Quote:
|
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.
|
I see your point - I'm likely to say now, on further reflection, that many violations of a social contract are also done for amoral reasons. This may be turning into an argument of semantics, but the differences do make enough of a difference to me to note them. I would say that a violation of the social moral code for reasons of self-interest is a moral decision. In each case that self-interest is chosen above collective interests, then one is demonstrating a moral value of the self over others.
Sartre - "When you choose, you choose for all mankind"
This quote has had a significant effect on my life and perception since I've read it. I would say to those who value self-interest at the expense of others selfish, and that they're demonstrating a moral stance that I don't agree with for myself.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Laws represent moral ideals. Laws preventing murder or stealing shows that a society values life and property. Religion, ethics, and other standard forms of communication present moral ideals also. People site laws all of the time as a key reason not to do something. Their preventative function lies in their social relevence. Our culture ascribes high social relevence to many laws. Additionally, laws are definitive, when in doubt anyone in a society can turn to its laws (granting they are enforced).
Quote:
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.
|
I don't ascribe my morals onto other people. It wasn't easy to get to this point, but it feels healthier to me. I know what I like and don't like, and don't expect others to be on the same page with me. This goes along with my feeling that every connection I make to things outside of myself are self-contained. Meaning is metaphorical - actions, sights, sounds, etc have meaning because the connections we make. I feel much more comfortable and free keeping my connections as my own. It gives me ownership of my existence in a way that I thrive on, and it helps me immensely with my creativity.
You can make generalizations and tell others how immoral they are, I just don't find it helpful or meaningful to myself. For me to call an act any person makes "immoral" for them is simply a hollow statement for me.
Quote:
|
Neither can I. Though this comment [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.] causes me to wonder at your position that morals are inherently individual.
|
Morals are inherently individual because we all must decide for ourselves, either implicitly or explicitly, to agree to these principles. I think you may have gotten the impression from me that people are radically free in the endeavor to choose their morals, but I think the constraints created by society to promote its morals make stepping out of the box exceptionally hard cognitively. In theory, we are radically free; in practice, not so much. The potential is there for all of us, however, to be radicals with our moralities.
Quote:
<small>Me: </small>That anyone would act against their own personal morals is a tough leap for me, also.
Why is it a tough leap then?
|
Because it involves someone making a decision that provides absolutely no benefit to anything. I mentioned masochists in the last post, they gain something out of hurting themselves. Is there anything that anyone does that provides nothing for the self, society, or other? And a philosophy that promoted such action - that would be truly original.
Quote:
<small>Me: </small>Only for the person involved. For myself there are many immoral actions, and others have demonstrated what those would be.
And the difference is?
|
For you, it seems there is no difference. For me it is a matter of taking ownership of only that which is mine.