To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 14736
14735  |  14737
Subject: 
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 18 Nov 2001 20:26:41 GMT
Viewed: 
1078 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
From where do you (anyone, I guess the Daves especially) think that morality
comes?

Wow, and I didn't even have to pay him (much) to ask me that :)

Phase I: Desire
Humans have emotions about their state. Very basic. "Happy", "sad".
(Normally I might say "good" or "bad", but that's easily equatable with
morality, so I'll attempt to avoid confusion) Humans also percieve
causality-- action X results in Y. We equate the preceding (causal) action
with the emotional value of the resultant action. Hence, if Y is a "happy"
event, we tend to evaluate action "X" with "happy", even though it's not
directly a "happy" event. Hence, we achieve the fundamental "desire". We
want things so that we can be happy, or avoid being sad.

Phase II: Society
Through experience, we tend to notice other beings that posess similar
qualities to ourselves. For whatever reason, we start to think of these
things as "other selves"; while not being *exactly* like ourselves. That
other kid in daycare is a *lot* like me, our cat is only *kinda* like me, a
bug is only very loosely like me, etc.

Phase III: Morality
We recognize that these "other selves" posess desire, just like we posess
desire. And likewise, we begin to realize that *their* desires have *value*
in the same way that our *own* desires have value.

I would argue that "perfect" morality comes when one views others' desires
*equally* in value to one's own desires. The rest are just specifics
generated by personal preferance, intellect, experience, etc.

Further breakdown of morality I would say comes from a particular person's
balance between the three categories: "charity", "justice", and "selfishness".

Justice: Granting what someone "deserves" (rights). Ex: Bob made some bread.
I want the bread. So does Joe. But neither Joe nor I are entitled to Bob's
bread, via justice.

Charity: Wanting others to be happy. The ultimate in charity, without
regards to selfishness or justice might be: I want to sacrifice my own life
so that Bill Gates gets his ham sandwich delivered to him 11 seconds
earlier, resulting in more happiness for Bill, regardless of my own welfare,
or whether Bill has a right to that extra 11 seconds.

Selfishness: Wanting yourself to be happy. I dunno if I really need to make
an example of this one :)

Anyway, people balance the above in their own ways, and with respect to
different things, based on their own desires, what they think other people
desire, etc.

DaveE



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
 
(...) I don't understand the goal in seperating this from the question of asking how believers know God to be. If you accept that they know that God exists at all, why not accept that they know God to be good as just part of the definition of God? (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR