I took a while to respond because I went out of town and I wanted to think a while before I responded.
Quote:
|
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.
|
All discriminations are applications of perception placed on the external world. You apply your feelings on what is outside of you; even though this has an external focus it is still an internal process. I told you before that I would call certain acts "immoral" for myself. That's the best I can do, and it is very significant discrimination for me. For me to say that I would not do something myself means that I would choose that for all mankind.
Quote:
|
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.
|
When people choose, they choose what they think is good. In this sense I don't think there are hardly any decisions we make in any day that fit do not this definition, except for those decisions where we aren't sure if we made the right choice. In any event, we always choose what we think is the best for something. All choices in effect are moral choices. But, for the sake of simplicity, I would say that real moral choices that are worthy of any note are those that involve real opportunity costs of some sort. Choosing self-interest in any circumstance over any other concern is a moral decision that says, "it is not worth giving up what I am getting". Is this not the essence of moral decision-making? - What is the decision that creates the most good (or the most valuable good)? I can't imagine that choosing self-interest is not a moral decision unless the person making the decision, for whatever reason, has a psychological limitation that prevents them from looking at other options (in which case there was no decision, as there was one option) or sociopathology (in which case they don't care - and thus the decision is amoral).
I tried really hard to buy into your idea that "moral are morals" and that "self-interest is self-interest" and that they're totally unconnected, but I think they're totally connected. Choosing the self is a sort of absolute affirmation. I see political decisions that favor certain individuals and cringe, yet, I understand these people are acting within their interests and they probably even believe that they're doing the right thing - and if they know that they're doing something wrong, the good outweighs it! The good always outweighs the bad in every decision for the individual by their standards (conscious or not). We may totally disagree with those standards and with the decision, but they can be understood with some work usually. And if they cannot be understood, it doesn't really matter since we didn't make the decision. I definitely want to understand every time I'm presented with a moral difference between myself and another; even if I can't agree with their logic, I want to understand it. And, one again, if the decision was a threat to society, then society will act against it.
Quote:
<small>Me:</small> 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).
<small>You:</small> 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.
|
Laws are enforced, this alone proves the value of them. People do site laws all of the time to not do something, though I know that it doesn't deter many criminals from their trades to say "the law says don't steal". Laws have punishments attached to them ("don't steal or you'll go to jail for a long time!"), so we aren't in disagreement there. Enforcement is written into the laws, it is part of the equation - part of the social relevance. Thinking of Mexico or other places that have corrupt police, laws take on a quite different social significance.