Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:26:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1216 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > I think of it as this stuff written on my heart.
For the record, I also think of this as a deeply romanticized notion of what
I'm experiencing...not some literal description.
> That said, we can get directly to the subject of knowledge of right and
> wrong not easily accounted for...
>
> I would suggest that the feelings you are describing in terms of the innate,
> are actually deeply rooted in culture and have little or nothing to do with
> something akin to instinct. I refer, of course, to a culturally rooted
> sense of what is "fair." I would take it one step further (because there is
> a lot of talk about "paying it forward" and such) and suggest that what is
> fair is firmly connected to our culturally shared ideas concerning
> "reciprocity."
I certainly agree with this and your further characterization of our social
nature and how that leads to an understanding of fairness and the power of
reciprocity. But...
> While it's no big deal that you think as you do, I would suggest it is a
> learned behavior and not something that comes from some unknown source.
> Stuff like the Golden Rule gets drilled into you by one kind of repetition
> or another. It is axiomatic not because it has a higher authority as its
> source, but simply because there's little point in arguing over the matter.
...the stuff that I'm talking about isn't all axiomatic. There are things that
I know are 'evil' that most people take for granted as not only OK, but the
right order for the universe. Examples include: the opression of minors, the
consumption of sentients, and casual and ritual mutilation of infants (which
is sort of a subset of the first thing, but I meant that in a different way).
It isn't only that I've thought about these things and have perfect,
unconquorable arguments supporting my stances. It's that at some point, I had
an epiphany (or maybe a revelation?) about these ideas that I knew (how?) to be
correct and then I started thinking about them to see if I could convince
myself otherwise. And I've actively sought people to try to convince me
otherwise as well. But they can't...even when I want them to.
And there are other activites that are opposite. If my loved one were raped
and I/we believed that it would be a powerful tool for healing, I would have
absolutely zero problem with tracking the perp, bagging them, and bringing them
home for the victim to put to death. I'm not actually convinced that such a
process would be at all healing, but the perp's rights (something that is often
dear to me) just don't matter. And I know that while 99% of you disagree, I'm
in the "right."
So while the Golden Rule is a great example of cultural drill, I certainly
don't have others around me reinforcing my stance toward animals or kids.
Now am I expressng morals or ethics (as you defined them) when they aren't
supported either by a supernatural entity or by social norms and expectations?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
| (...) The way I define things (similar to Richard, but not quite the same), you would be expressing morals - that is, a system of conduct in accordance with right and wrong as you understand them. IMHO, morals are not universal. Ethics are much like (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
