shows that loyalty has a relatively low place in your moral scheme. — Agustino
No - look at TGW, he's classified as conservative (despite having care at the top). It's a more complex algorithm I think, but obviously I don't think it's very good :PThat's true. Maybe they only base your 'label' on your top foundation. — csalisbury
That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:OIt's probably what I "care" about most, though, haha. — Heister Eggcart
That's like me, although for me too care shows at the top. But your scores on care and fairness though .... pff your morality is like perfect :-O did you cheat?! >:O — Agustino
>:O Blasphemy!I am Christ returned. Just believe me, you may not understand, but it's the truth (Y) — Heister Eggcart
I don't think it's crazy at all. — Agustino
From a pragmatic point of view, there's nothing worse than a traitor. — Agustino
That's why, for example, in Chinese strategy manuals it is advised to kill traitors after you use them, because they are scum, good for nothing, when the world is most dear to you, they will betray you. That's why nobody from a pragmatic point of view likes traitors. Traitors lack commitment. Traitors mean disaster. — Agustino
Nope - the ends don't justify the means. — Agustino
Yeah, maybe in another lifetime you bother to actually provide it :-! — Agustino
I'm about as loyal to the good as I can be... — Heister Eggcart
What I said to Agustino about a quality being virtuous only if it is balanced and put to good use also applies with regard to liberty. Liberty isn't good if it is excessive or used to cause needless harm. That's why there are laws and authorities, and why there are prisons filled with prisoners. Chaos is not paradise. — Sapientia
I didn't answer anything in the quiz in favor of "causing needless harm" in my opinion. — Terrapin Station
Okay. I don't know the questions or how you answered, so I can't judge for myself at present. But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. For example, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. — Sapientia
But if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech, then, by implication, you're in favour of causing needless harm. — Sapientia
I'm not of the view that speech causes any harm... — Terrapin Station
...thus it can't cause needless harm. If people are hurt in a theater after someone yells "Fire," it would be because of idiots panicking, trampling others, or whatever exactly happened. — Terrapin Station
That is to cherry pick only those factors which are consistent with your stance, — Sapientia
Why isn't it cherry picking only those factors which are consistent with your stance? Because it's your stance, hence it's correct? (haha) — Terrapin Station
I'm not ignoring that someone yelled "Fire" in the scenario. I don't count that as causal for whatever harm might ensue. — Terrapin Station
Right, so what makes it correct that it's causal? — Terrapin Station
It probably might be, but whether or not it is better, it is still flawed. What on earth is purity?Personally I found the test better relative to the others. I found that even on those questions where something had to be sacrificed, because of the gradations of answers (slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree, etc.) one could answer somewhat satisfactorily. — Agustino
I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes it easy to manipulate.I answered "slightly disagree" on this one because I'm not exactly proud of my country, nor do I think this is a moral value. At the same time, neither is not being proud of your country a moral value so... Slightly disagree fits the best. — Agustino
I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understand and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. Without a doubt, some people I may care deeply for I would want to try harder by giving them more leeway to change, but if they fail, I become aware that I cannot do anything further.I answered "moderately agree" - I could see exceptions, but for the most part they should be loyal to family. For example if my wife or child steal something, I'll do my best to save them from facing the consequences of it, especially if it was the first time they've done such a thing, and they were compelled by some reasons to do them. Now obviously I'd also try to convince them never to do such a thing again. But then it depends, in some circumstances I wouldn't defend them - say if my child rapes someone, then I wouldn't be loyal to him. So it depends on the gravity of the offence, and on their intentions. — Agustino
This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no?I answered "slightly agree" because you're in the army - you have to obey, for the most part. The only times when you can disobey is when you have (1) tried to convince your commander otherwise, and (2) when what you're being asked to do goes against the interests of the army. For example if the commander orders something that consists in betraying the cause the army is fighting for, then you have grounds to disobey. If the commander proposes a course of action you disagree with, you can try to convince the commander otherwise, but ultimately you must listen to what he says - he's the commander for a reason. Without such principles the army couldn't function, nor could pretty much any other organisation. — Agustino
Most obviously, it wouldn't have happened otherwise, or at least without a similar trigger, such as a noise which sounds like a gunshot. — Sapientia
:-}You wouldn't though, would you? (Because you're crazy). :D — Sapientia
No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor.An ethical point of view is the only relevant point of view, given that we're discussing moral foundations. So unless you're suggesting that a pragmatic point of view is the ethical point of view, then that's not relevant. And if you are, how so? — Sapientia
They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality.That's very obviously one sided. They're not good for nothing, nor scum if what they're doing is the right thing, which it could be. — Sapientia
Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous.They're also pragmatically valuable for the other side, given that they can be advantageous, in that, for example, they can provide intel about the enemy, exposing weakness. — Sapientia
An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.And no, someone who has committed an act of betrayal - a traitor - won't necessarily do so again, nor do they necessarily lack commitment outside of that very narrow context, in which lacking commitment isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway. Nor do they necessarily mean disaster. And you're using these emotive terms which connote something bad, but bad things happening to bad people is often deserved. — Sapientia
Haha, you're explaining what "causal" would refer to, as if that's at issue. I'm asking for the evidence of it being causal versus contrary views. — Terrapin Station
Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff.What on earth is purity? — TimeLine
In fact quite the contrary :P - I did see the logic of it, and would have said that I agree to it because that fits in with my political view (conservatism) - but I didn't.I think this was an attempt to connect your moral values politically to align it into a category, albeit a measly one. I instantly saw the logic and connections with the questions and potential result, which makes is easy to manipulate. — TimeLine
I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation.I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. — TimeLine
As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration.I believe it starts with the individual, then family, then community, and if the individual cannot understanding and apply righteousness, it effects the family and then the community. — TimeLine
Well if they do not listen there's not much you can do to save them, is there?If your wife did something bad, you would do your best to save her; for me, if anyone that I knew did something bad I would try to save them and if they do not listen then facing the consequences of justice is the causal result, which would be to lose me as a person and potentially their place in society depending on their actions. — TimeLine
Yes, obviously obeying the commander doesn't guarantee a good outcome. But the commander given the fact that he's supposed to have greater knowledge, experience and understanding compared to the soldier is more likely to take the right decision - now of course this doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. So as a principle, it still is right to obey the commander.This is a tricky one but I too selected slightly agree, only because tactical offences could be beyond the scope of a soldier' understanding and it could jeopardise the result. But then, when you think of WWI and the mass slaughter of soldiers by Hamilton' blunder in Gallipoli. What would have happened if they said no? — TimeLine
How is my chastity politically relevant? I choose not to sleep around and I choose to wait until I meet a genuine love, but that is my choice and no one else is required to follow that neither should anyone tell me what I should or should not be doing. I choose to do what I want despite my environment. That is because I live in a liberal democracy where there is no intense involvement in our personal affairs from religious sources. Hence, why the questionnaire is flawed; it is culture-specific, or, lacks relativism. Politics should always be separate from religion.Chastity? Respect for the sacred? That kind of stuff. — Agustino
It is not removing feeling, it is transcending irrational emotions. On the contrary, the feeling becomes more genuine and real because you realise that your previous attachments were infantile at best; love is a decision, it is not some sweeping form of randomness that comes out of nowhere and there are reasons behind these feelings that can be adequately understood. But if my loved one committed a wrongdoing, I would not 'switch off' and would still feel pity and sadness, but not ridiculous enough to continue supporting wrong-doing only because I love them. No, my principles are above my emotions.I disagree with this, and I think that any such morality is ultimately an abstraction, completely removing feeling - especially fellow-feeling, compassion - from the equation. — Agustino
All learning starts with the community, through social constructs and other considerations and then we work backwards, where we meet and love our partners and family and friends, before we take another step back to ourselves where we mirror our flaws and develop a conscience, moral consciousness and finally our individuality. When we do that, we start working - authentically - back up because we have transcended the initial 'learning' phase and started to see our responsibility and individuality. So - by choice - we meet a partner and start a new family with them and form friendships with likeminded people and then participate willingly in a community that we hope to develop into something good. The latter half is genuine, authentic and applied consciously, whereas the initial phases are not, though still necessary.As you know, I adopt the opposite starting position. For me it starts with community and asks "How can we live and flourish together?" In fact it starts with community and asks "How is individuality even possible?" For me, the idea of the individual entirely separated from society is incoherent, for the simple reason that none of us are born as individuals. Our individuality develops in society - we are nurtured by society. If it wasn't for society you wouldn't be alive in the first place, much less be an individual. So it's our society that allows us to develop our individuality and know ourselves. In it we move and have our being. It is true that our society is more often than not not harmonious and it becomes better not to take part because of this, but this is only an a posteriori consideration. — Agustino
No I'm not suggesting pragmatism as a point of view, I'm merely illustrating that acts of betrayal say something about the lack of character of the traitor. — Agustino
They can't be doing the right thing by betrayal. The right thing is opposing immorality, but not by immorality. — Agustino
Yes, hence why it is suggested to use them, and then throw them away, because otherwise they become dangerous. — Agustino
An act of betrayal is immoral, and betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it.
A traitor — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.