Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 14:07:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've
> basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate
> morality.
I'm not sure. I guess my strongest notion about morality is that it's a bogus
idea (like religion) designed to manipulate others into building a society that
benefits certain people. (i.e. my sense of morality, had I one that I
championed, would be designed to make the universe act more to my liking.)
Because of this, I think that morality is a moving target, and thus tough for
me to define, analyze and categorize.
I think that all of these topics (morals, ethics, religion, government, rights,
etc.) are instruments of aesthetic. If I say that lying is 'bad' then what I
mean is I prefer a world with minimal lying. But what about those who don't?
Or more likely, what about those who recognize that these moral contrivances
are great ideas to support on the face of things because it generates a more
predictible environment in which to operate, but understand that morality is
really something for other people. And now that I've said that, I'm not sure
how to reconcile with the stuff that feels like it's "written on my heart."
So either I think like the two paragraphs above, or I'm not yet sure.
One thing that seems like it's lacking in your three legged analysis (though
maybe this fits into justice) is the adherence to professed morality. If you
say that lying is 'bad' but I see that you lie regularly, that strikes against
my sense of your morality. If you say that revenge homocide is right and just,
and I see that you follow through, while I might be put off by it (or maybe
not), you get points for internal consistency. This makes me think of a
(personal) code of honor which I might believe in more than some real morality.
> The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean".
My sense of rightness is almost solely defined by my understanding of these two
things. But it seems like most people either have some other set of criteria
or they understand those ideas to mean something notably different than what
they mean to me. So I'm not really willing to argue with you on their primacy,
but it doesn't seem like a simple equation from there. Or something.
> One
> might also say "you don't have a right to do that" or (this is horrifically
> uncommon to see in people, but I think it's justified) "that's not
> self-respecting".
Why does self-respect or selfishness have a leg of your sense of morality
anyway? Why would it be immoral to give of oneself totally?
> > > --Justice--
> > > On the one hand, I think justice is that which expects us to be truthful in
> > > all things.
> >
> > You're defining justice as truth? I think it is fairness and/or equity.
>
> Well, not really. That's just how it pertains to the example, in my thinking.
> The category "justice" seems to cover "don't lie", in my book, as well as
> coving things like "be fair", etc.
OK. I guess I just don't get the link between justice and truth. It seems
like truth isn't dependent on an equitable relationship and as such is
something different. Probably even a part of the majority morality, but
different than justice.
> Again, I'm analyzing from a truth perspective, since I think that's really the
> only way this particular example violates justice. And since the government • has
> decreed that things marked "gift" go untaxed, you can potentially avoid lying
> if your definition of "gift" *does* in fact match with the contents of your
> package, perhaps even if only partially. As for whether the *law* *itself* is
> unjust, that's another story. We're talking about the person, not the law.
If a 1940 officer of the SS asks a suspected German Jew about his heritage, I
refuse to accept that the Jew is in any way immoral for lying. It isn't _just_
justified immorality -- it simply isn't immoral. That's just not what morality
can mean.
> Eh, I think it's still a violation of justice-- for the same reason as "is it
> ok to break an unjust law?". While *yes*, it can be justifiable, it doesn't
> mean that the law-breaking-part isn't unjust.
Maybe this points to our root difference on the dishonesty issue. I think that
it _is_ just to break unjust laws.
> I mean, you're really using this
> other country's mail service to deliver your package. And even if you're using
> FedEx or something, you're still paying for FedEx to be *allowed* to operate
> within their country.
Now if you look at it that way, it's kind of a breach of contract. And that
might be unjust. But customs fees seem different than delivery fees. But
then, that's just an expression of my aesthetic.
> Basically, if my new widget is really cool (it's a soda can with a clock built
> in), and I charge $5,000,000 per widget, fine. But you don't have to pay it. • Is
> that price fair?
I'm not sure that 'fair' is at issue in this example.
> I mean, sure, you can say that some other part
> *balances*out* or 'justifies' your lying, but wouldn't it be better if you
> didn't have to lie? IE isn't there some inherent "badness" in lying?
I'm not sure. I would like that better. Is that all that "badness" really
means?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) I agree-- although I don't think I'd word it quite so :) But more or less, I think that's a fair assessment. (...) Well, given the above agreement that morality is aesthetic, who cares about what they think? We're talking about the person (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) (Honestly curious) So how would you categorize subsets of morality? I've basically attempted to come up with different ways in which to violate morality. The two most basic being "that's not fair" or "that's mean". One might also say "you (...) (23 years ago, 21-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
