Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:26:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Where I want to judge morals is not in vacuo, but where it has bearing on
> *my* actions. (so moral viewpoints that aren't like to produce outcomes that
> interfere with my rights, which includes all sorts of fun stuff about who
> can put/ingest/say what where as being of no interest to me as it's not
> likely to infringe)
>
> Some examples:
>
> Suppose you come to my door and say you are collecting for a home for
> wayward boys. I feel it perfectly within my rights to inquire into what sort
> of morals you hold yourself, and what morals you intend to instill, as I
> don't want to give charity to a pederast society that intends to exploit
> these boys. Nor do I want to give charity to the next Guild of Thieves if
> the morals you intend to instill don't include respect for property rights.
Let's modify it a bit:
I come over to your house taking donations for the home for wayward boys.
You ask about my morals. Now I say I plan to teach them the ways of Christ
and bring them up as devout Christians. How much money do you give? What if
instead I went to someone else's house (who was an adamant Christian) and
asked the same? My question would not necessarily be why judge their
morals... that's rather obvious-- the question is whether you think that
judgement is universal? Is that other Christian morally wrong (evil) or
incorrect (or in any sense acting badly) by giving more (or less, I suppose)
than you? And if you say incorrect (which I'll guess you'll opt for?)
incorrect to what ends? What are the consequences of being wrong? And are
those consequences NECESSARILY bad as well?
> Some governments, some societies, and some people are *better* than others.
> Part of why is the morals they embrace. Are my morals "better" than Slobodan
> Milosevic or Saddam Hussein? I think so. But then I make value judgements
> about others. The moral relativist seems to have rejected that.
>
> Therefore I judge their morals inferior to mine as well.(2)
So you necessarily think that their morals are inferior to your own as
judged against some ultimate scale, yes? So let me ask-- what makes you
qualified enough to think you have a better understanding of what that scale
is? Honestly, I think it's an experiencial and intellectual question. You'll
think either that you're more experienced or that you're able to interpret
your experiences 'more correctly' than others (or both).
My question is not only ARE you sure, but CAN you BE sure that you're right?
And along those lines, HOW sure are you, and HOW sure can you be? Enter
relative morality, I think.
The more in-depth issue pertains more to my theory in specific, as it's
merely an attempt at a logical explanation for morals. Basically, I believe
that human beings develop morals as they mature, thanks to experience (of
which society is a NECESSARY part), desire, and judgement.
And as a result, because people's experiences and desires differ, (I won't
touch the judgement yet) different conclusions are made about morality. And
with respect to that, morality is just a trait humans developed, similar to
any other instinct (note I won't go calling it instincive). The result being
that it allowed our societies to function 'better' (measured by survival and
citizen contentedness, I think).
Therefore, the question is IS there an 'ultimate' morality for which human
society can survive best? Personally, I don't think so, mainly because
humans instinctively have different desires, out of which stem our moral
codes. One could argue, though, that all experiences and judgements will
lead us to the same place, but I don't think so.
And going further, what's a human? Is a cro-magnon man a human? Is a
chimpanzee? How about a gorilla? A sloth? A bear? A dog? A Klingon? Can you
say that all these creatues would (if given the ability, some of them)
develop the SAME ultimate ethic as humans would? Could I invent a creature
for which the right of property didn't apply?
Anyway, assuming you answer that all creatues DO develop towards the same
'ultimate' morality, then fine-- we'll just have to agree to disagree... But
maybe at least the above can clarify the specifics of my argument?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
