It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moral Skepticism: The Honest Conclusion of Moral Relativism and Moral Language

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

This is all a non sequitur. Nothing about competing biases hampers the ability of one to recognize the distinction between a willing and unwilling action.


I am not going to pull this thread so far off topic as to begin a schooling in psychology and the complexities of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious parts of mind and drives. I guess I feel too tired tonight to delve into that.
Lots of times, people do things which are contradictory to the goals and intents they are aware of. In further analysis, they usually find they had drives, desires and intents which they were not wholly aware of, and yet influenced their actions.
This makes the question of will quite vague.




If "the word" is referring to free will, I think its pretty obvious that free will is not a word that applies to objects, but rather it is a word that can only apply to true agents.


The word I referred to is "slavery". It is not an object, like, say, "apple" or "chair". That makes it a bit more difficult to discuss it's definition. That's what I said.




You cannot say one man enslaved another man and expect to make sense of it, if a man is simply a bag of flesh fizzing to his DNA, then given the conditions at hand there could have been no other result. How can one blame Luis Garavito for murdering 138 people if Garavito never had a choice in the matter? Any type of justice system becomes absurd.


I do not intend to suggest people have no will- I think I made that more clear above?

In my view, justice systems serve the purpose of enforcing the intentions of the collective.
A murderer should be put to death, or at least kept imprisoned, not to "teach him a lesson" or to make a point, or to prove the imprisoners are "good" ... but rather to protect the members of that collective.
No hatred or anger is needed for such a decision- simply logic.

The judgement of violence and murder as bad or unacceptable is often agreed upon in collectives with the intent of seeing their group grow and flourish, with cooperation and solidarity. It is the "correct" judgement in relation to that particular goal.


edit on 20-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

Then if you want to expunge the vocabulary of morality and its shackles, you would need to live in an animalistic/naturalistic state.

How do the animals live? That is true freedom from the constraints and obligations of morals and ethics and the perceptions of right and wrong. That is life by pure instinctual drive.

Rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism, pedophilia ... all those other less than savory aspects of the human condition that are also found in nature (because they are) we can give full reign to and stop worrying about because we are now living by nature and our instincts alone. Those things no longer matter and they no longer have value or judgement attached. Right?

I'm sure you wouldn't mind that society at all, but it's what you say you believe in.


Ok... this is tiring. Please read my responses to the posters above. I explained my stance which you are misinterpretting.

I had a very tiring last few days- a terrible accident here kept me stuck in my car for four hours yesterday, and I could not go home. I had to go to school the next day wearing the same clothes as the day before, without having brushed my teeth and exhausted. I am calling this a bad thing that happened, because it was uncomfortable for me and continues to impact my ability to carry out all that I have to do today. Calling it that gives others around me information on how I experienced this, how I feel right now, and what to expect (or not) from me (like I won't be cooking dinner for everyone tonight!
)

But is this some sort of inherent moral "truth" about the event? Nope. Still serves me. I attach meaning and values to LOTS of things. I am not really caught up in trying to believe I am the master of the universe and hold the keys to all universal truth. I don't need that. I enjoy being a regular human.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
I know women here who were sold to be married at fourteen years of age. It might be a contractual agreement, but her agreement and consent was not asked for nor necessary. In most of their cases (except one) they cannot drive, and in fact only leave the home to do chores which are necessary for the work she must do for the husband, and children. (shopping for food, in particular).


Forced marriage may appear to be "wrong" in your culture, but is the culturally accepted norm in their's (presumably). Slavery is still something different, even if you judge them to be like slaves.


originally posted by: Bluesma
They do not live in their country of origin, and here they have the right to divorce, they have available aid from a system that holds such situations as unethical, and yet.... why do they stay?


Love? Societal and familial obligations? Any number of reasons, but mainly because that way of life is culturally acceptable to them and because that culture may also restrict their access to education making it more difficult for them to make informed choices. It is not a matter of "why they stay" that's easy to understand, "how can we provide them with more opportunities" is the more problematic consideration. In my opinion.


originally posted by: Bluesma
The complexities of a human mind are not so easy to catagorize. There are a whole lot of internal ambiguities and contrasting desires that come into play.
You can choose to call that "not slavery" if you will, because there is a possibility of escape which she has chosen to decline. Whatever. I think the focus upon the moral language is exaggerated.
Yes, it is a term which implicates a moral judgement upon the act.


I think what is at play here is that you choose to call it slavery, but it is not slavery by any definition. I don't see it as a moral issue at all.


originally posted by: Bluesma
But at any moment, one can choose to look at it's objective definition as well.
Just as I have brought up before, in terms like "manipulate". Which means to handle, control, move or influence.
One particular culture can associate negative judgement upon the word.... but at any moment you are free to remember that you manipulate your car as as well as your children, your dog, your keyboard, your employees ....
You are a manipulator. Is it constructive for you to consider that necessarily a bad thing?
Depends upon what you want to achieve.


People attach ethical meaning according to their intents.

A thing can be considered "good" or "bad" in relation to a certain goal or intent. To put water on a stove is a good thing if you intend to boil an egg, or it can be a bad thing if you intend to make ice cubes.



I am sorry but I don't know how this is relevant.


originally posted by: Bluesma
Ick.... that almost sounds like you accuse me of being a feminist. I can assure you I am not.


I'm not a feminist either, I'm Anti-Suffrage, my belief in proportional representation framed upon the power held in the means of production puts me at odds with most of the pampered, bored housewives and spoiled little rich girls that make up feminism these days, but I have a great deal to thank the feminist movement for historically what with equal pay for equal work, flexible working hours, maternity pay and protections, the vote of course etc.


originally posted by: Bluesma
I don't know. You do as you wish. These women are in something I do consider as defined by "slavery"-
Just not with your added morality to it.


Again, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate. What morality did I express? We are discussing people you know, I have no idea of their personal circumstances, but I respect that their culture is different to mine, it is you who is judging them to be like slaves, and that is your perception, but it does not make it slavery just because you are judging them to be so. Your judgement, not their reality. In their culture that way of life is socially acceptable, divorce could mean social stigmatisation, disapproval from family and "shame", these are powerful constraints, as is love. I don't see any moral issue in any shape or form, other than that consensus morality forms the basis of laws, including contractual agreements.



originally posted by: Bluesma
Isn't this what the Americans are trying to say when they repeat the currently popular "It is what it is" ?
I don't want to use such trendy phrases.....but yeah. I guess I relate to that.


This means nothing.








posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma




I am not going to pull this thread so far off topic as to begin a schooling in psychology and the complexities of conscious, subconscious, and unconscious parts of mind and drives. I guess I feel too tired tonight to delve into that. Lots of times, people do things which are contradictory to the goals and intents they are aware of. In further analysis, they usually find they had drives, desires and intents which they were not wholly aware of, and yet influenced their actions. This makes the question of will quite vague.


Confirmation bias is psychology 101, so I don't think a schooling is necessary, but my point remains. Want to explain how human biases change anything about the distinction between willing and unwilling?




The word I referred to is "slavery". It is not an object, like, say, "apple" or "chair". That makes it a bit more difficult to discuss it's definition. That's what I said.


Not really. Chattel Slavery, which is the slavery we have all been talking about is a word the references the treatment of a person as property against their will.




In my view, justice systems serve the purpose of enforcing the intentions of the collective


Okay but this is not a discussion about the pragmatic use of the justice system, but rather a discussion about truth.




The judgement of violence and murder as bad or unacceptable is often agreed upon in collectives with the intent of seeing their group grow and flourish, with cooperation and solidarity. It is the "correct" judgement in relation to that particular goal.


I am not asking what we label "correct." I am asking what is actually correct. You seem to be implying that the Good should be defined according to the number of people who agree with whatever is in question. This again doesn't help you get anywhere. You still haven't gotten to some grounding for your ability to separate moral and amoral issues or societies ability to do so.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Using an accident is a bad - my bad - poor example.

An accident might be just that, an accident. There is no real inherent morality at all to the event. Unless you can say for certain that one of the drivers who was involved in the accident did something that could be called immoral (maybe he or she got rip-roaring drunk and knowingly got behind the wheel - a thing I would call immoral because we all know the potential for disaster when such a thing happens) that led to the wreck in question, then it was simply a series of unfortunate events and inconvenienced you and everyone else.

That was amoral with no intent of any kind that could be judged anywhere along the chain.



posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bluesma

Confirmation bias is psychology 101, so I don't think a schooling is necessary, but my point remains. Want to explain how human biases change anything about the distinction between willing and unwilling?


I guess we are coming from such different perspectives, I find it hard to find a way of illustrating a concept that seems so completely evident to me.

In speaking of judging whether another is willing or not, there are many complexities and "unknowns" which come into play, and we have a tendency to fill in those blanks with assumptions based upon our own bias's.

Like the assumption that because I feel there is no inherent meaning, value or morality to anything, I therefore mean to say language which carries a connotation of morality should simply not be used.
That was a conclusion a few made... and yet I did not say any such thing.

What was this assumption based upon? I can only guess...and I won't hesitate to do so, but that doesn't mean I will assume my guess is correct. I am not you, I cannot delve into the depths of your mind.

A person who overeats....can you truly claim for sure that it was their intent to become obese, or to have diabetes, high blood pressure or cholestrol?

It is possible that their action (which led to a predictable effect) was not chosen with that effect as intent. There may have been other intents involved which they were focusing on instead, and which were fulfilled each time they did this action.
-Or they might have deep feelings of self loathing, which influenced this self destructive behavior, on a level they are not totally conscious of, because they repressed them.

Could be one or the other, could be both. How do you, as the judge of them, decide which is the truth about their intent ?




Not really. Chattel Slavery, which is the slavery we have all been talking about is a word the references the treatment of a person as property against their will.


I like being more precise, it does specify what you mean to communicate- it is too bad that was not pulled out from the beginning! Just as the word "manipulate" englobes a larger meaning than does "covert manipulation" - what you choose to use changes the discussion radically.

But even in the case of "slavery" (general) in which I included being sold off as a child to a grown man by other adults for money, how did you come to the conclusion that it was "willful" on the part of the child?
I know from deep conversation with some of them that the process was terribly painful, they cried a lot, felt they suffered, and did not want it at first.
Why they do not leave when they are thirty, they have a society available and willing to help them out safetly, or why they now have a different judgement upon that event despite their initial suffering is more complicated to determine.

Most of us can think of events in our lives which we judged as bad at the time, but later felt differently.
Like some hated going to school as a child, and felt it was against their will... and yet later decide it was a good thing, and are glad it happened. To find out why, you'd have to get close to those people, and gain deeper insight. What you might find is that they had mixed feelings and experiences about it all through time.




Okay but this is not a discussion about the pragmatic use of the justice system, but rather a discussion about truth.


I am trying to guess what you mean by "truth"... I can only hold up my guesses and have you confirm or correct my guesses.
Do you mean some sort of truth about the objective world?
Like what an object is, and that we can all agree we perceive the same? We might all perceive a chair in the same form, solidity and color. That suggests we are perceiving objective reality.

But what it is to be used for... we might all see differently.
There is a kind of chair lots of people have in their homes here that I thought was for children to sit on. Turns out it is a prayer chair- you are supposed to kneel on it, facing what I would call the "back" of the chair, and place your hands it. When they look at this chair, the images, feelings, and moral connotations that they attach are different from mine. Even amongst each other, there is differences- like some see it as a object of torture and cruelty (immoral feelings....), some see it as the opposite, a tool used in the practice of moral and good actions.

Which, pray tell, is the "truth"?




I am not asking what we label "correct." I am asking what is actually correct. You seem to be implying that the Good should be defined according to the number of people who agree with whatever is in question. This again doesn't help you get anywhere. You still haven't gotten to some grounding for your ability to separate moral and amoral issues or societies ability to do so.


No, I have left behind the separation of morality and human creation of it. I do not believe in a Divine or Universal polarity anymore.

But your comment "This again doesn't help you get anywhere" is interesting to pick out.
Where are you trying to get?

If one wishes to feel secure within a framework of known limits of behavior that remains stable at all times,
or
to feel powerful in belief that they hold knowledge that can be used to condemn or approve all other humans and their actions, as a mouthpiece of God,

then the belief in a sacred moral law is correct. It is good for that person to have because it serve their purpose and goal.

But if one wishes to feel more free in their choices and their reactions, leave others more freedom of the same, and be able to get closer to others on a deep level (rather than rise above them),
Then such a belief is incorrect, or bad, for them. It is contrary to their intents and goals.

The base of this assertion is my view that, though an objective world may exist for us all, we cannot ever be sure to perceive it as it is. Because we have subjective points of view while incarnated. We exist in a particular point in time and space, with a self consciousness that limits our view and therefore has bias. Even when you think you don't, you do.
So my conclusion is - I cannot escape it, so I embrace it.




edit on 21-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anaana

Forced marriage may appear to be "wrong" in your culture, but is the culturally accepted norm in their's (presumably).


Exactly. It is just a judgement applied by a society.



Slavery is still something different, even if you judge them to be like slaves.


Quick definition Googled-


slave
sleɪv/Valider
noun
1.a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

1.work excessively hard.


These women are, by definition, slaves. They were sold for money, to a person who legally possessed them, and they were forced to obey them. (they also work excessively hard).

What changes their status in your view?
That in the context this event took place, it was acceptable practice? Is that correct?

Therefore, being the legal owner of a human being, with full right to do what you want with/to them, forcing them to obey you and work hard for you, is NOT immoral.... if the society around you sanctions it.

Context is an influence in your judgement here

If said this was done in New Jersey- parents of a 14 year old girl sold her for money to an older man, who used her for labor and sex against her will, would that change your definition of her situation?





Any number of reasons, but mainly because that way of life is culturally acceptable to them and because that culture may also restrict their access to education making it more difficult for them to make informed choices. It is not a matter of "why they stay" that's easy to understand, "how can we provide them with more opportunities" is the more problematic consideration.


There is more to it than that. There is one insight they have shared with me that I found absolutely extraordinary, because it really jars my western mind- that this sort of practice is how one REALLY learns to love!!! That love isn't just an attachment to who/whatever makes you feel good. There is nothing to learn there. That is instinctual from birth. You are attracted until they cease to make you feel good, then you leave them, in our culture.

Love can also take the form of moving beyond that animalistic instinct - to learning to look deeper and appreciate that which is different from yourself; those who do not immediately just fulfill your desire for pleasure.
To see how there is value in qualities and characteristics which can be completely opposed to your own.
This is a huge lesson, and it requires going against the ego will, which is always in a mode "self-good, other-bad"; ego is always choosing to approach that which it sees as similar to self.
They have learned (they claim) that having their will forced allowed them to learn the experience of "real" love- which is appreciation of "not self".
This is a practice in spiritual enlightenment, according to them. This is why some of them encourage the tradition to continue despite the suffering they went through.

We could speculate on that perception and criticize, but I add it to illustrate - there can be some aspects of their intents and feelings we did not even guess, simply because of our cultural bias.




I am sorry but I don't know how this is relevant.

Preference dictates our judgement of good and bad.
Do you prefer, at the moment of putting the water on the stove, ice cubes or boiled eggs?
That will dictate your judgement of which is right for you to do.
To use my example of the women I know who are possessed by another (whatever you want to call that)

Would you think to ask them-
Is your preference to follow your instincts towards pleasure and nurture your repulsion to discomfort?
Or is your preference to develop an ability to counter that instinct, and discover value that might lie beyond discomfort, or lack of value that can lie beyond pleasure?

That might determine whether the experience of being possessed legally by another human is right or wrong for them.




What morality did I express? We are discussing people you know, I have no idea of their personal circumstances, but I respect that their culture is different to mine, it is you who is judging them to be like slaves, and that is your perception, but it does not make it slavery just because you are judging them to be so.


I didn't judge these people, nor their situation, morally! (I didn't accuse you of doing so either)

I said you expressed a moral attachment to the word "slavery".
Am I mistaken???

I am claiming I see no necessary moral meaning to the word "Slavery". It might be good, might be bad, depending upon the situation and individuals involved.

It really seems like you have been saying here - well, if their situation is not "wrong" or "bad" (for them, or their society)
then it cannot be slavery.
Even if it fits the definition of the word....

From what I understand, you mean, because slavery is immoral and bad- so if it is not bad, it cannot be slavery.





edit on 21-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

That was amoral with no intent of any kind that could be judged anywhere along the chain.


-and in your example of the driver having been rip roaring drunk...

What if
He just learned that afternoon his wife is having an affair with his best friend and is leaving him, taking the kids with her.

I could think of lots of possible scenarios in which it gets fuzzy to determine intent.

I think you mean to refer to "blame" or "fault" instead of intent?
Unless you mean a person getting behind the wheel drunk did so with the goal in mind to have an accident and kill someone? I assume you mean they chose to ignore that risk..?

It seems my difficulty communicating here might be because I see morals as preferences; as a "positive"attachment, or a "negative" attachment, to things, people, concepts, words, etc...

from the most simple of choices (like what to eat for lunch),
to the most serious (what to do with a serial murderer-,
they are all, to me, a choice of preference.
Could be individual preference,
Or individual preference which conforms with a specific collective preference,
but it remains a HUMAN creation of meaning.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
From what I understand, you mean, because slavery is immoral and bad- so if it is not bad, it cannot be slavery.


No, you are completely misunderstanding what I was attempting to communicate and instead you are repeatedly stating why and how you think and make moral judgements. I am not saying that how you make value judgements is "right" or "wrong", I am acknowledging that you are entitled to your opinion and to stating it but that it is ultimately your opinion and therefore has limited scope in application to the OP, that doesn't mean your opinion is invalid just that your opinion is not the topic of conversation.

You are essentially defending a position that no one is attacking and therefore defensively repeating the same information over just differently. There is no need though if you understand the OP.




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

Okay. Perhaps I am struggling with separating the many different objections I had to face when I came back here last night. One that says I should not use language at all, one that says I desire to live in an animalistic society where rape murder and torture is acceptable and common practice, one that says I actually believe in some sort of static good and evil despite my claims, and one that objected that selling a child for money to be owned by another cannot be included in the word "slavery".... it maybe got confusing, and I felt I was being radically misunderstood.

I might have gotten a little mixed up between who said what. Like I said, I hadn't slept all night and my brain was not working well.

Perhaps I can't defend myself on so many fronts at one time and stay focused right now. (though you cannot say it is a position no one is attacking...really? In our western culture, telling someone they desire to do rape torture and murder is commonly considered an attack, no??)
edit on 21-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko


Rape, murder, slavery, cannibalism, pedophilia ... all those other less than savory aspects of the human condition that are also found in nature (because they are) we can give full reign to and stop worrying about because we are now living by nature and our instincts alone. Those things no longer matter and they no longer have value or judgement attached. Right?

I'm sure you wouldn't mind that society at all, but it's what you say you believe in.


I cannot fathom how you came to this conclusion.

I do not enjoy doing these things, nor see a rational use for them. So I would not judge them "good" for me to do , even though I have no outer "shackles" as you call them.
There are (less severe) acts, like stealing, lying, cheating, which I also do not choose to do, despite my lack of perception of some universal shackles, simply because I perceive they are contrary to my intents- like nurturing cooperative, trusting and respectful relations with others. Doing them, then, is wrong in relation to my intents.

I don't need a magical sacred law to tell me this- only rational thought and keen observation.

If some people need shackles, like religious law and gods to keep them from doing those things, then I guess they should have them on. Whatever.


edit on 21-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma


It's funny, our views might align more closely than you imagine, it's just that you're totally confusing certain notions of morality. Good and bad have nothing to do with external objects, things that happen to you, sensory impressions, unpleasant feelings and situations, etc. All those things are indifferent, neutral, amoral.

Good and bad lies only in the sphere of will, judgement, and conscious choice. Things that are in your power. Making true or false judgements about the nature of indifferent things is a moral issue, nothing else is. According to the version of virtue ethics I'm using as my base, vice and evil is only the act of making false judgements and acting on them.

For example, a petulant child going to school even though they don't want to is not bad in any possible interpretation, it's not an evil. Someone accidentally running you over in their car is not bad, it's not an evil. These things happen, unfortunately, and it's outside your power.

However, getting behind the wheel and maliciously mowing someone down because they did something that made you angry-- that is bad, an evil. According to virtue ethics malice and anger are classified as vices; vices because they entail false judgments. Anything that anyone does of their own volition, which is always outside your power, is indifferent to you and no cause for any anger or malice whatsoever. It's the false judgment that something indifferent is worthy of those emotions, and worthy of the action, when it truly isn't. Malice and anger also violate the inherent kinship between all rational beings (not just limited to humanity) which I believe is a universal law.

Put simply, we both believe that everything in the world around us, everything outside our control, is ultimately indifferent and amoral. It's just that I believe we have a choice in things, that we have free will, and therein lies the nature of good and evil.
edit on 24-1-2017 by Talorc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BluesmaI don't need a magical sacred law to tell me this- only rational thought and keen observation.



Odd, because seemingly every version of relativism I've encountered and heard argued is not rational in the slightest. Usually it's the definition of irrational.



posted on Jan, 24 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc


Good and bad lies only in the sphere of will, judgement, and conscious choice. Things that are in your power.


My problem with that, as I have said, is that we have learned there is very little that our conscious awareness is in power of - including our own actions. We have the subconscious mind, which has the ability to, and often does, override our conscious awareness. (such as the famous "Feudian slip", or in false perceptions caused by subconscious drives and emotions.




According to the version of virtue ethics I'm using as my base, vice and evil is only the act of making false judgements and acting on them.


A false judgement is an error, so that indicates it was not made false on purpose by the conscious mind.




For example, a petulant child going to school even though they don't want to is not bad in any possible interpretation, it's not an evil. Someone accidentally running you over in their car is not bad, it's not an evil. These things happen, unfortunately, and it's outside your power.


You have misunderstood. I did not mean that a child who doesn't want to go to school could be judged as bad.
I meant, a child who does not want to school could judge those who made them go are bad!
The chain of logic being referred to is such-

"-They forced me, against my will, to go there...
-I suffer there,
-so they must have purposefully sent me there because they want me to suffer
- wanting someone to suffer, and doing things so that they will suffer = evil."

This is the problem I was pointing at, in judging others as good or evil.
Mistakes, or false judgements, happen because of our limited ability to read the minds of others and know their intents.
Our own discomfort, displeasure or suffering influences our judgement about what that is.


Judging actions (events) as good and evil is something that is done often. For example, "murder is evil". That is regardless of who is doing ti and in what context.
Another is "sexually molesting children is evil".
Pedophiles often have the problem of percieving that a child is willing and enjoys the sexual relationship. They interpret behaviors to mean the child is willing and desirous.
The child might be doing these behaviors because they are encouraged by the attention in general - not because they want sex.
But the desire of the pedophile screw up their interpretation, thus judgement, of the childs intent.

Would we change our mind then, and say this pedophiles actions were not evil, because he did not specifically want to harm the child, it was not what he intended, and he had a misunderstanding of the effects of his actions?
Especially since the harm caused is not evident and obvious right away.

This is why I think this method of judgement is extremely unreliable.

This is why I see our judicial system as flawed. A murderer that is judged as mentally ill and one that is judged not ill, just with evil intent, both do the same things, and represent the same danger to those around them. As a society, we should evaluate their danger to others, and leave aside the question of judging their soul and will. It just makes more rational sense.




edit on 25-1-2017 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Doesn't matter if something was the result of ignorance or not entirely "purposeful". The Socratic view is actually that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma

Doesn't matter if something was the result of ignorance or not entirely "purposeful". The Socratic view is actually that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.


Then I guess I don't understand you.

I believe there is a measure of ignorance at all times, for everyone, no matter what we do (because we cannot escape bias ) So that assertion would mean everything we do, is wrong.

If believing in good and bad as a law established by a God or something, and that works for you, then that's great! Carry on.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: Talorc
a reply to: Bluesma

Doesn't matter if something was the result of ignorance or not entirely "purposeful". The Socratic view is actually that all wrongdoing is the result of ignorance.


If believing in good and bad as a law established by a God or something, and that works for you, then that's great! Carry on.


If that's the only way you're able to frame it in your mind, then sure.

It's also possible that people constantly delude themselves and ignore the rational faculty within because it's far easier to do that than accept responsibility for anything. Anyone can appeal to psychobabble, Freudian or Jungian mysticism, things like "unconscious biases" and whatever other pop-science jargon that's trendy now, to explain away anything and everything in the most reductionist terms. It's really easy, anyone can do it. Takes no disicpline, no practice, no dedication.

Explains a lot about why the masses of people, especially in the West, are in such a pathetic state today.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

Not really.

Even if you want to excuse him for getting rip-roaring drunk, and I was attaching no moral judgment to that anyhow. There is still the question of knowing that getting behind the wheel in such a state is asking for disaster. You endanger not just yourself but others. That's the immoral action.

A responsible or moral person takes steps to insure such does not happen, so that the only person suffering for him having gotten rip-roaring drunk is himself.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

No.

I am merely pointing out that if society and life were as you claim -- completely absent of all morality and ethical judgment -- then this is where we would all be.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Bluesma

No.

I am merely pointing out that if society and life were as you claim -- completely absent of all morality and ethical judgment -- then this is where we would all be.


I have repeatedly said I consider morals and ethics necessary to any sort of collectivity.
Only I do not think those are universal or static . There is no objective morality. Morals are created and established by humans, therefore they are subjective and influenced by feelings, interpretations, prejudices, and intents.

I do not follow the reasoning behind your assertion.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join