of social contract is done by "everyone" for moral reasons.
Quote:
|
The Social Contract does. Nothing about how everyone chooses their morals (implicitely or explicitely) limits them and their society they are in from making agreements to protect themselves. Basically, a Social Contract attempts to create a series of freedoms-from (not freedoms-to) agreements. The 1st Amendment operates as a freedom-from speech repression, not the freedom-to speak freely. The Social Contract merely creates consequences for violating these freedoms - thus, added incentives for choosing the cultural morality. In actuality, we all have really long lists of freedoms-to and we cross a lot of things off of the list because we don't want to face the consequences... though truly we're permitted anything, we just may have to pay consequences for it. Thus - self-interest!
|
Okay, so self-interest is, and should be, your only guide and coach in morality, and you are okay with this. I'm sorry, but you have lost any veneer at all of credible awareness of the outside world. You are actually of the opinion that mankind should simply be turned loose on each other sans any sort of moral compass, in hopes that each will, of their own accord, decide to live and function in alignment with society and the social compass. This would be anarchy.
Were this idea true, we would have little need of law enforcement. Mankind would naturally police itself out of enlightened self-interest. A token police force would still be necessary to weed out the truly medically disadvantaged who are incapable of policing themselves. Luckily there would be no real need for a legal system to support this police force or prison system, as the police could simply terminate the existence of these poor diseased souls on the spot. If they are questioned as to their actions, they'd merely need to respond that they were following their internal moral guidelines, and were acting in consistence with same. As there would be no legal system necessary, internal moral consistency being intransigent defense, there would be no need for laws, per se. Sans laws, and other such hallmarks of society, we would exist as free as possible, needing only explain our internal moral consistency to justify any action. I will leave the obvious end product of such a society as an exercise to the reader.
Ever read any Chinese philosophy? Any of the "Confucianist" style writers? Amazing ideas on morality and ethics. There was a fascinating debate (can't find the bloody text I read both sides in, "Chinese Philosophy" was the name of the text, fat lot of good that does either of us) between two noted Chinese philosophers concerning the inherent nature of man. One argued that man was inherently good, and that strong leadership was required only to assist in bringing man together for great works. The other argued that man was inherently evil/selfish, and that strong leadership was necessary to keep man in line. Man's inherent lack of internal moral compass meant that external persuasion must need be provided. Excellent debate over the course of a few hundred years. I'll try and find the damned book. It's somewhere in my towering stacks...
Quote:
|
Law enforcement is necessary for a society that wants to have order and relative safety. I think police officers can be very effective if they followed by belief that the only thing you can call immoral are actions that you do that violate your personal morals. Thus, a police office can, if he believes that someone is violating another's safety and has a personal moral for himself or herself that safety is important, act to enforce safety. I personally believe that law should be based on what legislatures believe is the greater good for all society, but I understand that most laws favor a certain privileged few. The legislative branch is designed for people to discuss and make decisions in an open forum to create their own personal ideal society. Some legislatures value the greater society as a whole more than personal wealth, power, etc... others don't. In any event, all legislatures operate in what they believe their best interests are in conjunction with their morals.
|
What if the police officer does not consider it moral to protect others? Must a police department screen its' prospective officers deeply for moral structure as well?
Quote:
|
Laws are essentially arbitrary because the people who make the laws can't possibly make laws that benefit absolutely everyone equally. There is nothing wrong with this. As long as one lives in a society with a legislature, they will have to put up with judgement calls being made for them on their behalf. There is nothing necessarily immoral or moral about this process, it simply is a device created by people to create order that has been successful because more people find it in their best interests to follow this system than to not.
|
Agreed, to an extent, and this is why I put in the "legal is not inherently moral" line in the original question. I have already mentioned the gulf between legal and moral.
Quote:
|
I could write more, but I think I've answered the essence of your newest line of questioning. I understand that I probably haven't been perfectly clear in explaining myself and I hope this helps.
|
The only thing it has truly helped me see is that it is increasingly clear that we have no common ground in which to communicate. Your base, underlying understanding of the concepts we are discussing is so very different from mine, and I would not hesitate to say different from the common realization of the concepts, that I am not certain further discussion is meaningful. I have argued morality from a basically Utilitarian standpoint of morality being necessary for the greater good. You have argued for total moral relativism on every level out of lack of perspective, and to such an extent as to being entirely unwilling to call even the most base and heinous actions immoral. Insofar as morality is concerned, we might as well be speaking different languages.
Let's review.
Me: Society determines morality. Individuals interpret morality. Moral relativism is acceptable across cultural lines as we are ill-informed of the conditions under which morality arose in other cultures distinct from ours.
You: Individuals determine morality whole cloth. I lack the perspective to be able to discriminate and judge, thus all morality is relative and of equal value.
My position invites review and discourse. Yours removes differentiation and thus devalues morality as a concept entirely, making further discussion basically irrelevant.
Is there any reason to continue?