Quote:
|
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.
|
Clarifications help. I do not see a necessary connection between self-interest and morals. I also do not see self-interest being above collective interest as being a moral choice. I would say that for those that make such decisions, it has nothing to do with morals.
Quote:
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.
|
Morals are morals. Self-interest is self-interest. I see them as distinct entities. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the connection you are positing. Could you explain it a bit?
Quote:
|
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).
|
This has little relation to the quote it responds to. Certain laws represent moral ideas, other merely represent arbitrary regulations designed to foster consistent cooperation between distinct individuals. The idea that people cite laws as their reasoning for not commiting crimes is inaccurate. Criminology and penology both illustrate that the law has no deterrant value, only the punishments attached to the law. You have Specific Deterrant and General Deterrant, Specific referring to that which deters an individual from a commiting a crime again, General Deterrance is that which deters society at large from commiting crime in general. Specific would be putting a criminal in jail, thus preventing them from commiting any further offenses against society at large. General deterrant is punishment in general sparking an avoidant repsonse in society at large.
Anyone that thinks law deter would do well to look to gun control. Gun control laws do not deter by themselves. Criminals still own guns in direct disregard of laws preventing felons from owning guns. Lack of enforcement of the myriad and redundant firearms laws undercut any sort of deterrance.
Quote:
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.
|
Tad accusatory there, then again I've done no better so I should not throw stones, eh? I do not ascribe my morals to others. I simply ask that they hold true to society's morals, and thus follow the social contract. You seem to wish to avoid being judgemental for some reason. You will note that I have avoided calling the person immoral, the act is fair game however. I'm not terribly certain why you would have so much trouble making the short leap to calling an action immoral. That is not judging a person, it is simply judging an act.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Nothing is inherently individual. The pervasive influence of society is such that you are influenced even in your perception of the world around you. I say further that morals are not individual simply because they do not, in any way, originate within the individual, they originate from the society and are then interpreted by the individual. I would say that your language supports this point.
You are quite correct in thinking that I'd taken your position to the logical end of radical freedom. I do agree though that the potential exists for radical interpretation.
Quote:
|
For you, it seems there is no difference. For me it is a matter of taking ownership of only that which is mine.
|
I can understand taking ownership of that which is yours, but I am not seeing why this should extend to being entirely indiscriminate outside yourself.