[Andropov]

I disagree: for example, it can be shown objectively (through scientific research) that the average woman will do just as good a job at being an office clerk as the average man. So allowing women to do the same office jobs as men is not irrational or a subjective choice.

It's really a shame when philosophers with no background in the exact sciences start making unwarranted generalizations (like "all -insert term here- is subjective") that any scientist could easily prove to be wrong. One can pander all one likes in a cave but if one doesn't go out into the real world and test one's ideas one will learn nothing (in a cave one can devise all sorts of theories but in the end only one of them can be true and one will never know which until one does an experiment in the real world).

But why is not allowing women to do these jobs immoral? It may be inefficient, yes, but if you're equating efficiency with morality then "morality" loses its syntax.

[Modernjan]

But why is not allowing women to do these jobs immoral? It may be inefficient, yes, but if you're equating efficiency with morality then "morality" loses its syntax.

It's wrong because you are hurting sapient beings for no good reason. You can call that "morality" if you want to, but you don't have to, you don't even have to call it "wrong". All you have to know is that there is no good reason to forbid it, so why go through the effort of forbidding it (and enforcing that rule) in the first place? This line of reasoning gives you the same end result as defining morality does: a society where women are allowed to work in offices and that's what matters. One can objectively establish a system of laws, later one can put the label of "morality" on that system if one likes to.

[Wolfman]

Then how is it you and I could disagree about moral principles?

Because of exactly what I said.

[J Oswald]

Morals are a human judgment made on the individual level. As such, no moral can be considered either absolute or universal.

The morals that are often considered to be "universal" aren't actually morals at the basic level, but are actually behaviors biologically hard-coded into all normal members of every species. A few people have mentioned the belief that one should not murder (kill without any provocation or reason). If you look at the animal kingdom, you will find that no animal wantonly kills others.

[Sceptic]

I wrote an entire thread about this discussion: natural laws and duties.

Because of exactly what I said.

My argument was that it is nonsensical to argue that moral statements (if you believe in ethical subjectivism) are only subjectively true in truth-functional contexts. Only one side of an argument can be right.

The basis for truth function lies in ethical consistency and obligation to those true moral beliefs, as Suska pointed out lies in self-interest because it is self-destructive to act against biologically instilled moral values.

The basis of morality is not arbitrary at all; it is that we have to live with ourselves and we feel what others feel. It is plain self-interest that makes a moral person and the proof of a society's virtue is their fellowship with each other and with the rest of the world. Without some virtues even trade would be impossible.

What about someone with no, or very little moral values who would not be bothered to act in an immoral way? I have my own thoughts with regard to this, I am just interested in your own.

[Wolfman]

My argument was that it is nonsensical to argue that moral statements (if you believe in ethical subjectivism) are only subjectively true in truth-functional contexts. Only one side of an argument can be right.

Then why did you quote me? I said nothing of the sort, simply that we will never create some kind of universal moral law, and used the debate over the definition of knowledge as an example.

[Suska]

What about someone with no, or very little moral values who would not be bothered to act in an immoral way? I have my own thoughts with regard to this, I am just interested in your own.

We can speak of "morality" in two ways at least. As what we say or as our conduct says.

In the first case the matter is open to confusion and lies. Morality as a code of conduct can become detached from morality as conduct. If a person doesn't know what the basis morality is they may look to tradition or elders to guide their conduct. But it's always better to know things as a matter of what does what, rather than as a generalized matter of what is generally preferred or said.

Supposing that we provisionally accept my proposition that the basis of morality is natural then maybe commandments and laws are unnecessary. In my experience the matter is always and enthusiastically distorted by the stories we tell, especially in Hollywood. We like to scare each other about dark things so that in our collective imagination there are very bad people who don't actually make sense in this scheme, but they might not even really exist outside of stories. So I would rather speak to someone who can reflect on their own experiences.

Discarding second hand tales, and putting aside the occasionally corrupted laws and precepts we insist on we are left with only one admissible way of discussing the matter of what is right or wrong: what has what effect in our personal experience.

I can't speak about someone without a moral dimension because I cannot imagine such a being exists. In my experience I have been presented with a choice to do bad things and to lie and it has never been much of a contest. I don't like what it does to me and I have to live with myself, so I am careful about what I do.

So if there are people who are apparently beyond the reach of their own conscience it seems to me that it is apparent only. It is not so. People who behave in such a way that goes against their nature suffer - drugs and other indulgences are not only celebratory but are also used soporifically against the conscience. Lies are told to obscure what in some circles may appear to be a weakness, but it is very very hard to murder despite the fact that people are squishy and weapons are lethal.

Rationalizations may go some length in the direction of obscuring but the cost is always higher. For example, to lie one loses the capacity to trust. To kill one loses the capacity to feel innocent. Everyone will have quiet moments and naturally outstanding matters return until they are dealt with, some actions are so hard to deal with they require ritual cleansing and enormous self-sacrifice to even amend to the point that suicide is avoided.

I don't accept the idea that morals are relative or subjective because I discard stories and precepts first and look at the basis for the talk. It is essentially that we are not entirely individual. We cannot be. Life is bearable in as much as it is not solitary and life is horrific and impossible in as much as it is solitary. And wicked people are the most solitary people in the world, surrounded by lies that obscure what they perceive as weaknesses and people who fear and distrust rather than love them. (I don't mean solitary in the sense of being alone, but as a matter of being closed off from open engagement by internal difficulties.)

Corinthians says, "All have been made to drink from the same spirit"

By that I take the meaning that the root of morality is that we are not separate in some ways and it is this shared spirit - our nature - that our existence is predicated upon that asserts morality. In which case there is no subjectivity, no relativity, merely confusion about what does what, which we call ignorance.

Immorality is self-defeating. "We are not punished for our sins, but by them." - Elbert Hubbard.

My concern is over misdeeds which require no social action to correct. But shaming and criminal justice are also consequences of the misdeeds. On a social level it's understood that some things hold a society back. If there's no trust what sort of organizing is possible? If there's fear who can get anything done? All organizations from a friendship to family to a community to a nation to the world will be exactly as enjoyable and efficient as the degree of virtue being exercised so again, societally as personally people get what they deserve.

In short consequences come naturally. To explore the matter further it's not always clear what those consequences will be - especially if we're not admitting subjective experience; how it feels and speaking intellectually or soley as a social matter. And on the other hand proverbs 21:2, "Every way of man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord pondereth hearts." It's hard to say what another man's sins may be, but it is the nature of things that is well previous to what anyone says and ensures that any small momentary advantage a wicked person may be granted for their shortcuts through life or their inability to contain their selfish passions - these have effects that are generally grave disadvantages.

So, no one can be "without morals". A person without morals is entirely imaginary. When people say, "I had orders" or make other excuses they are pretending that those people who were in on it, who gave the deeds a rationale and assisted bear a share of the burden of the guilt, but this is just the usual way someone talks - wishing it were so in a way that is almost without parallel because the damage is hideous and unbearable. I could go on here, but the matter of rationales is just a form of lying. While we do feel for each other compassion for the wicked is difficult to say the least, even when that wicked person is yourself.

I will leave you with one final bit which I think underlines my basic premises. There is a very compelling reason to not become a pitiless scoundrel, you would then always be in the company of at least one pitiless scoundrel no matter where you went.

[Tainari88]

So, no one can be "without morals". A person without morals is entirely imaginary. When people say, "I had orders" or make other excuses they are pretending that those people who were in on it, who gave the deeds a rationale and assisted bear a share of the burden of the guilt, but this is just the usual way someone talks - wishing it were so in a way that is almost without parallel because the damage is hideous and unbearable. I could go on here, but the matter of rationales is just a form of lying. While we do feel for each other compassion for the wicked is difficult to say the least, even when that wicked person is yourself

That was extremely perceptive and accurate Suska. I loved it.

Humans are great at avoiding feeling pain and remorse. It is very difficult to face completely the amount of damage an individual can cause to others due to bad decisions based on selfishness, greed, ambition or some other original sin type of behavior. But, I also think that this premise is very true for all individuals living in society, "The truth shall set you free." Avoiding facing the 'music' for your misdeeds and behavior is very damaging and ultimately self-destructive. Going through the fire of pain and heartache and facing the abominable acts you do in life, is a FREEING experience. You finally gain perspective and can be then free to make better decisions and change. All that self-deception retards growth.

OTOH, the truth is very interesting. I think morality has to be something agreed upon on a social level within the proper cultural context. What is immoral to one culture or group is moral in another context and in another culture. Some things in one society is seen as cold and unfeeling and being inhumane. While in another, that same behavior is seen as the opposite. What that teaches you if you analyze moral precepts in society is to take into account the CONTEXT of that society, and the historical and socioeconomic components that make up the culture under consideration. It gives you a much clearer perspective on what is going on.

Morality is something learned socially and culturally and according to context and circumstances lived. It is highly complex and not a simple thing to understand. And as such deserves a lot of thought. That was the reason I started the thread.

BTW, I had no idea Cartertonian grew up Roman Catholic so thoroughly. That he questions his early 'indoctrination' says that he is a man of thought. And it crystalizes what I initially believed about him. He is a naturally thoughtful individual.

And due to various things I have read that Cartertonian has written on POFO I am almost sure that my husband would like him deeply on a personal level. Isn't that strange? It is nevertheless the truth of the matter.

[Suska]

Morality is something learned socially and culturally and according to context and circumstances lived.

This is why I replied. I disagree. In my experience people have different levels of ignorance about what does what and there are plenty of rationales around that seem to justify this or that misdeed, but if the basis is firmly in our nature then these variations are an aspect of degree of ignorance. My point Tainara is directly against the notion that morality has its basis in what people say and agree on.

There are shallow and relatively unimportant things we call morals which are really manners and they have to do with the nature of society - the potential of the society. And the talk surrounding these matters range pretty widely. But you have to look at history to find people who behave quite different as a genuinely moral matter because the world advances together in its handling of serious matters.

It was considered moral at the time to be a Nazi - it was immoral to avoid service. Post-war we think of such absolute service as dangerous. You can't just say "I was just following orders" anymore. Humanity has learned that lesson many many times, but the recent lesson is the fresh one. The fact is that excuse doesn't help really, it's like dipping shit in sugar, it's still shit. It was as immoral then as it is immoral now - individual Nazis felt bad just as our boys come back from the middle east at least slightly warped. It doesn't matter what the cause is, it hurts to hurt - the cause better be worth it. But any cause can be rationalized, the test is whether it is bearable - or even a decent trade.

It is the height of ignorance to say the violent divisions of people or among people cost nothing in potential and peace of mind. Sometimes it seems necessary. Japan in that period was apparently omnicidal, who will feel bad for putting a stop to that? The situations are morally similar though - the problem is the same one: we have a special responsibility to ourselves and so then our future and our people first of all - because 'us' is the world we are virtually naked inside of and 'self' is the person we will live with. If we care at all about the qualities of our experience we care about moral things. What those things are exactly is never settled or completely described, but if you care enough to think about what you do there are some good rules of thumb around. The Golden Rule for example.

The ultimate goal isn't to satisfy society or God that arbitrary rules were obeyed, society and God want us to be happy, some things spoil it. The fact that situations are hard to interpret and there's a lot of lying around only means we have to know each for ourselves what the basis of it is so that we can make a finer decision on the moment and in vague and novel circumstances.

[Tainari88]

This is why I replied. I disagree. In my experience people have different levels of ignorance about what does what and there are plenty of rationales around that seem to justify this or that misdeed, but if the basis is firmly in our nature then these variations are an aspect of degree of ignorance. My point Tainara is directly against the notion that morality has its basis in what people say and agree on.

You know Suska I have never really considered that people may respond to morality based on some innate natural level of consciousness they may have in them from the beginning. Some psychologists claim that babies are born with certain tendencies and personalities innate to them. That a child born tabla raza, doesn't exist and as such individuals are already born with a set of innate characteristics that the society at large builds on or not...depending on the environment they are raised in. I really have not considered that point of view. It is very interesting.

What do you think the rationale is for those people who just do what comes naturally to them regardless of 'I was just following orders?" What makes some individuals say, "To hell with this! I did not sign up for this shit!" And the ones who say, "I have to do what they tell me to do. Regardless." Or the ones who say, "I always wanted to do this anyway--now I have an excuse for it." That is hard as hell to predict with any accuracy without being a mind reader Suska. How does one know? What is your opinion on this moral questioning of intent and nature and ignorance vs knowledgeable conscious repsonse?

BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts Suska, even when I disagreed with them. I have no idea what you do for a living or anything remotely personal about you....but I find the way you think so interesting. I can understand so easily what you are trying to convey and even get a sense of the underlying motivations for it. Very rarely do I feel that way about other writers in these fora. I find your ways extremely engaging. I wish you had a blog or something to read your thoughts exclusively on anything that appeals to you. I would be some kind of faithful reader of that blog.

[Suska]

As far as I can remember no one on Pofo has ever called me 'easy to understand'. It's very gratifying to hear.

I apologize for my edit, it seems like I always manage to get my edit in right as other post. I think I only added that last paragraph.. or two?

What makes some individuals say, "To hell with this! I did not sign up for this shit!" And the ones who say, "I have to do what they tell me to do. Regardless." Or the ones who say, "I always wanted to do this anyway--now I have an excuse for it."

Why are people different? From Corinthians again, "There are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.' Nor again the head to the feet."

Or if you want to speak more concretely, diversity is hardy... if you can handle it.

Further on in Corinthians there's another bit of idealism I like: "There should be no schism in the body, but members should have the same care for one another. If one member suffers or rejoices all the members suffer and rejoice."

That is what I would call a first class social organizing policy - you want a powerhouse nation you just do that. The full potential of human life is right there.

...so that we can make a finer decision on the moment and in vague and novel circumstances.... So that life is good and pleasing. How arbitrary is that while we are natural beings? While we are social organisms..? While we are creative spirits..? And what's left if its none-of-the-above but empty space..?

So the criteria for what's good and bad isn't subject to fashions so much as what we say and do about it changes or to put it another way there are varying degrees of ignorance and virtue is self-interest sufficiently advanced to realize that we're all very intimately connected.

[Tainari88]

As far as I can remember no one on Pofo has ever called me 'easy to understand'. It's very gratifying to hear.

I apologize for my edit, it seems like I always manage to get my edit in right as other post. I think I only added that last paragraph.. or two?



Why are people different? From Corinthians again, "There are many members, yet one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.' Nor again the head to the feet."

Or if you want to speak more concretely, diversity is hardy... if you can handle it.

Further on in Corinthians there's another bit of idealism I like: "There should be no schism in the body, but members should have the same care for one another. If one member suffers or rejoices all the members suffer and rejoice."

That is what I would call a first class social organizing policy - you want a powerhouse nation you just do that. The full potential of human life is right there.

Suska, you know I went now and looked up your info on your profile. All this time I never once did that. I just thought, "Here comes Suska with the astronaut avatar to say something extremely interesting and fun to read." And I would read it and then think about it. I would get exactly what I think you were trying to say and then sometimes it would resonate in my mind, and I would ask my husband about it. You didn't know that you were a little spark all this time in my personal life and the conversations it would generate with my husband did you?

You're an artist Suska. And you think like an artist. Creative and uncoventional. You tend to phrase things in poetic and symbolic form. If I were into guessing what kind of art you do I would say sculptor or pottery, something with the hands. Even painting on canvas. I think you have a love of poetry, and symbolic language. Those phrases from the bible for example, are very clear in meaning to people who grow up with those kinds of artistic sensibilities in the home. My father was an artist. So, it all makes sense for me with you.

That you are an anarchist? That is not surprising either. You think the solution doesn't lie in some organized form of socioeconomic hiearchical structure like government. It lies in humanity's ability to conceive a better relationship with each other. It is internal. Many artistic minds with real talent have that thought process.

It all makes sense now why I understood you Suska. Many don't on POFO because they are fairly conventional thinkers. It isn't you Suska. It is them that lack perceptive creativity and symbolic interpretative abilities. Remember that.

Besos,

Tainari

[Suska]

Again a couple of paragraphs snuck in there in my last post.

You think the solution doesn't lie in some organized form of socioeconomic hiearchical structure like government. It lies in humanity's ability to conceive a better relationship with each other.

Precisely. As I see it there is no real socioeconomic hiearchical structure - that's a fancy word for people interacting, and it's dangerous to lose sight of that. We do that in business - excuse being a dick because it seems the way to profit. There's an excuse for everything. I'm not judging though, higher forms of organizing are better by definition, but if someone insists on worse to me that's just as far as we got together.

[Tainari88]

Again a couple of paragraphs snuck in there in my last post.

Precisely. As I see it there is no real socioeconomic hiearchical structure - that's a fancy word for people interacting, and it's dangerous to lose sight of that. We do that in business - excuse being a dick because it seems the way to profit. There's an excuse for everything. I'm not judging though, higher forms of organizing are better by definition, but if someone insists on worse to me that's just as far as we got together.

Suska, don't worry I did read your edits on your last postings. I am a speed reader.

Oh, if the world thought like you do Suska---it would be a different planet we would live in. And a far better society as well.

I am taking the baby out for a stroll. Will be back and see if I can think of something that might be a moral absolute. That is hard. And challenging. But I will attempt it.

[Suska]

The closest I think I ever got to putting a moral absolute into words in a more or less novel way goes like this:

If it's not fun you're doing it wrong.

I realize that even that can be a high bar to set.

You're an artist Suska. And you think like an artist. Creative and uncoventional. You tend to phrase things in poetic and symbolic form. If I were into guessing what kind of art you do I would say sculptor or pottery, something with the hands. Even painting on canvas. I think you have a love of poetry, and symbolic language.

I say I am philosophically an artist, that is my spiritual calling. Everything that entails. My first artistic practice and foremost is pencil drawing. I am professionally a graphics designer. I play guitar lately, paint with watercolors and write stories and songs among other activities I would call art such as cultivating my land. There's plenty to say about that if you're curious, but essentially I take art as a complete way of life. To me the book we call the Bible isn't the real Bible, that book deserves a place up front but on the other hand the Bible of the artist is a library that contains every book, a museum that contains all art and so on - it is the entire product of human imagination - the perfecting of grace and the expanding possibilities of life.

It is that I love that I know it is love that produces art. It's not that nothing else matters to me, but what more do I need? There's a saying from some island nation I don't remember which, they say, "We have no art, everything we do is art."

[Tainari88]

The closest I think I ever got to putting a moral absolute into words in a more or less novel way goes like this:

If it's not fun you're doing it wrong.

I realize that even that can be a high bar to set.



I say I am philosophically an artist, that is my spiritual calling. Everything that entails. My first artistic practice and foremost is pencil drawing. I am professionally a graphics designer. I play guitar lately, paint with watercolors and write stories and songs among other activities I would call art such as cultivating my land. There's plenty to say about that if you're curious, but essentially I take art as a complete way of life. To me the book we call the Bible isn't the real Bible, that book deserves a place up front but on the other hand the Bible of the artist is a library that contains every book, a museum that contains all art and so on - it is the entire product of human imagination - the perfecting of grace and the expanding possibilities of life.

It is that I love that I know it is love that produces art. It's not that nothing else matters to me, but what more do I need? There's a saying from some island nation I don't remember which, they say, "We have no art, everything we do is art."

Suska, how can one argue with such a beautiful interpretation of what human beings are all about? I can't.

I am glad you live far away from me. It would be very easy to fall in love (enamorarse) with someone like you.

Well you know Picasso once said, "Everything you can imagine is real." That is the epitome of artistic thinking. You say the same thing but in a different way.

Eres bello.

If its not fun you're doing it wrong.

Morally, if one is doing something wrong you feel it deep down....it disturbs your mind in a way that is recurrent. That is if you do have a conscience.

Some Buddhist philosophy feels that all consciousness is basically a mirage. And that we as human beings can't really grasp the enormity of creation in all its infinite possibilities. I think they just might be right. But, people who think like you do Suska, just might get a shot at perceiving it once in a while.

Precioso Suska.

[Suska]

Morals are a natural fact, not a cultural convention.

The only challenge I can see to that statement comes when you start including frivolous or arbitrary cultural policies into the category of morals. It's always a fine thing to try and make things better and for whatever reason carrying on traditions such as Kosher or trying to give women a better chance at employment - these are important efforts to people, they have a moral rationalization but they have other rationalizations too and it's not strongly a moral matter in the way that murder is.

How does it hurt to not do the best you can? It does, but we know what 'best' means by reference to others. In that sense morality isn't absolute. But in another sense: the basis of morality depends on natural, spiritual and aesthetic conditions that cannot depend social convention. We die even if we agree not to, we may feel some loss whether or not we mourn in one way or another, these are natural things which we are subject to. The rules don't change and everyone knows them. Style varies, there are rebellions now and then, but it's really not complicated until you want to judge at second hand or make a rule that always applies or can't be misconstrued.

[Tainari88]

Morals are a natural fact, not a cultural convention.

The only challenge I can see to that statement comes when you start including frivolous or arbitrary cultural policies into the category of morals. It's always a fine thing to try and make things better and for whatever reason carrying on traditions such as Kosher or trying to give women a better chance at employment - these are important efforts to people, they have a moral rationalization but they have other rationalizations too and it's not strongly a moral matter in the way that murder is.

How does it hurt to not do the best you can? It does, but we know what 'best' means by reference to others. In that sense morality isn't absolute. But in another sense: the basis of morality depends on natural, spiritual and aesthetic conditions that cannot depend social convention. We die even if we agree not to, we may feel some loss whether or not we mourn in one way or another, these are natural things which we are subject to. The rules don't change and everyone knows them. Style varies, there are rebellions now and then, but it's really not complicated until you want to judge at second hand or make a rule that always applies or can't be misconstrued.

I understand what you are saying Suska. The problem lies in that if one thinks that way, it is hard to prove morality or lack thereof in others. That is the reason human society does invent laws, moral codes or social mores governing behavior and etiquette of all sorts. To make sense of that which is kind of random, and hard as hell to measure in any concrete way. How do you prove that someone loves someone else? In a measurable sense? It is difficult to do that isn't it Suska? And trying to get humans to think in ways that are outside of social conventions is very difficult. It runs contrary to scientific thinking. Scientific thinking requires structure and method on observable phenomenon Suska. As such, spiritual and aesthetic conditions are never implemented when considering laws and conventions and moral codes. Rules are by there very nature rigid things. Or guidelines. To be broken and disobeyed or followed and respected. Either way they are not fluid things Suska. They can't be.

You have reached a natural contradiction. How do you resolve natural contradictions in terms of morals Suska? I would like to hear your answer?

[Suska]

I don't see the contradiction really, this is how its always been. People differ in virtue and ignorance. Sometimes people do stuff in the name of justice.

The way I understand this reminds me of Sheriff Bullock from the tv series Deadwood. The guy had temper issues and hated injustice. Of course they made him Sheriff, someone would have had to kill him to stop him from doing what Sheriffs do. But it's not about maintaining some higher organization. The people who are inspired to practice the law such as Bullock are simply infuriated by the stupidity of others.

I know this feeling. I feel outrage over injustice. That's not something I've cultivated, it's just how it is.

But I do have a problem with our system here in America. That no longer responds properly to real things.

Proof of love is quite simple I would think. If nothing contradicts it and it is affirmed it is love, isn't that what marriage does?

[Tainari88]

Sweetest Suska, that is what marriage should do. But many times it doesn't. Humans beings have a knack for ruining something that is innately natural and efficient. Not respecting its boundaries and limits and trying to make it something it was never meant to be. Then they are astounded by the consequences.

We are an irrational and an illogical species many times. When will we learn to be more rational and sensible about many human relationships?

Well, I will be reading you Suska....you bon-bon you!