Quote:
|
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.
|
I do tend to mention sociopaths a bit. Reason for this is the profusion of casework done to explore this particular disorder, and the implications it has on the study of morals.
From this paragraph, it certainly sounds asif we have a strong command of the other's position.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Why is it a tough leap then?
Quote:
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.
|
For the first time, you sound actively human. Your tone, prior to this, was of such profound detachment that I could only think that it was A) feigned, or B) a deficiency/disorder of its' own. I am glad to see that you would find these acts reprehensible even if you cannot bring yourself to consider them immoral. Personally, I see acts that I consider immoral and call them such, as I am perfectly willing to make generalisations. If need be, I can retract or make exception on a case-by-case basis. I feel safe in calling murder immoral, period, and still have standing challenge to disprove that point.
Frankly, you have danced around calling any particular immoral act "immoral". It has gotten to the point where I am beginning to consider argument by semantics. You've said the above actions sicken you, piss you off, and are unforgivable, yet will not label them immoral. I see semantics lurking in the wings.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We do not make laws to protect us from these actions. We make laws to proscribe these actions and then make retribution against those who've trespassed. Laws do nothing to prevent. We protect ourselves from these actions by preventing them, and the best method of prevention is instilling of morals, ethics, and fear of consequence. Your cultures morals are what protect you, your culture police and laws merely avenge you and assist in gaining redress.
Quote:
|
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").
|
Semantics. You call the person "amoral". I call their action "immoral".
Quote:
|
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.
|
I still do not see why you think people violate the social contract for personal
moral reasons. Had you said, "violate the social moral code for reasons of self-interest" we would be in agreement. You have yet to show how a persons morals would motivate them to break social contract in every situation. I can see certain rare situations, but cannot explain how morals cause a vandal to tag a school wall, for instance.
Quote:
|
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.
|
We are in agreement here.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Neither can I. Though this comment causes me to wonder at your position that morals are inherently individual.
Quote:
|
Only for the person involved. For myself there are many immoral actions, and others have demonstrated what those would be.
|
And the difference is?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I always have something left to say simply become I'm almost compulsively argumentative and tenacious. I just said that further discussion might be meaningless. You have, however, endeavoured to make certain positions more clear, and this slightly changes the nature of the argument. It may have salvageable meaning, though of course neither of us are likely to modify base standing even slightly.
Quote:
|
And if that's how you feel, why are you debating with a madman?
|
See "almost compulsively argumentative" etc above. I do believe I explained the "madman" comment that you are inferring the existence of.