Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:58:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1187 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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 agree-- although I don't think I'd word it quite so :) But more or less, I
think that's a fair assessment.
> 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?
Well, given the above agreement that morality is aesthetic, who cares about
what they think? We're talking about the person sending the package. If that
person is you, then what YOU care matters.
I might posit, however, that EVERYONE wants a world in which there are no
lies. Why? Humans want predictability. It helps us to understand our
environment and causes less stress. Unpredictable things are generally
really unpleasing to humans. We don't want to have to worry about whether
what someone else tells us is true or not. Especially if we have no way of
knowing. Maybe it's ok when it's a kid and we can tell by context clues that
they're lying, but if we *can't* tell, it becomes frustrating. I dunno if I
could say that as definitively as "everyone", but I might be encouraged to.
Not 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.
Agree again! That's exactly what I'm going for. The only way to judge people
morally (IE to say that person X is immoral/moral) is to judge them against
their adherance to their *own* morality.
> 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?
Maybe I'm the only one that sees it that way. In another post, I made
mention of this. Suppose, for example, that I endured days of pain and
torture, then finally killed myself so that Bill Gates could get his ham
sandwich 11 seconds faster, thus being happier for quicker service from his
butler. (Don't ask me how me killing myself and enduring torture got him the
sandwich faster-- I don't know :) But I see that as immoral.
Why? For the same reason that hurting others is 'immoral', hurting
*yourself* is also 'immoral'. Perhaps it's because I'm trying to be
objective rather than subjective on this count. But the basic argument is
that to hurt yourself should be measured equally to hurting others. Hence,
charity is only an overall good act when it doesn't hurt yourself more than
helped others.
> 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.
It's a tough call. It's kinda one of those things where humans want things
to be "as they should be". Hence, lying is viewed as "unnatural" and wrong.
I'm not sure I would fit it under justice either, but then again, it seems
like the best place given my categories...
> 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.
Ah, but when we break it down, it *is* in *part* immoral. The overall action
may be overwhelmingly moral, but in the part of lying, it's immoral. Let's
put it this way:
Possibility 1:
The Jew lies about his heritige, and is released.
Possibility 2:
The Jew tells the truth about his heritige, and is released.
Is not #2 preferable to #1, even though #2 is next to impossible? Unjust
laws may force us to act unjustly in return, but it doesn't mean we're
therefore judged to be unjust overall.
> > 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.
Well, the customs department has customs fees for a reason. And customs is
set up to provide the ONLY service for importing and exporting goods to and
from the country. For various reasons. Hence, you are getting the use of the
customs department, regardless of whether you want it or not. If you want to
send the package, you've got to either go through customs or break their laws.
> > 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.
Alright. Let's say my widget is a cure for AIDS. And you've got AIDS. Is
'fair' an issue yet?
> > 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?
In my book, that's how the idea of morality springs up. So yes.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
