csbrown28
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2013
- Messages
- 3,102
- Reaction score
- 1,604
- Location
- NW Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Behavior standards which apply universally, and reflect the level of integrity that an indiviual has.
That's not morality, that's compassion. We need both, but they are different things: morality is a set of rules, not a belief or an emotion.
Morality is in fact a set of rules based on your beliefs. You hold moral positions based on your beliefs of right and wrong.
I'd like to follow up with another question if you'd continue to humor me, at the end of the day, would you agree that the point of moral systems is to maximize happiness and well-being and minimize pain and suffering? If you don't agree, then what is the point of morals and moral systems?
Yes, but it's not the pain and suffering of those around you, but the pain and suffering for the individual whose ethical and moral actions are screwed up, or non-existent. Iow, the reason for ethical behavior, is to insure your own sense of worth and fulfillment, and not that of others. When a person has difficulty adhering to an ethical standard of behaviors, it is he who suffers internally. As an example, take a hypothetical case of a common thief. His actions are dishonest. His actions may cause me a loss of "things", but things are just temporary. Eventually, and assuming he reaches the stage that ethics are meaningful to him, he will have to come to terms with his own unethical behaviors, and change for the better. I will have a loss of things. He will suffer a loss mentally and emotionally, and coming to terms with one's own negative traits is one of the harder things for people to do over the long haul.
It is based on axiomatic affirmation of certain values, sure. But it is still a set of rules, not a belief.
Disclaimer, I'm not trying to misquote you, only clarify....
So, let me see if I can shorten what you've say into something clearer.....What you're saying is that guilt is self inflicted suffering that people experience when they fail to be moral, and that practicing good moral behavior is about preventing this suffering to oneself and has nothing to do with how your actions affect others?
I'm genuinely interested in what axiomatic values you'd base morality on if you wouldn't mind sharing.
Sort of, but not exactly. Moral behaviors have an effect on others, but the behaviors are reflective of the individual, and his/her integrity. The behaviors are standards to adhere to, in order to prevent harming someone else. Moral standards are universal, and not dependent on one's station in life. Examples of ethical behaviors would be honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, and similar characteristics which can be attributed to anyone who is capable of thought and action.
I already did share, # 25 - freedom of choice. It may be a distinct and perhaps unique central feature of human experience, but we really simply assert that it is super-duper-important, a key value. You may say that moral intuition, or empathy, or fear of living in a lawless society, or religious feeling pushed, motivated you to make such affirmation. But it is still an axiom, not something derived from other positions.
Now I don't mean to sound snide, but what if being honest would result in harm? (Warning, lame hypothetical incoming) If a former employee breaks into my job holding a gun screaming he wants to kill my boss and my boss is hiding under my desk. If the enraged former employee asks me if I know where my boss is, I would lie, I would be dishonest. Now you may respond that all I had to do was use common sense or intuition and I could of solved the problem, but there are many less extreme situations that aren't that clear cut. Furthermore, there are many people that don't, or cannot make the distinction about when it's ok to be dishonest.
I think we can agree that killing is immoral, but what if I was in the position to save 10 people from certain death, by simply pressing a button, but if I did press it I knew that 1 person somewhere else would die? These kinds of decision require a kind of moral calculus because a set list of ideas and principles aren't enough, imo to deal with the nearly infinite circumstances that could arise.
I think defining morality on words or concepts that can be taken allows people to justify bad outcomes on literal interpretation. It would seem at the root of it all, we should all agree that as people we want to be happy and healthy and we want to avoid suffering and pain. Since we know that other experience the same things we do, then we should offer to extend these ideas to others with the expectation that they will return the favor.
this is simply factually not true, many people including myself have different politic views and goals than their own personal ethics, believes, morals and opinions.
In fact the best leaders and politicians understand they need to have an amount of separation.
THinking my personal morals and ethics need to be forced on the country is ass backwards and goes against what this country is.
No surprise in people being snide, is there?
When I say honest, I am referring to a person who is truthful about themselves, and has no reason for pretense. This gets back to the idea of morality being a personal attribute and characteristic. I am not referring to the act of lying due to circumstantial situations.
Well, in reality, no one person's life is worth more than another, except in that we have emotional prejudices. Is it actually more ethical to kill the one, in order to save the ten. Not imo.
I guess it's a good thing that morality is, for the most part, subjective.
I could see how being constrained could effect ones ability to be moral (as does my ability to breath), that is, if I can't breath I cant do anything, of I am restrained and isolated then I can't be moral, or immoral. My being restrained could be caused by an immoral action of another, but I could think of circumstances where limiting freedom is a very good thing.
Now I would describe freedom not as the foundation of morality (which is what I assume you mean by axiomatic), but the result of the simple idea that people succeed best when they are happy and healthy and free from pain and suffering, but as I said in the post above, one cannot judge these ideas in a vacuum. If the goal is what I've said, and one has some understanding about the context in which they can apply there morals, then "freedom" can be judged at either end of the spectrum.
Should you be free to choose to obey the red light? Of course not. You willingly give up the choice of driving though it, because you know that other people are just like you, they want to know that when the light is green, that others are willing to give up their freedom for the betterment of all.
So is freedom axiomatic? I don't think so, can it promote happiness? Absolutely, but freedom can also cause suffering, but to determine the morality of freedom, one must understand the context in which freedom is being practiced.
No surprise in people being snide, is there?
When I say honest, I am referring to a person who is truthful about themselves, and has no reason for pretense. This gets back to the idea of morality being a personal attribute and characteristic. I am not referring to the act of lying due to circumstantial situations.
Well, in reality, no one person's life is worth more than another, except in that we have emotional prejudices. Is it actually more ethical to kill the one, in order to save the ten. Not imo.
I guess it's a good thing that morality is, for the most part, subjective.
Freedom of choice means freedom of choice for everyone, right? I do not exercise my freedom to run on red light because I understand it may lead to injury of other people who did not choose to be hurt.
This is not about "freedom" in some silly anarchic way. My freedom ends where yours begins. We do not think of Josef Stalin as a great libertarian, even though he pretty much did whatever he wanted.
The moral system centered on freedom of choice is in reality VERY restrictive: "not doing unto others what you do not wish done onto yourself" is hard work. Ignoring other people's choices, coercing them, or lying to them to induce them into making uninformed choices -we see it all around us, every day. "The evil", you know.
Further, many of our actions are not a result of conscious choice - we do a lot of things on autopilot, following our subconscious, and it is even fashionable in certain quarters today to describe us as quasi-robots lacking free will. (Kind of like the old-school Marxists thought of human beings as puppets of their socioeconomic environment, only now we don't even need to point to the source of this or that action: It's all in your head, but out of your control).
Further, there are inevitable grey areas regarding the age of consent, mental disability, and just plain stupidity. The liberal pedagogues had struggled with this dilemma for centuries: How do you instill respect for freedom of choice into a mind of a child who is denied his choices all the time, by necessity? And of course, all tyrants in the world always believe that people at large are too stupid to make rational choices, and the only freedom of choice that matters is their own...
Still, what defines an individual human being in life, if not the sum total of conscious choices he had made? Only in that respect one person is different from any other, only in this sense he is not a slave, but has his own life worth living. Starting a moral system from defense of the faculty that makes that possible - freedom of choice - seems natural.
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.
I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.
I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!
(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
Ok, it's not freedom in an archaic sense, but still seems to lack a goal. Freedom seems to be more as a method to achieve a goal, the means, but not the ends. What is the goal of your ideal moral system? How would you measure success of your moral system?
Speaking for myself i've always believed in helping those who cannot help themselves.
I'm a Social Democrat in which I believe in a mixed socialist and capitalist market with an extensive welfare system.
I think it is society and governments job to help the vulnerable and 'weak'.
I would also define myself as quite a moral human being. I'm very anti discrimination of any kind and regularly attend marches in favour of human rights and equality as well as against racism and fascism.
I would like to know your opinion on this matter and whether or not you believe your ethical philosophy directly effects your political philosophy!
(Written at 3am so apologies for anything poorly written.)
The goal of the moral system is to secure your right to have and achieve your goals, my right to have and achieve mine, and so on. "The pursuit of happiness". We are all different, and I should not presume to know what your goals should be - only that your actions on the way toward your goals should not violate freedom of choice of other people. No utopian end-point where everyone is united by some orgasmic solipsism and "everything is just right".
Again, this seems more of a prescriptive system for achieving a greater end. You mention "happiness", now that seems like a goal. The opposite of happiness would be what you're trying to avoid? Correct?
So can we agree that happiness well-being and health is the positive result of a moral system and that you think freedom is the prescriptive system that is the best way to achieve those ends?
Is that a fair assessment?
1.)What DEFINTES a good leader or politician is an ethical question.
2.)What the role of politics, what the goal of politics, what the purpose of it, the validity of it and so on are all ethical questions. You CANNOT talk about politics with out presuming ethical truths or debating them.
Yes, but with a qualification. I view morality as a set of rules that prevent individuals from hurting each other and blocking each others' ways to happiness - WHATEVER EACH OF THEM PERCEIVES as "happiness". But if somebody's happiness could be derived from being a successful serial killer - tough. In this sense, the means are more important than the ends.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?