wilbjammin

Close: I would add that there are a lot more people like you out there than me. I would add that there are cultural moral standards and individuals do interpret morality. Then they have to choose for themselves if they wish to follow these standards of if they don't wish to. Following the standards without making an active choice is then an implicit choice. For most people who violate these standards (except sociopaths, which you do love to hearken on) there is a difficult moment of realizing that they are doing something other people would consider to be immoral. People tend to agree with their culture's morals because they make sense to them. I make judgements all of the time about what I would do if I were in another person's situation, but I am also sensitive to the fact that others don't value the same things as me, don't think the same, or may in fact be mentally ill.

Yeah, it is one step removed from solipsism. I can decide for myself with being presented with facts about a circumstance what I think I would do in another person's shoes, but I can't do that for them. That anyone would act against their own personal morals is a tough leap for me, also.

Well, I'd be pissed off. I'd think, "How could someone do this? This is sick." I'd have a lot of trouble trying to understand why they did it... and I probably could never figure it out. I could very possibly ruin my life, and I might never be able to forgive that person for doing it. I may wish that the person be locked away forever and have silent fantasies of torturing them for the rest of their lives. For me, this is so obviously against what I would call moral for myself, that calling it immoral would be ridiculous. It obviously would be immoral for myself. I guess my last post didn't make it clear enough for you, about what is included in my definition of what would be immoral to me. So, let me try it again:

"Immorality in my view, is only when I act against my personal morals. That is it."

At the same time, I am constantly discerning what I would do in other's circumstances. Would that be right for me, or wrong for me? and, of course, why? I think generally, when people say "oh my god, that is so immoral" what they are saying is that they don't understand how someone could do that, and for them it is absolutely wrong. It is the application of morals onto another and then making the assumption that if they didn't follow those morals then it was immoral - because they didn't do what you would do, or what the culture says you should do.

I think for you to understand me it would be helpful for you to think of it this way - those actions would be terribly immoral for myself.

To get back to the Social Contract, which seems to be tripping this up... it is the equalizer. It is there for people that want to act against the culture's morality, not the people that follow it (except to comfort them). The self-interest of many to have order and predictability in society gives the Social Contract some meat to it, if you will. For the many of us that don't want our cars stolen, mother's killed, dog's violated, and houses of worship bombed, we make laws protecting us for that happening. Additionally, I can debate with people and try to convince them that these are bad for whatever reason that I don't like them.

And that failure to feel what normal people would feel is what prevents them from caring. The actions are not immoral for them, because they don't care. The best I can say for it, is that they act amorally (defined as "Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong").

I have to assume that people violate the social moral code for personal moral reasons, or else they are not acting logically in the least. People do what they think is in their self-interest, though not necessarily always what they think is best for themselves. In any event, all decisions have choices and different value considerations. It might be easy to say, for instance, that there are exceptions to this, but I absolutely think there is not. For masochists, they get something out of hurting themselves, hurting themselves is right them them. For sadists, they get something out of hurting others, hurting others is right for them. For martyrs, they get something out of self-sacrifice, self-sacrifice is right for them. Etc etc. The exception to acting with intention is acting compulsively. Both may apply to any of these examples. (i.e. I intentionally or compulsively hurt others, and I get something out of it) Morals are implicit in this, because for themselves they are showing what is right or wrong for themselves through their actions.

No, just about everyone has a personal moral compass (sociopaths excluded, of course). Morals don't spontaneously appear, knowledge is a cultural creation. The decision to vary radically from social norms requires an individual of either an exceptional mind, insanity, or simple stupidity. And actually, I'm of the mind that most people do exactly that - most people's moral compasses align with the society and social compass they live in. Not that they should or shouldn't (though I think it is a good thing personally). They do.

Then they are quite an exception. It is an easy assumption that most police officers value order and duty and law. No need to screen for moral structure unless a sudden epidemic of police officers unconcerned with the safety of others emerges.

And it is provided. I cannot think of a single culture that ever existed in the world that did not have some sort of established moral principles that they operated under.

Only for the person involved. For myself there are many immoral actions, and others have demonstrated what those would be.

I don't know, if you don't like what I say, you don't have to keep responding to me. That's up to you. If my position doesn't "invite review and discourse", then you probably don't have anything left to say.

And if that's how you feel, why are you debating with a madman?

__________________
Innominate.