Moral relativism vs. absolutism

[rainheart]

So there's already a couple of threads on this as far as I know, one is apparent here and the other was from like half a year ago and I wanted to start a fresh thread on this topic.

My question is- which is superior over the other? Moral relativism or absolutism?

More importantly, why?

I'm taking an extremely dumbed-down phil. course and they handed us this article on moral relativism and absolutism, here is an excerpt:

Pretext:

Suppose a woman in Mali (in West Africa) named Mrs. Diarra helps circumcise her 3-month-old baby daughter. Her moral principle is that she should help her daughter abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage, and even then reaize it is not a source of pleasure. In addition, imagine that a Frenchwoman named Mrs. Robert learns of the operation. Mrs. Robert is a moral relativist, so she says Diarra did the right thing, for Diarra, although it would not be right for Robert. Robert's conscience tells her that she should not mutilate her daughter's genitals, with or without anesthesia, no matter what the traditions are. So Robert's view is that the very same action -- female circumcision -- was morally right for the woman in Mali, but would be morally wrong for herself in France. In fact, Diarra was admirable for doing what she believed was right. But the idea of doing the same thing to her own daughter she feels is repugnant and horrifying. She has different values and moral standards.

Dillema:

“Imagine (hypothetically) that Mrs. Diarra was baby-sitting for Mrs. Robert, the French relativist, and she decided to circumcise Mrs. Robert’s daughter, “for her own good.” (In African countries friends and family, not only the child’s mothers, often perform the operation.) What would the relativist say about that?”

My own personal response to this dillema:

What do we call the act of imposing what we believe to be morally right on others? Moral absolutism. By circumcising Mrs. Robert’s daughter, Mrs. Diarra is imposing what she believes to be right onto Mrs. Robert. Here it is absolutism that creates the conflict, not relativism. Had Mrs. Diarra been a sensible moral relativist this conflict would not have taken place.

The question here is what the definitive jurisdiction of someone with a certain set of moral beliefs is over certain matters.

The answer to the question I end my response with, I do not know.

Another excerpt from the article:

“Therefore in this case, the relativist must say female circumcision is right and wrong at the same the same time. Mrs. Diarra did something that was right and wrong. But that statement makes no sense. It is like saying someone is, and is not, pregnant, or the entire line is straight and also curved.”

Again, my personal response:

Which begs the question- what is right and wrong to begin with? A straight line and a curved line are clear-cut but right and wrong is open to interpretation. Pregnancy is the state of carrying developing offspring within your body, and it is not open to interpretation. You cannot be pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. But yes, you can be wrong and right based on different sets of morality.

The question that must be asked is what the function of morality is, why we refrain from doing certain things because they are “immoral”. After that has been defined you can then decide if relativism or absolutism is more correct over the other.

I think I could argue endlessly for both cases if I felt like it, but it's 2:30 am and even though I'm not tired I want to go to sleep, so I will leave the rest to you.

[datalink7]

Moral Realitivism is fact. Morals are realative to the individual.

But we should operate to a certain degree on moral absolutism. We can't just say "well, whatever somebody else does is alright because for them it might be moral."

No.

If it is immoral to me I'll do something to stop it, irregardless of whether you think it is moral or not.

I would go way more in depth but it is late (as you said).

[Kyo]

- Read this thread: http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=36455

“Therefore in this case, the relativist must say female circumcision is right and wrong at the same the same time. Mrs. Diarra did something that was right and wrong. But that statement makes no sense. It is like saying someone is, and is not, pregnant, or the entire line is straight and also curved.”

- Incorrect. It is similar to saying that someone who is traveling near the speed of light experiences the passage of time at a slower rate relative to someone who is not in motion.

- The key idea behind relativism is perspective. Each person must necessarily believe in their own morals, and act accordingly. However, the relativist recognizes that others may have different morals, and that they are acceptable people other than themselves. The absolutist states that there exist no other correct morals, and that there is one universal set of ethical guidelines that all must follow.

- A moral absolute does not exist because there does not exist any being who can determine this absolute. Even if many, many people are agreed upon one set of morals, they lack the moral authority (or superiority) to claim that their morals are somehow more correct than anyone else's.

- As stated before, one can only act upon one's own morals. Conflicts arise when the morals of different people are in disagreement, or when one person's 'morals' are inconsistent.

[Jdoe]

Originally posted by Kyo
- A moral absolute does not exist because there does not exist any being who can determine this absolute. Even if many, many people are agreed upon one set of morals, they lack the moral authority (or superiority) to claim that their morals are somehow more correct than anyone else's.[/B]

This comes to the heart of the debate between those who believe in God and the moral laws passed down from an infinite being to finite beings and those who believe there is no such being of any kind. I do not think discussing my belief in God in relation to this thread would do much unfortunately. The TFP Philosophy area is very anti-Christian in a large portion.

Jdoe

[CSflim]

Ultimately, it comes back to religion.

Atheists are almost always moral relativists.

Whereas there probably are some atheistic moral absolutists, I don't think that their beliefs would stand up to much scrutiny. Absolutism simply cannot be justified in a godless world.

Anyone with Christian beliefs holds absolutism to be true.
It is possible to be a theist and still hold onto moral relativism, but most religions that deal with morality in any kind of way tend to push absolutism.
"Non-personal" god based religions have no need for absolutism.

It may seem that I am sadly, forcing this thread down the dead end which is "religion v.s. atheism", but hopefully we can avoid all of that in this thread.
However, I do see that the relativism/absolutism argument is indeed inextricably linked to religion.

So perhaps while avoiding the issue of whether God exists or not, we can focus on how the two moral philiosophies are related to the concept of God (real or imaginary).

BTW: The quoted text rainheart posted is just blatant ignorance and misrepresentation.
It is essentially a reductio ad absurdum argument, but based entirely on fallacy.
Taking the tennants of relativism, she attempts to derive a "contradiction", proving that the original premise was flawed.
But this is entirely missing the point (more than likely on purpose).
that something is "right and wrong at the same time" is not a contradiction at all. Certainly stated as is, it may sound like one, but not only does it not do any dammage to relativism, in fact that is exactly what relativism is!

[cliche]

The thing with relativism is there's an inherent "for X" attached to every statement you make.

"female circumcision is wrong" sounds like an absolutist statement; but can easily be relativist if you assume the "female circumcision is wrong for X" where X represents those people who agree with that moral philosophy.

What Mrs Diarra does is right for her, and wrong for Mrs Robert - it's not 'right and wrong at the same time' so much as right, or wrong, depending on the philosophy involved.

In life we tend to have similar philosophies (eg who agrees with "murder is wrong"?) so we can dispense with the multiple "Murder is wrong for me; murder is wrong for you..." and just call it plain wrong. However, I'd doubt that anyone we call evil really agrees that they are evil - they simply have a different moral code (one which is "wrong for us").

I like your personal response:

What do we call the act of imposing what we believe to be morally right on others? Moral absolutism. By circumcising Mrs. Robert’s daughter, Mrs. Diarra is imposing what she believes to be right onto Mrs. Robert. Here it is absolutism that creates the conflict, not relativism. Had Mrs. Diarra been a sensible moral relativist this conflict would not have taken place.

As you say, enforcing our morals upon others can be a great source of conflict (and there I end before making inflammatory comments about the world today! )

[Kyo]

- The West in general has found the method of War and economic tyranny to be an excellent way of imposing their morals on others.

[81h]

Anyone consider objectivism?

The answer to what are morals? is always going to be: selfish actions.

They are universal. Morality is absolute and universal, but no being has to outline what is or is not, all humans and only humans can understand morality since morality only matters to rational beings. So humans using reason can determine what is moral, since morality is a part of reality. This is a complex philosophy, but Ayn Rand is the founder of it; I am sure it is the one and only correct philosophy, it is without faith and it is all logically determined. I have studied it for a couple years and just now I have been able to apply it to everything.

Morals are universal. There are never conflicts of interest.

Circumsizing your daughter is universally immoral, but mostly unnecessary.

[Moonduck]

Hmm, I would agree with Moral Relativism on the Macro-scale, and heartily argue against it on the Micro-scale. In other words, different and distinct cultures may have utterly different morals. They prove the fitness of their morals by the time-tested method of survival as culture. In such case, they are completely entitled to their own morality, and its' inherent relative worth is a non-issue.

On the micro-scale, moral relativism between beings within the same culture is simply an excuse to wallaow in immorality and thumb one's nose at convention. We exist in society at the mercy of the Social Contract - I agree to give up certain freedoms so that I may reap the rewards of membership within my chosen society. If I choose to live in America, then I must follow overall American morality. Same can be said of any culture.

I do not accept child abuse, for example, as being morally correct. Yet it is a common practice in many areas of the world. That may be so there, but here, I will call the cops, social services, and take whatever legal steps I can to personally prevent such an action. I will also be well within the overall moral structure of my chosen culture. If I, on the other hand, travel to another area and interfere in the cultural mores of said area on the micro-scale then I violate their local mores and have erred. I may dislike it, and my mores may require action, but I am not legitimate if I call them immoral.

[wilbjammin]

On the micro-scale, moral relativism between beings within the same culture is simply an excuse to wallaow in immorality and thumb one's nose at convention. We exist in society at the mercy of the Social Contract - I agree to give up certain freedoms so that I may reap the rewards of membership within my chosen society. If I choose to live in America, then I must follow overall American morality.

People violate the Social Contract all of the time... and a lot of people that don't violate the Social Contract don't do it because they feel morally obliged to, it is just easier to do that. Where do Thoreau or MLK fit into this theory. They broke the laws willingly for a greater moral issue in their eyes. People do this all of the time. You can claim that as a whole American culture has certain moral values, but those kinds of generalities can significantly ignore large parts of the population or attribute logic behind actions that have no basic moral inclinations behind them (i.e. mentally ill, when children make choices, when something unintentionally does something that violates their own morals, etc). Generalities ignore individual choices, and all people make choices about what they value and what they would do to support those values. Whether they simply adopt what everyone else does or not, doesn't matter. It is still a choice, and, as such, everyone essentially decides on their own what their morals are. To call differences between moralities of a defined macro-culture and people within a culture as "wallowing in immoralities" suggests that the macro-culture is always right. I find it hard to believe that anything created by people for peopel to live by are always right, or else we'd have a single world government by now, living in a bland distopia free from individuation.

[Moonduck]

You are rapidly heading towards argument by definition. ie "define moral".

MLK and Thoreau both worked in the macro-scale. MLK did not set out to break laws simply out of convenience. He sought to modify the macro-scale morality of his chosen culture. Thoreau did the same, in his way.

You seem to read what I say as implying that the culture is always right and then, by extension, should be unchangable. You are wholly incorrect. Cultures are constantly evolving, as is morality. Those that act to change the greater scale of morality are actually properly functioning within the culture as agents of change and upkeep.

I don't care what an individual's reasoning is behind the decision to follow Social Contact. All I care is that they do. I don't want misanthropes living next door to me, and I am certain that you do not either. Your culture defines your expected mores simply by enforcing what your culture wishes to see, be it by social pressure (scorn, derision, social exile) or by force (legal pressure, arrest, actual law enforcement pressure).


I invite you to read what I posted once more. I spoke not of motivation. I spoke not of change. I spoke not of choice. I merely attempted to expand the discussion by making blatant the difference between moral relativism between cultures, and moral relativism between individuals. One is generally healthy, the other a sign of deficiency.

Overall American morality does not ignore significant portions of the populace. It includes it perfectly fine. The portions that I am assuming that you are speaking of either choose not to follow overall morality, or are paying too much attention to specific highly vocal minorities attempting to foist a more restrictive morality on the populace at large.

[wilbjammin]

If individuals can operate on their own in the macro-scale, then I'm failing to understand the difference between the micro-scale and the macro-scale.

It all sounds rather Hegelian to me, as though we're on a path then to a <i>perfectable</i> history in that the moralities that emerge in the end are strongest for humankind because they've won out. As a sort of morality-Darwinism:

They prove the fitness of their morals by the time-tested method of survival as culture.

I'm having great difficulty with this concept because of how abstract the individual becomes. People fighting against some moral issue and wanting change are "wallowing in immorality" until they create a significant macro-change and then they are normal agents of a non-static morality system? I find that our society has confusing and contradictory morals as well (individualism and consumerism vs. social security and charity). I guess you'd say that it is irrevelant how those work against each other and with each other, because as we can see on a macro-level how these work relatively to other cultures.

But, if individuals can affect change within a macro-culture by standing up against mores and creating a consciousness shift, then moral relativism by individuals within a culture isn't a sign of deficiency, but rather, is totally natural and healthy regardless of what the change is (esp. given that the inherent relative worth of a macro-level morality is null). The Civil Rights movement started off very small and with a lot of resistance with outright claims of injustice and immorality... the people involved at the beginning went through a lot of troubling times, even against people within their own culture (imagine going through lunch lines being told "how dare you" by a fellow black woman whose rights you are trying to help expand). Change is caused by individuals; individuals choose for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" (or "evil). The only downside to this is that crimes (as socially defined) happen, ultimate safety is never reached, and the threat of reverting to the state of nature remains constant, always, everywhere in the world.

What is right for one culture can be wrong for another, and wars break out over it (for instance, the practice of expansionism, colonialism, religious differences, etc). What is right for one individual can be wrong for another, and conflict can break out over it within a culture or between cultures. There are, indeed, pressures put upon people to abide by whatever Social Contract they're under, and that pressure creates cognitive dissonance when someone can't agree to something that everyone else says they're supposed to. When I see people committing "crimes" against moral standards in either direction (things I agree with or disagree with) I'm understanding of it, I expect it to happen more than just occassionally. When this creates misanthropes, I find it perfectly understandable and it doesn't bother me. This may threaten a Hobbesian ideal of the fundamental goal of a governed society to provide safety, but safety is truly illusory. And for all of my cognitive energy, I can't find order and protection to be a universal ideal for everyone, and, as such, I can't agree with moral relativism to be a sign of deficiency when present between individuals .

Moral relativism between individuals is the key towards diversity and making existence meaningful on a personal level. I do understand the limitations of freedom of thinking on the macro-level, because the culture we live in provides us with context... but from that context we still choose, and agree or disagree, and are willing or unwilling to act against the "system". Finding values for oneself is a journey we all make... either in deference and submission or in resistance and rebellion. The only thing that I can imagine that prevents moral relativism for being true and good for individuals is a fear that disorder and violence will dominate the culture.

What do you think of people who break rules they disagree with not to create change, but just because they don't agree with those rules?

Do you desire order and a functioning society?

What if the systems of justice in your society fail you? What is your next recourse?

Is it possible for anyone to opt-out of a society they are born in if they do not like the Social Contract system and moral structure of their culture without moving into away and into another system?

What happens when something happens that you don't like and there are no social institutions to help you obtain justice? Would you ever violate the Social Contract for a sense of personal justice?

And what exactly is the deficiency you speak of? What makes it deficient?

[Moonduck]

Caveat: Any examples that follow are my own, and based on my own version of what I consider to be fairly standard American morals.

Originally posted by wilbjammin
If individuals can operate on their own in the macro-scale, then I'm failing to understand the difference between the micro-scale and the macro-scale.

Definition by example (inexact, but perhaps better than my normal nattering wordiness):

Macro-scale: I find the Caste System in India to be unjust by my standards. However, it is not my culture, thus while I may question it via Western morality, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.

Micro-scale: The murders done by the Manson Family are morally repugnant to me, but as I am not a member of the Family, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.

It all sounds rather Hegelian to me, as though we're on a path then to a perfectable history in that the moralities that emerge in the end are strongest for humankind because they've won out. As a sort of morality-Darwinism:

I would agree, in essence. I have trouble with the word "perfectable" as I am not of the opinion that anything can be truly perfected, but I can certainly agree with the idea that morality evolves. As to Darwinian overtones, they are natural when one speaks of evolution.

I'm having great difficulty with this concept because of how abstract the individual becomes. People fighting against some moral issue and wanting change are "wallowing in immorality" until they create a significant macro-change and then they are normal agents of a non-static morality system? I find that our society has confusing and contradictory morals as well (individualism and consumerism vs. social security and charity). I guess you'd say that it is irrevelant how those work against each other and with each other, because as we can see on a macro-level how these work relatively to other cultures.

Again, people fighting for change, however successful or not, are not necessarily wallowing in immorality. They are working on the macro-scale (I am assuming that you are speaking of people that are honestly working to accomplish change in the face of injustice). The micro-scale deals with, in essence, individuals making strictly individual choices.

You are correct, to an extent, in that I think your examples are irrelevant, but for a couple of reasons. I feel that they do not conflict, nor am I confused by them particularly, but I do agree with your mention that they should be examined primarily in relation to other cultures.

But, if individuals can affect change within a macro-culture by standing up against mores and creating a consciousness shift, then moral relativism by individuals within a culture isn't a sign of deficiency, but rather, is totally natural and healthy regardless of what the change is (esp. given that the inherent relative worth of a macro-level morality is null). The Civil Rights movement started off very small and with a lot of resistance with outright claims of injustice and immorality... the people involved at the beginning went through a lot of troubling times, even against people within their own culture (imagine going through lunch lines being told "how dare you" by a fellow black woman whose rights you are trying to help expand). Change is caused by individuals; individuals choose for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" (or "evil). The only downside to this is that crimes (as socially defined) happen, ultimate safety is never reached, and the threat of reverting to the state of nature remains constant, always, everywhere in the world.

Again, you mistake my comment on "moral relativism on the micro-scale" with "moral relativism practiced by individuals". It is not the same. It is closer to "moral relativism between individuals". In other words, I have no real issue with comparing my morality to society's, and then making a my decision. I take issue with comparing my morality to another individual, and then making my decisions.

You are championing individual choice. I am ignoring individual choice as it is irrelevant to the initial thrust of my argument - making plain the difference between macro and micro-scale moral relativism.

What is right for one culture can be wrong for another, and wars break out over it (for instance, the practice of expansionism, colonialism, religious differences, etc). What is right for one individual can be wrong for another, and conflict can break out over it within a culture or between cultures. There are, indeed, pressures put upon people to abide by whatever Social Contract they're under, and that pressure creates cognitive dissonance when someone can't agree to something that everyone else says they're supposed to. When I see people committing "crimes" against moral standards in either direction (things I agree with or disagree with) I'm understanding of it, I expect it to happen more than just occassionally. When this creates misanthropes, I find it perfectly understandable and it doesn't bother me. This may threaten a Hobbesian ideal of the fundamental goal of a governed society to provide safety, but safety is truly illusory. And for all of my cognitive energy, I can't find order and protection to be a universal ideal for everyone, and, as such, I can't agree with moral relativism to be a sign of deficiency when present between individuals .

Well, I'm glad you can be so laissez faire about it, but I have property values to worry about =)

Moral relativism between individuals is the key towards diversity and making existence meaningful on a personal level. I do understand the limitations of freedom of thinking on the macro-level, because the culture we live in provides us with context... but from that context we still choose, and agree or disagree, and are willing or unwilling to act against the "system". Finding values for oneself is a journey we all make... either in deference and submission or in resistance and rebellion. The only thing that I can imagine that prevents moral relativism for being true and good for individuals is a fear that disorder and violence will dominate the culture.

Diversity is necessary? I've honestly yet to see any real positives to the modern version of diversity. Seems to me to be creating distance between various groups instead of bridging it.

There is a vast gulf of difference between morals and values, though I don't want to devolve into argument by definition either, so I'll not make this a point in the overall discourse.

To return to the core subject, moral relativism is not key in any way towards constructing a meaningful life. I can have a perfectly meaningful life and not give a toss about anyone else's morality, thus breaking myself from the moral relativism loop. Moral relativism is useful in not overreacting to exposure to alternative morality. That's pretty much the extent of its' inherent use on a personal level. If one extends moral relativism to justification for ignoring or modifying one's own morals (ie everything chooses their own morality), thus begins the Path of Moral Convenience. The natural end of such a movement becoming generalized over a culture is, as you say, disorder and violence coming to dominate the culture.

What do you think of people who break rules they disagree with not to create change, but just because they don't agree with those rules?

Morally deficient. Also asking for societal or legal penalties.

Do you desire order and a functioning society?

Obviously. Society, by definition, is order at least at some level. Pure anarchy does not produce "society" as the very definition of the word implies some sort of communal identity and effort to live in a functional healthy way with those also in your society.

What if the systems of justice in your society fail you? What is your next recourse?

Institute change on the macro-scale. MLK is a perfect example of this.

Is it possible for anyone to opt-out of a society they are born in if they do not like the Social Contract system and moral structure of their culture without moving into away and into another system?

No. If one decides to opt out without distancing onesself physically, there is a very high likelihood that said individual will still continue to reap the benefits of the society they are ostensibly choosing to opt out of. As such, Social Contract still applies. Even if they make every effort to not utilize the benefits of membership, there are still inherent, subtle boons garnered by mere proximity, such as safety and stability, defense, passive property rights, etc. To truly opt out, one must completely dissassociate onesself via expatriation or exile. To do else is to simply violate the contract and enjoy the good without making the appropriate sacrifices.

What happens when something happens that you don't like and there are no social institutions to help you obtain justice? Would you ever violate the Social Contract for a sense of personal justice?

Depends. I may have a fairly hard-line moral stance, at least in discussions like these, but there is a time to recall that we are fallible humans, and as prone to emotion as everyone else. More importantly, there is another vast gulf of difference between society's morals and it's legal system. Law is not moral. It is related to morality, and often based off of morality, but they are not the same. While it is legal to execute a man for commision of capital crimes, it is difficult to argue that it is moral to kill a person who is not an immediate threat (I am NOT arguing against the death penalty, merely using it as an example).

And what exactly is the deficiency you speak of? What makes it deficient?

Moral deficiency. If someone fails purposefully to follow society's morals, they are, in the macro-scale's viewpoint, morally deficient.

I don't necessarily consider Western morality to be "right". I am, after all, arguing the case for moral relativism on the macro-scale. I am merely saying that it is "right" for the culture that spawned it.

[wilbjammin]

Originally posted by Moonduck
Macro-scale: I find the Caste System in India to be unjust by my standards. However, it is not my culture, thus while I may question it via Western morality, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.

Micro-scale: The murders done by the Manson Family are morally repugnant to me, but as I am not a member of the Family, I am not truly equipped to judge it. It is, after all, what works for them.



I would agree, in essence. I have trouble with the word "perfectable" as I am not of the opinion that anything can be truly perfected, but I can certainly agree with the idea that morality evolves. As to Darwinian overtones, they are natural when one speaks of evolution.

etc [...]

Ah, now I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. I am a champion of choice, a perennial existentialist above anything else. I choose, and would choose for all mankind... that is, I find that my morality and actions backing up my morality are what I would choose for anyone else if I were in their shoes. I would prefer that others gain their moralities through Good Faith, but I accept it when they don't. I can think of many "morally deficient" actions that I would be indifferent to or maybe even have support of.

"There is no justice; there are only limits" - Albert Camus

We do not have radical absolute freedom, and yet I don't feel personally bound by anything to follow standard cultural morality and attempt to impact structural change if I find something I do not wish to follow. Of course, generally I follow standard cultural morality out of convenience and agreement, and there are some things I am willing to work towards creating social change for. Ha, I guess you could say that my "moral deficiency quotient" is low... but it does exist and do not abhor it in the least, in myself or others (even if their "moral deficiency quotient" is high). If I disagree with the action (meaning I think to myself, "I would not do that personally"), this only helps me decide for myself. We tend to like macro-level morality because it does ensure property protection (including that of personal safety). I agree that I like these things generally, but there are exceptions. I think of "Do the Right Thing" when Mookie breaks the window in the pizzaria and starts a riot. This would be a morally deficient act that I don't have a problem with. I wouldn't personally do it, I didn't think it was particularly helpful in any way, macro-culture wouldn't like it, but the choice was his. Or to address your Manson Family example, I personally disagree with what they've done, but I understand that they made a moral choice that had meaning for them. I don't like it, but I don't view it was immoral either. Like your example of traveling to another country, I don't like child abuse, and my feelings may have me acting against it, but I understand that the person who abuses children does it because he or she thinks that is the right thing to do or does it compulsively (needing mental help).

All there are is are choices and consequences. Morality is a representation of the interaction between action and beliefs. Right and wrong is still determined by the individual. Stepping in line with the macro-culture is as valid as stepping out of line with the macro-culture... the only difference is that there may be some hard consequences for stepping out of line. I understand your feelings on the matter, it just doesn't ring true to me.

[Moonduck]

Originally posted by wilbjammin
Ah, now I understand what you're saying. I just disagree. I am a champion of choice, a perennial existentialist above anything else. I choose, and would choose for all mankind... that is, I find that my morality and actions backing up my morality are what I would choose for anyone else if I were in their shoes. I would prefer that others gain their moralities through Good Faith, but I accept it when they don't. I can think of many "morally deficient" actions that I would be indifferent to or maybe even have support of.

This presents three scenarios, in the macrotic view. First is that you are morally deficient. Second is that you are morally apathetic (ie you know wrong from right but do not care enough to bother yourself with it). Third is that....

Damn. Lost my train of thought. Do NOT try to argue philosophy the Morning After.

*time passes*

Nope, still not coming up with it. Damn. Moving on.

"There is no justice; there are only limits" - Albert Camus

We do not have radical absolute freedom, and yet I don't feel personally bound by anything to follow standard cultural morality and attempt to impact structural change if I find something I do not wish to follow. Of course, generally I follow standard cultural morality out of convenience and agreement, and there are some things I am willing to work towards creating social change for. Ha, I guess you could say that my "moral deficiency quotient" is low... but it does exist and do not abhor it in the least, in myself or others (even if their "moral deficiency quotient" is high).

You are, by the comments in this paragraph, holding true to the Social Contract. As I said earlier, I don't care why you hold true with common morality, only that you do.

If I disagree with the action (meaning I think to myself, "I would not do that personally"), this only helps me decide for myself. We tend to like macro-level morality because it does ensure property protection (including that of personal safety). I agree that I like these things generally, but there are exceptions. I think of "Do the Right Thing" when Mookie breaks the window in the pizzaria and starts a riot. This would be a morally deficient act that I don't have a problem with. I wouldn't personally do it, I didn't think it was particularly helpful in any way, macro-culture wouldn't like it, but the choice was his. Or to address your Manson Family example, I personally disagree with what they've done, but I understand that they made a moral choice that had meaning for them. I don't like it, but I don't view it was immoral either.

You have contradicted yourself. How can one be a self-proclaimed champion of choice, yet consider murder to not be immoral? Is not murder the ultimate denial of choice? When someone is murdered, every choice in their life has been denied from that point forward, yet to you, it is not immoral. I cannot fathom this sort of... I cannot even facetiously call it "reasoning".

Like your example of traveling to another country, I don't like child abuse, and my feelings may have me acting against it, but I understand that the person who abuses children does it because he or she thinks that is the right thing to do or does it compulsively (needing mental help).

Needind mental help? Why? If their actions are not immoral, why would you think they need help? If the are being consistent within their own view, what makes you consider them candidates for mental help? I am again thinking that you are being inconsistent here.

All there are is are choices and consequences. Morality is a representation of the interaction between action and beliefs. Right and wrong is still determined by the individual. Stepping in line with the macro-culture is as valid as stepping out of line with the macro-culture... the only difference is that there may be some hard consequences for stepping out of line. I understand your feelings on the matter, it just doesn't ring true to me.

You have said, in this paragraph, precisely what I have said in earlier posts, barring the validity comment as I've not made any sort of validity arguments. I am unsure as to why you consider my statements untrue.

My turn to ask questions.

Do you consider your laissez faire atitude towards morality to be healthy?

Do you think that more people should hold true to your attitude towards morality?

Do you think your culture would be a better lace if everywhere had your attitude towards morality?

Do you think your culture could survive with your attitude towards morality?

[wilbjammin]

Originally posted by Moonduck
This presents three scenarios, in the macrotic view. First is that you are morally deficient. Second is that you are morally apathetic (ie you know wrong from right but do not care enough to bother yourself with it). Third is that....

Well, you're obviously missing the main point. I can't choose for other people, and I don't want to. I am not morally apathetic because I always do what I consider to be right from my view within any circumstance.

You are, by the comments in this paragraph, holding true to the Social Contract. As I said earlier, I don't care why you hold true with common morality, only that you do.

I said "generally", not always. If there is an exception to the rule, that means that the rule isn't universal.

You have contradicted yourself. How can one be a self-proclaimed champion of choice, yet consider murder to not be immoral? Is not murder the ultimate denial of choice? When someone is murdered, every choice in their life has been denied from that point forward, yet to you, it is not immoral. I cannot fathom this sort of... I cannot even facetiously call it "reasoning".

I don't need to call murder "immoral" for it to be a choice that I wouldn't make. Yes, I don't like it (as I said before), but I think there is a reason that people commit murder. I know that it is the ultimate negation. Personally I understand for myself that since I cannot commit suicide, and as such, committing murder is also wrong for me for the same reason. I am under the assumption that when people kill they do it either because they think it is the right thing to do, or they are mentally unable of processing right and wrong or self-control. Which brings me to my next thing:

Needing mental help? Why? If their actions are not immoral, why would you think they need help? If the are being consistent within their own view, what makes you consider them candidates for mental help? I am again thinking that you are being inconsistent here.

When one cannot make choices that match with their morals because of mental illness, then I would say that they need mental help. That has to feel terribly like Bad Faith, and every instance I've seen of people that do horrible things from their own perspective that they don't want to do feel really guilty and don't want to do it again. Have you ever listened to a panel of convicted child molesters talk about their crimes, they hate themselves for what they've done, and they fear themselves for what they might do. Mental help sometimes is the only want to stop one's self from acting against one's morals.

Do you consider your laissez faire atitude towards morality to be healthy?

For the individual - yes. Since most cultures have good reasons that they don't want people killing each other randomly and stealing from each other, most people tend to follow the Social Contract out of self-interest (this should sound familiar if you've read Hobbes). Almost everyone follows self-interest as a rule, and the outliers who choose to break-out of the Social Contract significantly are going to be far and few between because of the basic reasoning behind self-interest. If a Social Contract violates self-interest, then acting against it by any means is absolutely healthy from the individuals perspective. I suggest you read "Woman at Point Zero" by Nawal El Saadawi for my perfect example of someone who violates the Social Contract and for purely personal reasons (not structural change) and I admire her.

Do you think that more people should hold true to your attitude towards morality?

I think everyone should choose for themselves. Obviously I think that I am right, or else I wouldn't be saying any of this.

Do you think your culture would be a better place if everywhere had your attitude towards morality?

Couldn't tell you, I don't have a standard for describing what a "better place" is. I think that if everyone followed their own morals, our world wouldn't look all that much different than it does now. People break the Social Contract on a daily basis, I watch the news. Some of them get caught, some don't. Either way they pay some consequences. Here's a sort of Machiavellian scenario to consider:

A man runs an orphanage in a culture where it is ok for adults to beat children, and orphans have no value in the eyes of practically everyone. The man visciously beats all of the children for little to no reason (i.e. looking at him wrong). Two of the children died from being beaten to death, and the macro-system doesn't care. One day a man walks in on him doing this, and he's struck with a passion: this isn't right, I need to do something about it. So he tells the guy to stop, and he says "why? they're just worthless orphans..." After an argument that gets nowhere, he leaves. He appeals to all of the higher class citizens in his society for help to stopping this - no luck. The police don't care. There's no legislative process here. He tries absolutely everything he can within a system to stop this, and nothing works. He <i>gives up</i> on the idea of changing the cultures feelings because he thinks it is a lost cause, but he sees that he can make a difference in the children's lives. One day, he wants into the orphanage, takes out a gun, shoots the man in the chest killing him, and walks out. He leaves an anonymous phone message to the police from a pay phone saying that "I heard a gun shot at the orphanage, you should check it out." He feels that he fulfilled his moral obligation. Most everyone in the macro-culture when reading about this story is horrified. How could someone do this?

From my view, this action, though not a route I would take, is also not immoral. Another example: John Brown. I could not do what he did, but a big part of me admires him. He alienated a large percentage of the people both in the north and the south with his terrorist actions. People were not ready cognitively for the jump he made towards violence, and if he wasn't made into a martyr I doubt it would have changed many attitudes. This is an example of violating the Social Contract to affect change. Both examples here are examples of violating the Social Contract out of personal morals that conflict with macro-culture. The first example you would call morally deficient, because by the time he went in to kill the man he wasn't doing it for affecting a change in the macro-culture. I don't know where you would stand with John Brown.

The world is too complicated for me to feel as though I'm justified in calling acts immoral if there is a reason behind them, even if it results in murder. A murder from someone who didn't actively choose to murder, but did it out of mental illness - this would be an amoral action with serious consequences, from my standpoint.

Do you think your culture could survive with your attitude towards morality?

Probably, since most people value safety and self-interest, just like I do. I don't see anything wrong with creating a Social Contract. Structural consequences do wonders for order. You don't need everyone to agree to the same things for a society to work, just a significant majority.

[Moonduck]

Well, you're obviously missing the main point. I can't choose for other people, and I don't want to. I am not morally apathetic because I always do what I consider to be right from my view within any circumstance.

No, I lost track of my own thought processes and left it at that. After rereading my own lost track recently, I still cannot divine where I was headed. Oh well. As to your point, I am not terribly certain that I can pin it down. I've stated mine, rather concisely in my original post, yet I am having trouble with yours as it has been, on occassion contradicted, or at least it appeared that you contradicted what I thought was your point.

In all honesty, you have befuddled me. While I can see that you are a person who claims to refuse to make moral judgements on anyone else's choices, you claim to follow Social Contract and concurrently claim to be interested in security and safety. I cannot make the points jibe.

I said "generally", not always. If there is an exception to the rule, that means that the rule isn't universal.

Hmm, I reread my posts. Where, precisely, did I use the word universal, or even imply universal consistency?

I don't need to call murder "immoral" for it to be a choice that I wouldn't make.

Come again? Are you saying murder is not immoral? Come now, take a stand somewhere. If we cannot agree that the willful and purposeful taking of the life of another sentient being against their wishes is immoral, perhaps it is best that we devolve into argument by definition. You obviously are not using anything remotely close to the definition of immoral if you are unwilling to call murder immoral. It is, perhaps, not the height of immorality, but it is bloody close if not.

Yes, I don't like it (as I said before), but I think there is a reason that people commit murder. I know that it is the ultimate negation. Personally I understand for myself that since I cannot commit suicide, and as such, committing murder is also wrong for me for the same reason. I am under the assumption that when people kill they do it either because they think it is the right thing to do, or they are mentally unable of processing right and wrong or self-control. Which brings me to my next thing:

When is murder the "right thing to do"? Please be specific. For argument's sake, the quick definition of "murder" from dictionary.com is "The unlawful killing of one human by another". I am curious as to when it is "right" to murder.

The second issue I have here is that you seem to be implying that someone who is mentally imbalanced/damaged/incompetent is something taken out of the moral equation. Why does this preclude anyone from considering their actions immoral? Why are they removed from the moral equation in the first place? Take sociopathy for example. This is a person who knows very well what right and wrong are, what morals are, and what society expects. They act entirely without morals simply because they consider themselves somehow beyond/above morals. Are they not immoral if they murder/rape/maim?

When one cannot make choices that match with their morals because of mental illness, then I would say that they need mental help. That has to feel terribly like Bad Faith, and every instance I've seen of people that do horrible things from their own perspective that they don't want to do feel really guilty and don't want to do it again. Have you ever listened to a panel of convicted child molesters talk about their crimes, they hate themselves for what they've done, and they fear themselves for what they might do. Mental help sometimes is the only want to stop one's self from acting against one's morals.

And this has bearing on the moral equation how? By your posts above, their decisions were obviously motivated by their own moral code, and they are correct in their code-based decisions as their code is correct for them, again by your earlier arguments. Why would they need help? If they are asking for it, I can see it, but if they are not? Do they still need help? Would you force them to get help? Why?

Is child molestation immoral? How far does your moral relativism go? How blighted an action can you condone and tolerate out of some misguided desire to not impose your will on anyone else, even if it means they destroy the innoncence of your own child?

I asked, "Do you consider your laissez faire atitude towards morality to be healthy?"

For the individual - yes. Since most cultures have good reasons that they don't want people killing each other randomly and stealing from each other, most people tend to follow the Social Contract out of self-interest (this should sound familiar if you've read Hobbes). Almost everyone follows self-interest as a rule, and the outliers who choose to break-out of the Social Contract significantly are going to be far and few between because of the basic reasoning behind self-interest.

What good reasons would these be? Why would most people choose to follow them? Is there an Enlightened Self-interest pamphlet out there explaining why we should not against the Social Contract and morals be damned?

If a Social Contract violates self-interest, then acting against it by any means is absolutely healthy from the individuals perspective. I suggest you read "Woman at Point Zero" by Nawal El Saadawi for my perfect example of someone who violates the Social Contract and for purely personal reasons (not structural change) and I admire her.

Who determines self-interest, and what controls exist to keep self-interest from expanding beyond the point where others are compromised? The answer to the first question is simple - the individual determines what is in their self-interest. What is your answer to the second question though? If I determine that you having a car is not in my self-interest, then I violate the Social Contract by stealing your car, have I not acted, by your definition, in a perfectly healthy way?

As to your reading selection, my booklist is pretty bloody full. I figure if I win the lottery and never have to work another day in my life, I might just be able to read all the book on it currently. This also assumes that noone publishes anything else that I'd like to read.

I asked, "Do you think that more people should hold true to your attitude towards morality?"

I think everyone should choose for themselves. Obviously I think that I am right, or else I wouldn't be saying any of this.

Actually, it is never obvious that someone thinks that they're right simply because they're arguing a point. Watch lawyers debate, or philosophy majors for that matter. I have personally constructed multiple thousand word arguments on matters that I cared not a whit about, or even agreed with the other side on. Debate is debate.

I asked, "Do you think your culture would be a better place if everywhere had your attitude towards morality?"

Couldn't tell you, I don't have a standard for describing what a "better place" is. I think that if everyone followed their own morals, our world wouldn't look all that much different than it does now. People break the Social Contract on a daily basis, I watch the news. Some of them get caught, some don't. Either way they pay some consequences. Here's a sort of Machiavellian scenario to consider:

Really? You don't have a standard? Have you never travelled outside your chosen culture and experienced the world in areas dissimilar to yours? If not, I heartily suggest it. You will learn more perspective from travel abroad than from any amount of studying.

Yes, you do see people breaking the social contract daily on the news. Now, think about the percentages. Think about the miniscule number of actions that break with the social contract in meaningful ways. The overwhelming majority of society quietly go on day to day gladly keeping with the social contract.

A man runs an orphanage in a culture where it is ok for adults to beat children, and orphans have no value in the eyes of practically everyone. The man visciously beats all of the children for little to no reason (i.e. looking at him wrong). Two of the children died from being beaten to death, and the macro-system doesn't care. One day a man walks in on him doing this, and he's struck with a passion: this isn't right, I need to do something about it. So he tells the guy to stop, and he says "why? they're just worthless orphans..." After an argument that gets nowhere, he leaves. He appeals to all of the higher class citizens in his society for help to stopping this - no luck. The police don't care. There's no legislative process here. He tries absolutely everything he can within a system to stop this, and nothing works. He gives up on the idea of changing the cultures feelings because he thinks it is a lost cause, but he sees that he can make a difference in the children's lives. One day, he wants into the orphanage, takes out a gun, shoots the man in the chest killing him, and walks out. He leaves an anonymous phone message to the police from a pay phone saying that "I heard a gun shot at the orphanage, you should check it out." He feels that he fulfilled his moral obligation. Most everyone in the macro-culture when reading about this story is horrified. How could someone do this?.

From my view, this action, though not a route I would take, is also not immoral.

The man running the orphanage, per his won society, is within moral standards. I would argue that the society itself, by my personal moral standards is morally deficient if it allows such behaviour. I cannot gracefully say much about the second man as you did not include information in your hypothetical example as to whether or not this child-abusing society tolerates killing. I am of the strongly held opinion that murder is immoral regardless of society (and I would be interested to find a society that did condone murder as moral), and as most societies agree with me on this, I woud hazard to guess that the second man is rightfully called immoral.

It is my hope that you will have already explained how you could consider murder not immoral in an earlier part of your reply, as I've already asked that question.

Another example: John Brown. I could not do what he did, but a big part of me admires him. He alienated a large percentage of the people both in the north and the south with his terrorist actions. People were not ready cognitively for the jump he made towards violence, and if he wasn't made into a martyr I doubt it would have changed many attitudes. This is an example of violating the Social Contract to affect change. Both examples here are examples of violating the Social Contract out of personal morals that conflict with macro-culture. The first example you would call morally deficient, because by the time he went in to kill the man he wasn't doing it for affecting a change in the macro-culture. I don't know where you would stand with John Brown.

You admit to admiring a terrorist? That takes some sort of bravery in this day and age.

I would also consider John Brown morally deficient simply because of the means used to advance his ends. While I can certainly appreciate and condone attempts to change and evolve society from within, I have a hard time accepting terrorism and John Brown's other numerous crimes as moral.

The world is too complicated for me to feel as though I'm justified in calling acts immoral if there is a reason behind them, even if it results in murder. A murder from someone who didn't actively choose to murder, but did it out of mental illness - this would be an amoral action with serious consequences, from my standpoint.

This makes no sense. I must ask again how you can consider murder not immoral? I cannot conceive of the sheer lack of perspective that would lead one to be incapable of calling ANY act immoral.

Is there any act that you would not condone?

I asked, "Do you think your culture could survive with your attitude towards morality?"

Probably, since most people value safety and self-interest, just like I do. I don't see anything wrong with creating a Social Contract. Structural consequences do wonders for order. You don't need everyone to agree to the same things for a society to work, just a significant majority.

Do you consider law enforcement necessary within society? If so, do you think police officers would be even slightly effective if they were incapable of calling ANY action immoral and wrong? If your answer is "They enforce law, not morality", my follow-up question would be to ask what the legislature should base law on? Would they be effective if they could not make judgement and call actions immoral when they plainly are? Who should decide who protects and why?

Or are you merely saying that you, specifically, are incapable of making moral decisions, and that is a personal deficiency and not a philosophical choice that drives you to indecision?

Caveat: I am not attempting to purposefully be insulting. I realize, however, that some of my language and tone may be construed as such. I can honeslt ynot express it more clearly, and do not wish to obfuscate the point. I ask that you realize that my state of mind is one of confusion at your lack of position, not outrage at a perceived lack of morality.

[wilbjammin]

Originally posted by Moonduck
In all honesty, you have befuddled me.

I have a tendency to do that...

Ok, so then, you want to know perhaps, what is immoral then? (since I've said that I don't think even murder is necessarily immoral).

The answer is actually fairly simple. Immorality in my view, is only when I act against my personal morals. That is it.

I said earlier: <b>Of course, generally I follow standard cultural morality out of convenience and agreement, and there are some things I am willing to work towards creating social change for.</b>

Hmm, I reread my posts. Where, precisely, did I use the word universal, or even imply universal consistency?

and

You are, by the comments in this paragraph, holding true to the Social Contract. As I said earlier, I don't care why you hold true with common morality, only that you do.

My point regarding your quotes was simply that even though I generally do follow the Social Contract, if there are at any times moments when I don't follow it, then I am not holding with the common morality... and I am ok with that. You didn't imply universal consistency, and I wanted to make damned sure that I didn't imply that either.

Come again? Are you saying murder is not immoral? Come now, take a stand somewhere. If we cannot agree that the willful and purposeful taking of the life of another sentient being against their wishes is immoral, perhaps it is best that we devolve into argument by definition. You obviously are not using anything remotely close to the definition of immoral if you are unwilling to call murder immoral. It is, perhaps, not the height of immorality, but it is bloody close if not.

I find it difficult to think of a single act from another that I would deem to be immoral. Since I am not in that person's shoes, I imagine that in every case that the Social Contract is broken by someone it is because they value something about their morals over that of the system's morals. Then, even though the idea of what they've done may threaten me on a visceral level "I can't believe someone would do that and think it is ok", at the same time I can't get past thinking that the person actually thought it was ok enough to do (or compulsively couldn't stop themselves from doing). I would hope that most people would be against the idea of murder for the same reasons that I am, but if they're not I'm not going to judge them as immoral (because, for whatever reason, it is right for them).

Since my scope for what is immoral and moral is limited to myself, defining for everyone else what is right and wrong for them is irrelevant.

I make exceptions for the mentally ill people that are incapable of making moral decisions. Quite simply - they didn't know any better. Sociopaths know what right and wrong is for society, and can't apply it to themselves. But... arguing this any further is irrelevant because I don't have access to the inner-workings of people's minds and their moral structures that they operate under. I have to assume that everyone either breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons, or because of some mental breakdown that doesn't account for morality. Like Mersault in <u>The Stranger</u>, he killed the Arab, but it wasn't his intention. Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.

and what controls exist to keep self-interest from expanding beyond the point where others are compromised?

The Social Contract does. Nothing about how everyone chooses their morals (implicitely or explicitely) limits them and their society they are in from making agreements to protect themselves. Basically, a Social Contract attempts to create a series of freedoms-from (not freedoms-to) agreements. The 1st Amendment operates as a freedom-from speech repression, not the freedom-to speak freely. The Social Contract merely creates consequences for violating these freedoms - thus, added incentives for choosing the cultural morality. In actuality, we all have really long lists of freedoms-to and we cross a lot of things off of the list because we don't want to face the consequences... though truly we're permitted anything, we just may have to pay consequences for it. Thus - self-interest!

Do you consider law enforcement necessary within society? If so, do you think police officers would be even slightly effective if they were incapable of calling ANY action immoral and wrong? If your answer is "They enforce law, not morality", my follow-up question would be to ask what the legislature should base law on? Would they be effective if they could not make judgement and call actions immoral when they plainly are? Who should decide who protects and why?

Law enforcement is necessary for a society that wants to have order and relative safety. I think police officers can be very effective if they followed by belief that the only thing you can call immoral are actions that you do that violate your personal morals. Thus, a police office can, if he believes that someone is violating another's safety and has a personal moral for himself or herself that safety is important, act to enforce safety. I personally believe that law should be based on what legislatures believe is the greater good for all society, but I understand that most laws favor a certain privileged few. The legislative branch is designed for people to discuss and make decisions in an open forum to create their own personal ideal society. Some legislatures value the greater society as a whole more than personal wealth, power, etc... others don't. In any event, all legislatures operate in what they believe their best interests are in conjunction with their morals.

Laws are essentially arbitrary because the people who make the laws can't possibly make laws that benefit absolutely everyone equally. There is nothing wrong with this. As long as one lives in a society with a legislature, they will have to put up with judgement calls being made for them on their behalf. There is nothing necessarily immoral or moral about this process, it simply is a device created by people to create order that has been successful because more people find it in their best interests to follow this system than to not.

"Who should decide who protects and why?" is a troubling question (this line of thought is what made me decide to not become a lawyer, in fact). After thinking about the arbitrariness of laws and their penalities and after running into cops that piss me off because of their blatant biases and after reading stats that show that black people are more likely to convicted of certain crimes than white people deciding who should have these powers is a tough question. It all boils down to the creation of our governmental system and the lack of people coming up with an alternative that addresses this in a way that was satisfactory enough to get people to agree to it. There is an inherent arbitrariness to any society, and there is no way that I can conceive of to overcome this. So, events are going to happen that violate whatever Social Contract is created, and this is a normal reaction.


I could write more, but I think I've answered the essence of your newest line of questioning. I understand that I probably haven't been perfectly clear in explaining myself and I hope this helps.

[Moonduck]

I have a tendency to do that...

Is it because of communications difficulties, or because the root reasoning is difficult to grasp? I ask becuase I've been accused of such in the past. In my case, I determined that my writing style is obtuse.

Ok, so then, you want to know perhaps, what is immoral then? (since I've said that I don't think even murder is necessarily immoral).

The answer is actually fairly simple. Immorality in my view, is only when I act against my personal morals. That is it.

Thus, a person could steal your car, murder your own mother, violate your dog, and bomb your house of worship, and you will still not consider them immoral? Let's turn the question around. Are those moral acts then?

My point regarding your quotes was simply that even though I generally do follow the Social Contract, if there are at any times moments when I don't follow it, then I am not holding with the common morality... and I am ok with that. You didn't imply universal consistency, and I wanted to make damned sure that I didn't imply that either.

Right, understood, though it is still an odd way of expressing the idea.

I find it difficult to think of a single act from another that I would deem to be immoral. Since I am not in that person's shoes, I imagine that in every case that the Social Contract is broken by someone it is because they value something about their morals over that of the system's morals. Then, even though the idea of what they've done may threaten me on a visceral level "I can't believe someone would do that and think it is ok", at the same time I can't get past thinking that the person actually thought it was ok enough to do (or compulsively couldn't stop themselves from doing). I would hope that most people would be against the idea of murder for the same reasons that I am, but if they're not I'm not going to judge them as immoral (because, for whatever reason, it is right for them).

I could understand this if you could not define what is moral. The idea being similar to the semi-famous California lawmaker that said, "I can't define porn, but I know it when I see it". It sounds, however, as if you are simply either unwilling or unable to discriminate between moral and immoral.

Since my scope for what is immoral and moral is limited to myself, defining for everyone else what is right and wrong for them is irrelevant.

This is one step removed from solipsism. If you claim to be incapable of definition and discrimination due to the limited perspective of individual existence, how do you relate? Why make argument for anything at all? Such a lack of perspective should, logically, lead to apathy and inaction simply because you cannot make any sort of discrimination between what is right or wrong in any given situation.

I make exceptions for the mentally ill people that are incapable of making moral decisions. Quite simply - they didn't know any better. Sociopaths know what right and wrong is for society, and can't apply it to themselves.

Not "can't", it is "won't". The pathology of sociopathy shows consistently that the afflicted person chooses how to act. It is not that they are incapable of moral discrimination or moral action, it is that they choose immorality and then fail only to feel the common guilt, shame, and concern for consequence.

But... arguing this any further is irrelevant because I don't have access to the inner-workings of people's minds and their moral structures that they operate under. I have to assume that everyone either breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons, or because of some mental breakdown that doesn't account for morality. Like Mersault in <u>The Stranger</u>, he killed the Arab, but it wasn't his intention. Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.

Wait, back up a second. First you say "I don't have access to the inner-workings of peple's minds" then you follow this with "I have to assume that everyone breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons". Please show how this logic works. I can't visualize the leap of intuition this took, nor can I fathom the tone of internal consistency. You also then state "Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.", and this makes zero sense to me.

I really do not follow when you absolve yourself of any need for discrimination out lack of perspective, then assert that breach of social contract is done by "everyone" for moral reasons.

The Social Contract does. Nothing about how everyone chooses their morals (implicitely or explicitely) limits them and their society they are in from making agreements to protect themselves. Basically, a Social Contract attempts to create a series of freedoms-from (not freedoms-to) agreements. The 1st Amendment operates as a freedom-from speech repression, not the freedom-to speak freely. The Social Contract merely creates consequences for violating these freedoms - thus, added incentives for choosing the cultural morality. In actuality, we all have really long lists of freedoms-to and we cross a lot of things off of the list because we don't want to face the consequences... though truly we're permitted anything, we just may have to pay consequences for it. Thus - self-interest!

Okay, so self-interest is, and should be, your only guide and coach in morality, and you are okay with this. I'm sorry, but you have lost any veneer at all of credible awareness of the outside world. You are actually of the opinion that mankind should simply be turned loose on each other sans any sort of moral compass, in hopes that each will, of their own accord, decide to live and function in alignment with society and the social compass. This would be anarchy.

Were this idea true, we would have little need of law enforcement. Mankind would naturally police itself out of enlightened self-interest. A token police force would still be necessary to weed out the truly medically disadvantaged who are incapable of policing themselves. Luckily there would be no real need for a legal system to support this police force or prison system, as the police could simply terminate the existence of these poor diseased souls on the spot. If they are questioned as to their actions, they'd merely need to respond that they were following their internal moral guidelines, and were acting in consistence with same. As there would be no legal system necessary, internal moral consistency being intransigent defense, there would be no need for laws, per se. Sans laws, and other such hallmarks of society, we would exist as free as possible, needing only explain our internal moral consistency to justify any action. I will leave the obvious end product of such a society as an exercise to the reader.

Ever read any Chinese philosophy? Any of the "Confucianist" style writers? Amazing ideas on morality and ethics. There was a fascinating debate (can't find the bloody text I read both sides in, "Chinese Philosophy" was the name of the text, fat lot of good that does either of us) between two noted Chinese philosophers concerning the inherent nature of man. One argued that man was inherently good, and that strong leadership was required only to assist in bringing man together for great works. The other argued that man was inherently evil/selfish, and that strong leadership was necessary to keep man in line. Man's inherent lack of internal moral compass meant that external persuasion must need be provided. Excellent debate over the course of a few hundred years. I'll try and find the damned book. It's somewhere in my towering stacks...

Law enforcement is necessary for a society that wants to have order and relative safety. I think police officers can be very effective if they followed by belief that the only thing you can call immoral are actions that you do that violate your personal morals. Thus, a police office can, if he believes that someone is violating another's safety and has a personal moral for himself or herself that safety is important, act to enforce safety. I personally believe that law should be based on what legislatures believe is the greater good for all society, but I understand that most laws favor a certain privileged few. The legislative branch is designed for people to discuss and make decisions in an open forum to create their own personal ideal society. Some legislatures value the greater society as a whole more than personal wealth, power, etc... others don't. In any event, all legislatures operate in what they believe their best interests are in conjunction with their morals.

What if the police officer does not consider it moral to protect others? Must a police department screen its' prospective officers deeply for moral structure as well?

Laws are essentially arbitrary because the people who make the laws can't possibly make laws that benefit absolutely everyone equally. There is nothing wrong with this. As long as one lives in a society with a legislature, they will have to put up with judgement calls being made for them on their behalf. There is nothing necessarily immoral or moral about this process, it simply is a device created by people to create order that has been successful because more people find it in their best interests to follow this system than to not.

Agreed, to an extent, and this is why I put in the "legal is not inherently moral" line in the original question. I have already mentioned the gulf between legal and moral.

I could write more, but I think I've answered the essence of your newest line of questioning. I understand that I probably haven't been perfectly clear in explaining myself and I hope this helps.

The only thing it has truly helped me see is that it is increasingly clear that we have no common ground in which to communicate. Your base, underlying understanding of the concepts we are discussing is so very different from mine, and I would not hesitate to say different from the common realization of the concepts, that I am not certain further discussion is meaningful. I have argued morality from a basically Utilitarian standpoint of morality being necessary for the greater good. You have argued for total moral relativism on every level out of lack of perspective, and to such an extent as to being entirely unwilling to call even the most base and heinous actions immoral. Insofar as morality is concerned, we might as well be speaking different languages.

Let's review.

Me: Society determines morality. Individuals interpret morality. Moral relativism is acceptable across cultural lines as we are ill-informed of the conditions under which morality arose in other cultures distinct from ours.

You: Individuals determine morality whole cloth. I lack the perspective to be able to discriminate and judge, thus all morality is relative and of equal value.

My position invites review and discourse. Yours removes differentiation and thus devalues morality as a concept entirely, making further discussion basically irrelevant.

Is there any reason to continue?

[wilbjammin]

Originally posted by Moonduck
Me: Society determines morality. Individuals interpret morality. Moral relativism is acceptable across cultural lines as we are ill-informed of the conditions under which morality arose in other cultures distinct from ours.

You: Individuals determine morality whole cloth. I lack the perspective to be able to discriminate and judge, thus all morality is relative and of equal value.

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.

This is one step removed from solipsism. If you claim to be incapable of definition and discrimination due to the limited perspective of individual existence, how do you relate? Why make argument for anything at all? Such a lack of perspective should, logically, lead to apathy and inaction simply because you cannot make any sort of discrimination between what is right or wrong in any given situation.

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.

Thus, a person could steal your car, murder your own mother, violate your dog, and bomb your house of worship, and you will still not consider them immoral? Let's turn the question around. Are those moral acts then?

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.

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.

Not "can't", it is "won't". The pathology of sociopathy shows consistently that the afflicted person chooses how to act. It is not that they are incapable of moral discrimination or moral action, it is that they choose immorality and then fail only to feel the common guilt, shame, and concern for consequence.

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").

First you say "I don't have access to the inner-workings of peple's minds" then you follow this with "I have to assume that everyone breaks a social moral code out of personal moral reasons". Please show how this logic works. I can't visualize the leap of intuition this took, nor can I fathom the tone of internal consistency. You also then state "Every action has intention behind it or is done compulsively, morals are implicit in this.", and this makes zero sense to me.

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.

You are actually of the opinion that mankind should simply be turned loose on each other sans any sort of moral compass, in hopes that each will, of their own accord, decide to live and function in alignment with society and the social compass.

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.

What if the police officer does not consider it moral to protect others? Must a police department screen its' prospective officers deeply for moral structure as well?

Then they are quite an exception. It is an easy assumption that most police officers value order and duty and law. No need to screen for moral structure unless a sudden epidemic of police officers unconcerned with the safety of others emerges.

One argued that man was inherently good, and that strong leadership was required only to assist in bringing man together for great works. The other argued that man was inherently evil/selfish, and that strong leadership was necessary to keep man in line. Man's inherent lack of internal moral compass meant that external persuasion must need be provided.

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.

You have argued for total moral relativism on every level out of lack of perspective, and to such an extent as to being entirely unwilling to call even the most base and heinous actions immoral.

Only for the person involved. For myself there are many immoral actions, and others have demonstrated what those would be.

My position invites review and discourse. Yours removes differentiation and thus devalues morality as a concept entirely, making further discussion basically irrelevant.

Is there any reason to continue?

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'm sorry, but you have lost any veneer at all of credible awareness of the outside world.

And if that's how you feel, why are you debating with a madman?

[Moonduck]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

Only for the person involved. For myself there are many immoral actions, and others have demonstrated what those would be.

And the difference is?

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.

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.

[wilbjammin]

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.

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).

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.

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.

<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.

<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.

[Moonduck]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[wilbjammin]

I took a while to respond because I went out of town and I wanted to think a while before I responded.

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.

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.

<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.

[Moonduck]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.