Subject:
|
Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 22:58:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Josh Spaulding writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > Do you think morality is internal (only I can determine if I am moral), or
> > external (you can determine if I am moral)?
>
> Reading some of your posts, I see that you carefully differentiate self-
> defined "morals" and socially defined "ethics."
> The problem I have with this dichotomy is that it is impotent (no "r") to
> avoid imposing one's own morality on others. If I have developed my own moral
> principles, or fully accepted an ethical code that I have been taught, then I
> believe it to be right and of universal value. I may not want to see it
> legislated, but I think the world would be a better place if everyone followed
> my moral system. I don't see how moral beliefs could lead to anything but
> ethical imperialism. This ongoing discussion is an example. We all think we've
> got some good ideas about morality, so we're trying to persuade others to see
> things our way. Nothing wrong with that. I'm just pointing out that morality
> is not purely an internal thing. People develop their own moral system based
> on experience, teachings, and thought, and then project it onto others.
Of course people develop their moral code. But no two people are going to
have the same code, which means that no one individual can know wether someone
else is acting morally. (I took some leaps of logic there)
> So all that "don't judge people" stuff is just a cozy fiction.
I do not claim to not judge people. I claim to not judge other people
> morally<. HUGE difference. Again, I think a big issue here is I'm pretty
sure I define morality differently than most people.
> We all judge people, because that's how a society avoids fragmentation. We may
> argue about whether a sociopath behaves with a sense of morality, immorality,
> or amorality, but we still take steps to arrest his actions.
> If you know someone who routinely transgresses your personal moral code, you
> may not verbally condemn them to a thousand hells of eternal torment, but
> you'll probably avoid their company and have a low opinion of them. Guess
> what? That's "judging people."
Yes, you're right. But it isn't a moral judgement. It's a personal choice
about whether or not to avoid someone who has a different perception of right
and wrong. As a case in point, several of my good friends have no moral
problem with sex outside marriage. I do. I do not condemn them for being
evil. It is not for me to say they are "wrong" And I neither avoid their
company, nor have a low opinion of them.
I am far more inclined to avoid someone, or dislike someone based on how we
interact than on what they think is right or wrong.
> A problem with leaving self-defined moral codes unchallenged is that some
> people tend to justify their actions by developing moralities of convenience
> (e.g. "if someone leaves their bike unlocked, then they deserve to have it
> stolen, and I am justified in stealing it."). Flimsy moral concepts such as
> these might not stand up to testing, but if we don't "judge" people or
> project our own morality, how can we help people to collapse superficial,
> self-serving pseudo-morals?
Not my problem. It is not my job to dictate my brother's opinion.
> > If external, then who defines morality?
> I don't believe in an objective morality (yup, I'm an atheist) beyond the
> basic biological instincts for survival, procreation, and defense of the
> young. However, I do think that pairing those urges with a social lifestyle
> logically yields a lot of our basic ethical/moral/legal codes. But like many
> others, I try to follow a moral/ethical code that goes beyond genetic self-
> interest. Such a subjective, altruistic morality has been advocated by great
> religious figures from across time and geography. It may be a key for a
> fulfilling life, or a stable, just society; but I don't think it necessitates
> ideas of divine decree.
I also try to follow a moral code that is more than "perpetuate the species".
But it is not my right to tell someone else they have to as well. Do you see
the distinction I'm trying to make here?
> In another post, you asked whether a person behaves immorally when he refrains
> from giving what he can to help those in greater need. I would hesitantly
> argue YES, that when affluence and bitter want coexist, the affluent have an
> ethical responsibility to help those in need. This reflects poorly on me,
Here you are using morals and ethics interchangeably. This is where I differ.
I would agree 100% that the affluent have an ETHICAL responsibility. Ethics
are defined by society, and our society has so done. (mostly) However, I
would go further to state that the affluent have no MORAL responsibility.
Groups can't have morals, any more than laws can. If I, as an affuent person
feel the same as societies ethic, then yes, I have a moral responsibility.
> since I can afford to give more to charity than the negligible amount that I
> actually do. Hell, we could all give up our common hobby and use the money to
> help save lives instead. Why don't I? I don't really know. But it makes me a
> less righteous person than I might like to be.
>
> But I just found out about a great site,
> http://www.thehungersite.com/
> "Visitors to the site are invited to donate a serving of food by clicking on a
> button. The donations are paid for by corporate sponsors."
Cool site.
100% effecient charity.
(At least, assuming it is on the level, but it appears to be)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Don Quixote puts away his lance
|
| (...) Reading some of your posts, I see that you carefully differentiate self-defined "morals" and socially defined "ethics." The problem I have with this dichotomy is that it is impotent (no "r") to avoid imposing one's own morality on others. If I (...) (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
