Quote:
|
I took a while to respond because I went out of town and I wanted to think a while before I responded.
|
No sweat. S'what I figured.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You really did take that Sartre concept to heart.
So, if you choose for all mankind, and you think something is immoral for you, why are you still unwilling to call an action immoral? Perhaps I am missing the logic, but it would seem that if you choose for all mankind, then you are entirely capable of declaring an action immoral simply by virtue of the fact that it is an immoral action if you were to perform it.
Quote:
|
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 would disagree, I would say that when a person chooses amongst options, they chose to avoid pain. A homeless man that chooses to spend his last few ducats on wife is not making a moral decision, he is merely chooses to avoid pain by becoming insensate enough to ignore his suffering. A child that steals candy is not choosing to perform a good action, merely taking the action to assuage the pain of wanting something that she cannot have. Pain avoidance decisions are not moral decisions by necessity.
I think where I am having the issue is that I see a moral decision as being a decision made based on moral questions. In other words, a moral decision is a decision that is made after weighing whether or not the various sides being weighed and compared are done so using the scale of moral value. "Yes, taking that woman's purse might allow me to avoid the pain of having to actually work to support my habits/lifestyle, but I will not take it as it is wrong to do so". This would be an example of a moral decision. "Hmm, the stovetop is on fire. My hand is in the fire. Better pull it out before it is consumed and I am maimed." This would be an example of a simple pain-avoidance/self-interest decision that has nothing to do with morals.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I will try another tack. Morals are morals, self interest is self interest. Self-interest is concerned with only one thing, the self, and thus usually self-contained and internal. While it affects the way you interact on a daily basis, it is not entirely defined by yor conduct towards others. Morals, however, are defined by your actions, and are only relevant in relation to other individuals. Morals, in essence, are other-interest as opposed to self-interest, as morals generally govern your conduct towards other people.
Does that make the difference more clear?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Punsihment, of varying sorts, is the only thing whatsoever that gives the law its' relevance. People may cite laws as reasoning for deciding not to perform an action in the interests of selfish needs, but it is the punsihment they fear and what actually motivates them. Think back to your youth. It is highly likely that either you, or one of your peers, was this sort of person. You may hear that your mother forbids you to play on the railroad tracks, but what you fear is the punishment she will mete out if you are caught on the railroad tracks. Without that unspoken threat of punishment, you, or a peer, were likely to be unconcerned about what the parent wants.Punishment is the General Deterrant.
I've actually studied a bit of criminal psychology, criminal justice, penology, and deviant behaviour. It is rather enlightening, in a dark way, to gain greater understanding of those people what do not posses anything close to the moral compass you or I have. You learn quite a bit about what motivates the human psyche when morals fail, as well as learning what happens when proper moral socialization simply does not take place. It is a paradigm shift for some people.