Which morals could be considered universal and applicable? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13812383
Tainari88 wrote:Which are your personal moral codes and why do you hold them? Please explain.[/b]


In my opinion, morals are a product of the evolutionary process. We are born with certain traits. If a member of our tribe was drowning - we would automatically try to save them. You even see this among other animals - this need to assist.

Even if the individual is not of your tribe, or even of your species - strong moral evolutionary character trait obligations - still come into play at times. A drowning deer if you're hungry is not a moral decision - if it's your hunting dog though?

Society tries to break this evolutionary character trait down - to deny it - for the leaderships gain. You will most often find this moral aptitude among the higher sentient mammals (ones that show signs of emotion and personality) - than you would those that do not. One that once raised a pig as a pet - would prefer to eat chicken................. ;)

Of course a wild boar - is not a domesticated pig - so think wild - to find your morals - for social manipulation is just that.
#13812696
CC wrote:In my opinion, morals are a product of the evolutionary process. We are born with certain traits. If a member of our tribe was drowning - we would automatically try to save them. You even see this among other animals - this need to assist.


On this view, what are 'morals' are simply sociology-biologically determined taboos. Also, altruistic behavior is not a common trait among the animal kingdom and the moral behavior among human beings is qualitatively different from that of animals. In fact, I would say that only human being are capable of morally good or abhorrent behavior.

The problems with these naturalistic views is that they cannot account for our very strong and common moral intuitions. When we think that something is wrong we do not merely think it is out of fashion. I contend that there are many forms of knowledge which are of the 'intuited' type. For example, metaphysical intuitions: that there is an external world to my own mind, that there are other minds than my own, that the past is real, etc. There is no rational basis for calling these into question (methodological skepticism serves to show that many pieces of knowledge are not accessible by the scientific or philosophical method) and I submit that the same is true of our moral intuitions. There is no rational basis for doubting them and for doubting the objective morality (whether we take this to mean that there are objective moral properties or we take this to mean 'realism' about the truth-values of moral statements).
#13812772
Everyone has had or most have had that dog - that special dog that showed such personality. To give its life in defense of its master - its friend - I would consider morally good.

Of course morally good - is in the eyes of the beholder - the sentient beholder. I would go so far as to say that some human beings would give up their life in trying to save their dog - their friend. Have you ever seen the reaction of a faithful dog when it has lost its master?

There is no doubt that our cognitive defenses are more advanced - that's all it really is though - defenses. No different than the fleetness of a horse or the camouflage of a chameleon.

Social manipulation as I said before, is just that - it creates a set of moral values, a guide to follow. The sentient being can follow these - espouse them - die for them - kill for them. In my opinion they are secondary to basic inherited character traits and something we as social creatures pass on to our youth - as a form of defense.

If you was the last man on earth VP - with a two year old, you would pass your knowledge to that child before you died. Your moral values would be passed as well. Right, wrong, good, evil; all these things. If the two year old was the last person on earth, what would you have?
Well; besides a dead two year old..... :D, you would have a human being in its rawest form. Cognitive defenses would teach the child.

Like a smile being a universal language - so is the baring of an animals teeth when it snarls. The child would learn - if it survived.

What is this VP?<------------------------------What is that VP?

It's nothing but a designed defensive mechanism and would be meaningless to the child. Every moral value you have - every word you know is nothing more than a defensive mechanism. When you lay on your back and look up at the stars and wonder "why" <------------That single word is what makes us different - and is our greatest defense....................... ;)
#13812882
CC - you have not said all that much that I did not already figure. I know this view about morality, it is one that is common.

Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.
#13812890
CC, I find it difficult to understand you but it seems that you're suggesting that morals are natural and then that they are social.

There is something called morals which are social; social morality, for instance the Kosher tradition, which is not universal. But even in these rites is a moral aspect that is natural - regarding the humane treatment of food animals. It isn't just a health matter nor is it just something peculiar. But let's grant that there are rights and wrongs for public behavior because there are effective comfortable civilizations and the opposite.

Then there is what is naturally moral, primarily ruled by conscience for example; codified in the commandments, killing particularly. But these don't require speech to be passed on since they are our natural condition and despite some silly assumptions being thrown around here - if you look at the natural world and think oh they're just slaughtering each other left and right (or even sexually promiscuous) you're probably stuck in a Victorian era mindset that has been torn to bits in the last century.

But most of all, there are matters that are universal, not just between individuals or societies but as a matter of existence, the natural and societal rights and wrongs themselves depend on the fact of co-origination. The world is not just a bunch of competitive individuals or even competitive species. The wonder of the natural world is that it works together efficiently with some respect to individuals. That it is a whole thing. Every critter has a place of its own, but it's still a place like a hand is different from a foot, yes it's different but that doesn't mean one is superior to the other and can do what it wants to. In the proper perspective being honest about conscience and heartache its easy to see that at some level we are not distinct from each other - people are parts of humanity and humanity is part of an ecosystem - a part of life on Earth, and not only are we connected in principle for survival but as a matter of universal fact we are dependent upon each other and different and individual as a service to this entirety. We are not just units but unity. If I'm not mistaken this is more or less what VP was suggesting by the term metaphysical.
#13812897
Vera Politica wrote:CC - you have not said all that much that I did not already figure. I know this view about morality, it is one that is common.

Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.


Vera Politica, it is true in my moral perspective---that I believe is highly rational. But, the ones who exterminated them were not thinking with that kind of moral compass. The Nazis did not see it as wrong, because they were into nationalism, and the fear mentality that is the essence of fascism. If they are not human beings with equal value, and are a threat to the state, and to the creation of a higher order in the new Germany they wanted to create, then exterminating them was a justified, and good thing. For me racism, classism, sexism and many other exclusionary ways of thinking about other humans is a detrimental thing in this world. It somehow dehumanizes what is human. Once you do that....then it becomes a slippery slope there in terms of where you draw the line on discrimination. Some people think just send them back from whence they came. No need to kill them. Just get them out of the society and no political or economic power, and just out of here. '

Others think....not enough. They will be back. Need to get rid of all of them permanently.

Irrationality is part of human history. It is even part of general primate behavior.
#13812918
I think the Holocaust highlights the universal nature of morality. Even in that very pressured environment the extermination of the Jews was an extraordinarily kept secret. There are huge differences between Nazi and German Army that persistently cropped up during the war that further highlight the fact that regular people have morals whether or not they look like a cyclops and are threatening. Just think about the efforts the Nazis went through to keep the Holocaust a secret from... other Nazis! What would have happened if the regular army found out?
#13812929
Zhuangzi  wrote:Whether right or wrong, either aspect rolls into one another like a ball on the palm of a hand.

Accomplish what is heard from the heart and that will be a manifestation of Dao
#13812973
Suska, you are right in the sense that they had to keep mass genocide and the plans to commit it secret. But, ultimately I think many nations and people were complicit in the genocide against the Jews. Many nations turned their back on the Jews when they were looking for refuge. That is how the Jews were rounded up from many nations and sent off to be exterminated. Cooperation between many nations in reviling the Jews. Nationalism gone haywire. That is why I think excessive nationalism is not a good thing. People's concepts of tribal loyalty is something good---as long as it doesn't spill over into taking other nations' rights and freedoms away. But almost all fascism is not based on letting all peoples be who they are without interferences. Modern capitalism requires that one invade a lot of foreign nations under false pretexts, in order to obtain the desired goods and control things....so, the nationalism concept then becomes ugly.

As such, you got a generalized state of nuttiness in terms of morality. You want what is best for your nation but in order to maintain your nation's power and status you have to invade others and take their nationhood away or threaten it. And that is a moral problem. How can you be a decent nationalist without respecting other peoples' sense of nationalism.

Rationality has little to do with power plays when you think about. And very little to do with moral constraints. Power wars are about the basest instincts in human beings. What do you think that instinct is Suska?
#13812978
I think instinct is just seeing clearly what we are. The reason we think of it as subliminal is because when we act 'from the heart' it's difficult to examine all the factors.

Prewar Judaism in Europe is interesting, going all the way back to Roman times the Jews never integrated anywhere they went. On the one hand its an admirable form of tenacity to be a people without a land. On the other hand its an abomination to deny the multiple murders of Judaism - The God of Judaism has been killed into transcendence. Nietzsche spoke clearly on these matters. We can admire them. For most people Judaism was an irritant that went on for a thousand years.

My point stands just fine. Though there was complicity in the extermination of the Jews no one wanted to admit what had to happen (once you begin loading people into cargo trains...), they were just relieved to be rid of them. The fact is everyone was maneuvering around moral obstacles, it's not surprising that something terrible happened, what surprises me is how limited and ambivalent, how conflicted the holocaust was - though today it's a benchmark of evil, clearly most Germans were as horrified about it as anyone.
#13813027
Vera Politica wrote:On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.


I think we are getting somewhere.... :)

In 1258, the Mongols attacked the city of Baghdad, and then killed children, women, detained and disabled people (Mongols made no distinction between those who stood against them and those who surrendered themselves to them, both were murdered). 80,000 residents in a period of 40 days. (or so history writes)

True, False, or no truth-value?

We make our own moral truth - we design our own moral lies. We do this knowingly and unknowingly - all to better prepare ourselves, for when we become rats in a box. A socially defensive, survival mechanism. Empathy - prevents you from seeing this VP, just as much as it leads humanity dynamically towards social structures.

CounterChaos wrote:Every moral value you have - every word you know is nothing more than a defensive mechanism.


We want to be so much more - don't we? Is it morally good for a worker ant or a worker bee to sacrifice its life in defense of its colony? Only a sentient being can decided that. Only a sentient being can put a value on life, on actions, or a moral code. We have decided long ago to let the ant and the bee do what it must to survive as a whole. So, we placed a moral value upon the ant and the bee.

Suska wrote:But most of all, there are matters that are universal, not just between individuals or societies but as a matter of existence, the natural and societal rights and wrongs themselves depend on the fact of co-origination. The world is not just a bunch of competitive individuals or even competitive species. The wonder of the natural world is that it works together efficiently with some respect to individuals. That it is a whole thing. Every critter has a place of its own, but it's still a place like a hand is different from a foot, yes it's different but that doesn't mean one is superior to the other and can do what it wants to. In the proper perspective being honest about conscience and heartache its easy to see that at some level we are not distinct from each other - people are parts of humanity and humanity is part of an ecosystem - a part of life on Earth, and not only are we connected in principle for survival but as a matter of universal fact we are dependent upon each other and different and individual as a service to this entirety. We are not just units but unity.


Which is it for you Suska? Individuality or Unity?

Tainari88 wrote:The Nazis did not see it as wrong, because they were into nationalism, and the fear mentality that is the essence of fascism. If they are not human beings with equal value, and are a threat to the state, and to the creation of a higher order in the new Germany they wanted to create, then exterminating them was a justified, and good thing.


Bold statement - and I agree.

Tainari88 wrote:We are an irrational and an illogical species many times.


A truth in my eyes - we need the dynamics of the irrational to adjust our social structure. A defensive survival mechanism.

Vera Politica wrote:Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.


The only truth to be found - is in the irrational.
#13813047
Which is it for you Suska? Individuality or Unity?
Both of course, nature thinks in populations, populations think in individuals and individuals think in components, but there is no difference in goal between these perspectives, and there is no fixed distinction between them.
#13813064
Suska wrote:Both of course, nature thinks in populations, populations think in individuals and individuals think in components, but there is no difference in goal between these perspectives, and there is no fixed distinction between them.


Irrationality controls it all. There is no direction - there is only dynamics. The ant colony is finite - the beehive - is finite - the sentient being is not.

We want to "think" we have a direction - we strive to answer the question "why"- so that we may become finite like the ant colony or the beehive - we long for a finite truth.

It will never happen Suska - because all things can be divided by their component parts - even those we don't know exist.

Welcome to Chaos.

Of course, if we understand this - we can find direction. If is a big word - for two letters................... ;)
Last edited by CounterChaos on 16 Oct 2011 01:06, edited 1 time in total.
#13813070
I don't know. You seem like someone on a porch swing drinking lemonade wistfully examining the sky...

I would say that there is no contradiction between macro and micro, everything is united - devoted - to the same things for the same reason and as a rule they benefit from cooperating. I don't need to know this is so, I only need to know it is good and possible.

I think you need to stop thinking of the world as something fixed that produces us. We are all a cause and the the world is constantly being reconfigured. 'Will' is the operative notion, chaos is just the wake behind our boats.
#13813073
Suska wrote:I don't know. You seem like someone on a porch swing drinking lemonade wistfully examining the sky...

I would say that there is no contradiction between macro and micro, everything is united - devoted - to the same things for the same reason and as a rule they benefit from cooperating. I don't need to know this is so, I only need to know it is good and possible.

I think you need to stop thinking of the world as something fixed that produces us. We are all a cause and the the world is constantly being reconfigured. 'Will' is the operative notion, chaos is just the wake behind our boats.


Chaos - is the boat............. ;)
#13813080
I would say that there is no contradiction between macro and micro, everything is united - devoted - to the same things for the same reason and as a rule they benefit from cooperating. I don't need to know this is so, I only need to know it is good and possible.


Suska you sound like a Daoist with this. Are you philosophically a Daoist?
#13813081
Suska wrote:It looks to me like you're saying things for effect.


Oh good grief Suska - you know me better than that. I never was one for one liners - you know that. You also know how I feel about chaos in society and where I point my finger and why.

If you want me to repeat myself - I would be more than happy to.


Suska wrote:You seem like someone on a porch swing drinking lemonade wistfully examining the sky


Agreed - the only difference between you and I, you do it sitting on the porch cross-legged............ :D
#13813087
"Heaven and Earth are devoted to motion"

Something Daoist yeah, but I don't know where I got that one.

The nuance is important though.

I don't expect the world is fixated at all ultimately, we do predictable things because we want to reach higher states of organization. I don't think higher states are better, I think birds have their place just as mice do. I think when we suffer we die or become better people. I think we are always looking for a balanced position but as the outlook is different so is the particular idea of balance, because even though things seem separate they really aren't separable - these are natural facts about existence.

This is what is ontologically prior to natural systems: we are one thing which has differentiated every bit as much as we are a myriad of things that have organized. Nature is a pattern of this theme. It is many, but it is one. Marx wrote effectively about this. As social beings we are defined by each other. As a moral matter I would refer you to Schopenhauer. Morality is that we feel for each other. There are Eastern corollaries as well, the Buddhist concept of co-origination in particular (Japanese "Enji" if I'm not mistaken).

Anyways, calling this Chaos isn't useful to me. I am interested most of all in what does what. In this case we're talking about the universality of morals.

Overall and in particular, immorality is that which diminishes, morality is that which enhances. There is no practically discerned difference between what feels good and what is good even if recognition of that feeling is displaced in time and space. Is that too esoteric?
#13813088
Suska wrote:Anyways, calling this Chaos isn't useful to me.


I know this - ever since the first ass chewing you gave me my first week here (This is my job!! This is what I do!!) I studied your "religion". I know what chaos means to you. This is not about you Suska - and never was. Actually IMO, you are battling chaos with your organized confusion - you just don't realize it........... ;)

I consider you one of my digital friends - whether you like it or not........ :eh: :D

Suska wrote:Marx wrote effectively about this. As social beings we are defined by each other.



Suska wrote:Overall and in particular, immorality is that which diminishes, morality is that which enhances.


I disagree - it is for the beholder to decide.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]