Casinha
Master
Posts: 217 
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Aug 7, 2014 9:17:12 GMT
What if you're a sadomasochist who likes to be hung from a ceiling on giant metal hooks through your nipples? Should you still do onto others as you would like to be done upon? I'm friends with people like that and they'd tell you the same rule (mutual respect) still applies - never make anybody do something that they're not entiorely comfortable with. And you still go back to social learning. Why? Because empathy exists for social learning and is a means of survival. And empathy is pretty much the only reason such rule is so deep down. So what? What's your point? Unless you can provide an example where "love thy neighbour" shouldn't or couldn't be the basis for all morals, you're essentially agreeing with me. What is "love" in this context? If your neighbour is a danger to society then do you imprison him? Put him in an asylum? Do you just kill him if he's that dangerous? Any of those options would infringe on his rights as a human being to a point where saying that you love him would be almost incredulous. Some would argue that his actions have caused him to lose those rights. But declaring that someone has discarded his rights is no different to simply taking them away. If you do nothing about this dangerous individual, then do you not love the individuals that he endangers? "Love thy neighbour" is a nice message, but it's not a worthy basis for all morals. In my opinion morality is a human construct and is entirely subjective. It should be made using human rights as a base (but not to the extremes Locke goes to with his views on the Laws of Nature) and requires an adequate judicial system to go alongside it. It's an easy thing to say, but in actuality I would have no idea where to start in the creation of such a structure. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 9:29:05 GMT
In my opinion morality is a human construct and is entirely subjective. Not really human, as it is very primitive, but it is purely subjective and depends only on mechanisms of loss and profit concerning survival. That's why the basis of all moral is "be nice to good people", where good is defined by "good to have around and use their help", and when someone refuses to be of any use to you, he ceases to be "good". He only becomes bad if your interests interfere. |
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Aug 7, 2014 9:57:40 GMT
In my opinion morality is a human construct and is entirely subjective. Not really human, as it is very primitive, but it is purely subjective and depends only on mechanisms of loss and profit concerning survival. That's why the basis of all moral is "be nice to good people", where good is defined by "good to have around and use their help", and when someone refuses to be of any use to you, he ceases to be "good". He only becomes bad if your interests interfere. When I say "human construct" I mean it is constructed by humans. You have the laws of nature, but they are not inherently good or bad, they simply "are". Also that basis doesn't really stand up to scrutiny unless you're a nihilist or heavily self-absorbed, really. A bandit could believe what he does to be immoral (but necessary for his own survival) and would not say that a merchant that is unwilling to give up is goods is morally "bad". This is what makes morality subjective. There are people out there that would say the moral standing of an individual is based on their usefulness to them. There are some that would say it's determined by God at birth (good ol' Baptists), there are some that it's something that should be worked for and others that say you already have it but are capable of losing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 10:08:46 GMT
Following the "Platinum Rule" of "Treating others the way they wish to be treated" is fine and dandy as long as it doesn't infringe on the rule followers own moral standards. That's essentially where the dichotomy of morality lies. There is no "one shoe fits all" and I highly doubt there ever will be. Even in celebrating our difference of opinion, we will never truly achieve moral homogenization as long as objective morality exists. Also, gaming morality is completely different... Everything I've learned about that I've learned from TF2. Do unto others before they can do unto you!  Did you mean "subjective morality"? I can't help but notice how you've dodged my last question... |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 10:11:17 GMT
A bandit could believe what he does to be immoral (but necessary for his own survival) and would not say that a merchant that is unwilling to give up is goods is morally "bad". And first goes despite the fear of punishment (which shapes "immorality") and the second knows he needs those goods for his own survival and the first knows the second knows. Not even to include the social learning I already mentioned. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 10:16:25 GMT
Did you mean "subjective morality"? I can't help but notice how you've dodged my last question... My point is oxytocin doesn't make you love everyone. And I didn't dodge it, I just answered it not in a post directed to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 10:18:11 GMT
I can't help but notice how you've dodged my last question... My point is oxytocin doesn't make you love everyone. And I didn't dodge it, I just answered it not in a post directed to you. I can't help but feel that referncing oxytocin is an attempt to move the goal posts, but hey, whatever, I find this conversation draining anyway. I'm out. |
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Aug 7, 2014 10:55:00 GMT
A bandit could believe what he does to be immoral (but necessary for his own survival) and would not say that a merchant that is unwilling to give up is goods is morally "bad". And first goes despite the fear of punishment (which shapes "immorality") and the second knows he needs those goods for his own survival and the first knows the second knows. Not even to include the social learning I already mentioned. I have absolutely no idea what that first sentence means in the context of this conversation. All you've said is "The bandit knows the merchant knows he needs his good for his own survival" which is a mouthful even when I'm paraphrasing what you said. Maybe it's just going over my head. Retribution does not shape morality, it is morality that shapes retribution. Also, I think social learning definitely has merit with regards to morality. Just look at how our morals are changing - in the west - to reflect a shift in society's stance on certain topics. So we don't disagree on that  I suppose rather than disagreeing with you I'm just finding it hard to give shape to what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 11:26:00 GMT
Retribution does not shape morality, it is morality that shapes retribution. And this is the problem in your position. You often see morality direct retribution which creates morality. This becomes a circle, and your observations lead you to believe morality shapes punishment just like sun rises in the morning. Of course, both are wrong, but it's always difficult to understand and accept that a thing you learned in your childhood is wrong. |
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Aug 7, 2014 11:46:13 GMT
Retribution does not shape morality, it is morality that shapes retribution. And this is the problem in your position. You often see morality direct retribution which creates morality. This becomes a circle, and your observations lead you to believe morality shapes punishment just like sun rises in the morning. Of course, both are wrong, but it's always difficult to understand and accept that a thing you learned in your childhood is wrong. My position as an individual or are you talking about the position of westerners in general? I don't recall saying that retribution creates morality as I don't believe it does. With regards to "something you learned in your childhood to be wrong," I had the good fortune of being brought up by parents and teachers (well, some teachers, anyway) to challenge baseless traditions so I've never had any trouble accepting things I thought to be true to in fact be false. I often surf through conversations actively looking for bits of information that might disprove or at least challenge my views on topics I consider to be important. That's just me, though, so if you in fact meant westerners in general when you said "your position" then what I've said doesn't really mean anything. I still feel that this thread doesn't really have a concrete purpose. Are we discussing what exactly morality is or are we discussing its place in society or its origins or what? |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 11:50:56 GMT
Right now I try to define how the mechanism of morality works. And I mean not some abstract verbal object, by real processes inside real men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 11:59:18 GMT
Right now I try to define how the mechanism of morality works. And I mean not some abstract verbal object, by real processes inside real people. FTFY |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 13:19:12 GMT
What?
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 7, 2014 13:29:33 GMT
Men => people
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 17:05:32 GMT
Oh. Thanks. Of course, I meant all kinds of people, considering women are more susceptible to morality than men.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 17:09:00 GMT
Sweeping generalisations FTW! FTFY |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 17:13:47 GMT
No, this one is wrong. Tendency and generalisation are different things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 17:18:11 GMT
No, this one is wrong. Tendency and generalisation are different things. Oh, you've done a case study where you reference every woman in the world ever, have you? No? Well, there you go. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Aug 7, 2014 17:35:03 GMT
We have representative samples and general differences in philogenesis. And these generate tendencies, but that is, again, a topic of another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Aug 7, 2014 17:37:28 GMT
We have representative samples and general differences in philogenesis. And these generate tendencies, but that is, again, a topic of another thread. representative samples != all women ever. |
|
I suppose rather than disagreeing with you I'm just finding it hard to give shape to what you're saying.
