Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance (was Re: McDonalds set
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:31:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1475 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Sorry, being unclear in the interests of brevity. You were saying
> > (paraphrase warning!) that you felt that a mentally ill person's actions
> > would be immoral even if they were unaware of the 'wrongness' of it. That
> > implies that morality is external.
>
> Ahh... Not really... more like they were aware that they violated their own
> 'true' morality. When the subconscious is revealed, they feel deep remorse,
> because they know that the subconscious morality was there all along, and that
> they violated it. That's rather different from being ignorant of morality,
> since being ignorant means that that area of your morality hasn't been defined
> yet. The subconscious morality was already there, just repressed or ignored or
> something.
Hmm. Ok, fair. That's a difference in how we define morality. To me,
morality is a matter of the conscious mind. Unless, of course, we're defining
the subconscious differently, but I'm >not< going there! ;-)
> > Laws can't be immoral. They aren't self-aware.(2) Therefore they can't
> > define a moral code for themselves.
>
> Well, I think that laws can be immoral, but they are not 'required' to be so.
> If there was a law that "Everyday you must kill someone and destroy someone's
> property", that law would force me to go against my own morality. If I
> followed it, I wouldn't be moral. My alternatives are to either leave the
> society, or to be punished for my unlawful inaction. I think the objective of
> law making should be to make laws as moral as possible. Is it ultimately
> possible? Probably not. Concievable? I suppose so; but probably not.
Ah yes, but that doesn't mean the law is immoral. It means you make a choice
on whether to follow the law, or to follow your morality. It's a fine
distinction, but it's there.
> > Ok, here is where I think we've got a big miscommunication. When ever you
> > talk about judging morally, that reads (to me) as "apply my morality to"
>
> Hmm... Interesting point. Actually, in my last post, I think I made a drastic
> error somewhere in the middle on this subject... I think it's been snipped...
> I realized I had said quite the wrong thing about an hour after I wrote it,
> but alas...
S'okay, I think I did that too. :/
> Anyway, "morality" is tough. We all have different ideas about what is moral
> and what isn't moral, but we all have the same "definition" of morality.
Actually, I would say that what we are doing here is debating the definition
of morality, but I get your point anyway.
> When I say I judge someone else morally, I don't judge them according to my
> own definition of morality, but by my rules for the definition of morality.
> Hence, my rules dictate that intent governs morality, so I try and devise the
> other person's intent and morality and apply it to them. Does it work? For
> the most part, I'd say it does. Humans typically have pretty consistent ideas
> on morality. But there are always problems. And as you get to the more
> specific, more and more problems arise. It's certainly not a full-proof
> method, neither is it capable of being so; but it's my only way to judge
> other people's morality.
Ah. See, I try my best to not judge people morally. (I don't always succeed)
By my definition, I'm not qualified. I'll quite happily judge them ethically
or legally, but not morally. This is one of the distinctions that makes me
conclude that I define morality differently than most of the world.
> Why bother judging people's morality? I have no idea. I think that's another
> thing that's instinctual. I think people want to know whether other people and
> their actions are good or bad. And I think that judging other people's moral
> standing also helps to dictate our own actions. If I judge someone to be
> moral, even though they have gone against my own morality, I will be less
> harsh to them than if I think they've violated their own morality. Basically,
> if you feel the person is being moral, you're more approving, if you think
> the person is being immoral, you're less approving, despite their particular
> action. And that is why I have a problem with judging by action. I don't feel
> that I should invoke my own morality of action on them without knowing their
> own morality.
Ok, I see where you're coming from.
> > I wasn't meaning to address whether the child was moral or not. It doesn't
> > matter in the least whether or not the child thinks hair-pulling is right or
> > wrong, or a god-given power.
> > I was stating that it would be moral (under my code) for ME to punish the
> > child for wrong-doing so long as the child knew (either directly or
> > implicitely) that I would consider it wrong-doing, and knew that wrong-doing
> > is punishable.
>
> Yep... my only quarrel with this is as before: Gauranteeing that the child is
> capable of directly or implicitly knowing your reaction. If you think the
> child should know, ("You should know better than that!", etc.), but he
> doesn't, are you still moral in punishing him? It sounds vaguely like my own
> problem-- you have to know something internal to him-- i.e. his capacity for
> inference and his direct knowledge and interpretation. The only way I can see
> of *guaranteeing* that your action is moral is if you have given him direct
> knowledge and definition of everything. In other words, you'd need to have it
> infinitely covered.
Hmm, I take your point. I just don't use morality for this. I'll see if I
can explain this (it doesn't seem to fit well into words).
My morality says it's ok to punish my child if I think he's done wrong, and
knows it. <In my brain, this next part has nothing to do with morality, and
everything to do with personal choice and opinion.> I see my child pulling
his sisters hair, and when I question him, he reacts in a manner I have come
to associate with feeling guilty. I punish him, and consider myself to be
acting morally.
Do you see the distinction? I'm not judging my child's morals. It doesn't
affect my decision.
Note: I'm deliberately not getting into issues about the teaching & raising of
children, or the fact that I will try and instill in them my moral code.
That's way outside the scope of the discussion.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 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
|
|
|
|
