How is my chastity politically relevant? — TimeLine

It's a moral questionnaire, not a political one. Your chastity is relevant to your morality.

no one else is required to follow that — TimeLine

Okay, no one disagreed. I didn't argue that the law should make a compulsion out of morality, did I?

neither should anyone tell me what I should or should not be doing — TimeLine

Public education is a different story, and it should be happening, including on moral matters. Lots of people make mistakes that they regret, and it would be better if they have access to more guidance.

because I live in a liberal democracy where there is no intense involvement in our personal affairs from religious sources — TimeLine

Yes, there is intense involvement from popular media and culture which is largely secular, and largely hedonistic - it utilises mechanisms of peer pressure to push you to do certain things and live a certain way. Just as bad as having religion actively involved in your life if you ask me.

Politics should always be separate from religion. — TimeLine

Yes, I agree with that.

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. — TimeLine

Love is a decision, and therefore it ultimately does not depend on reasons, but on choice. That you do have reasons for making that choice when you make it, that's certainly true.

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. — TimeLine

Hate the sin, but lover the sinner a Christian would say. I never said to sacrifice your own principles and engage in immorality because of your emotions, indeed that would be weakness. But there's a difference between that, and being loyal to your family.

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 - since we have transcended the initial 'learning' phase toward meeting a partner and starting a new family with them [by choice] and then forming friendships with likeminded people and then participating 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. — TimeLine

I agree with all of this, beautifully said :) 8-)

Correction: they can become dangerous. They could be perceived as a danger - rightly or wrongly. They kill them anyway, because it's one less thing to be concerned about, and because it might give them a strategic advantage which they wouldn't otherwise have.

Now, what has that got to do with morality? — Sapientia

That was my reply to you when you were talking about pragmatics, so obviously nothing to do with morality, I don't understand why you'd expect it to have anything to do with morality, granting that you yourself weren't talking about morality there :-}

At least you accept that it is the right thing to do if one is absolutely compelled to resort to it, but it isn't clear to me what exactly you think that would require, i.e. what conditions would need to be satisfied. — Sapientia

No I accept no such thing. It's never the right thing to do, at best it is necessarily immoral, as per Heister's usage once again. Meister Heister!

That it involves betraying someone's trust is not at all ethically relevant for me if that someone is immoral — Sapientia

Right if someone is immoral, go ahead and be immoral yourself when dealing with them... Sounds good!

Wilful complicity in immorality can't be moral, whether it's because of loyalty or some other reason. — Sapientia

What have I been telling you all this time? Did I say opposing immorality is the right thing to do? Did I say that betrayal isn't the right way to oppose immorality? Doesn't this mean that there is a right way, which doesn't involve betrayal, to oppose immorality?! :s

I think that in difficult either-or situations, there can be a right thing to do and a wrong think to do, and that the right thing to do can involve betrayal. I further think that it's unjust to accuse such people of immorality, when they've done the right thing despite what it involved and despite how less considerate people might judge them. According to my position, betrayal isn't in itself immoral, so your point wouldn't even apply. — Sapientia

Okay, in my view of things, there are situations where there simply is no right thing to do full stop.

What do you think you illustrated? Because it looked to me like you basically just resorted to a bit of name calling ("scum", "good for nothing"), mentioned a strategy which is based on pragmatics rather than ethics, and made some unwarranted assumptions, e.g. about what someone will do, what something entails, what something will lead to... — Sapientia

I said that a traitor has a bad character. Why does he have a bad character? Because he doesn't exemplify loyalty, one of the virtues. Why is loyalty a virtue? Because it is necessary for us in order to care for each other and avoid harming one another. Furthermore, loyalty is necessary for authenticity - loyalty to values in this case. Loyalty is a character trait - not a moral or immoral action. It is a moral character trait.

This statement suggests two things: (1) that loyalty is secondary to whatever it is that makes something good; and (2) that loyalty in itself isn't good, but is only good in relation to the good. — Sapientia

Mmm. Loyalty to the good is reciprocal, I think.

It's a moral questionnaire, not a political one. Your chastity is relevant to your morality. — Agustino

So then, why is there a panel "conservative" "liberal" etc &c., that comes along with it?

Yes, there is intense involvement from popular media and culture which is largely secular, and largely hedonistic - it utilises mechanisms of peer pressure to push you to do certain things and live a certain way. Just as bad as having religion actively involved in your life if you ask me. — Agustino

Blimey, you know my feelings on this subject and I do agree with this, particularly the duplication of people turning themselves into the same object while pretending individuality, posting photo's on Instagram on a Wednesday afternoon knowing that is the best time to garner the most likes, everything about themselves a mere empty show. I still pity them, it is emasculating seeing people give up on life like that. Humpf. It is nonetheless fallacious to utilise the superficial world of popular culture as a way to justify the necessity of a conservative environment.

Hate the sin, but lover the sinner a Christian would say. I never said to sacrifice your own principles and engage in immorality because of your emotions, indeed that would be weakness. But there's a difference between that, and being loyal to your family. — Agustino

There shouldn't be; if you are loyal to your moral principles and ultimately to love, loyalty to your family and friends is a natural extension of this. But if members of your household or friends are not applying themselves similarly to principles of love, your loyalty [to love] cannot be shaken and ultimately it is their choice to abandon the application of these principles. Your loyalty is to love and so it is to humanity as a whole and is not specific to your family. "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Hence love is a choice.

I agree with all of this, beautifully said :) 8-) — Agustino

:-!

Mmm. Loyal to the good is reciprocal, I think. — Heister Eggcart

What do you mean? That if you're loyal to the good, then the good will be loyal to you? That makes sense to me if we're talking about people, rather than principles or values or other things.

That doesn't conflict with either of my points, by the way. (Although I did infer them from what you yourself said, so maybe it wasn't supposed to). And besides, the test was simply regarding loyalty, rather than loyalty to the good. It seems that many people - some more than others - value loyalty over and above what I think of as vitally important and overriding moral factors, such as whether something is fair or harmful. Why be loyal otherwise? Perhaps for other reasons, but when it comes to ethical reasons, that just doesn't seem right. Whether it's loyalty to family, religion, tradition, nation, and so on and so forth, just doesn't strike me as more important than those vital and overriding moral factors. After all, you might have a horrible family, tradition, religion, nation, etc.

So then, why is there a panel "conservative" "liberal" etc &c., that comes along with it? — TimeLine

Because their point is that certain types of morality are associated with certain types of political positions. This is what Haidt's research focuses on - the relationship between morality and politics. Personally in my case, my moral values did push me towards conservatism for example. If it wasn't for my moral values, I probably wouldn't have been a conservative.

It is nonetheless fallacious to utilise the superficial world of popular culture as a way to justify the necessity of a conservative environment. — TimeLine

Why? It's not superficial at all if most people are engaged in it. Your point fails precisely because society cannot avoid using mechanisms of peer pressure to enforce social norms. Whether these norms are hedonism or Phariseeism, it will still be one of them :P - you think that just because you don't have people knocking on your door asking you to come to Church, there are no mechanisms to indoctrinate you... of course there are, and because they are not even known, they are more insidious than ever. At least if you have the Communist coming to your door to indoctrinate you, you know who he is and what he's there for. But when you're just watching a movie... you have no idea, what's really going on.

Democracy (as understood today) is a bad political system - one of the worst, according to Plato in fact - only tyranny is worse than democracy according to him. Democracy, capitalism, consumerism, hedonism - these are one and the same. Democracy has no aristocratic principle - it has no principle of pulling people towards the higher. Since it seeks equality so rampantly, it leads to everyone being reduced to the same common denominator - everyone being leveled down and becoming equivalent to Nietzsche's Last Men. In a democracy we all tend to become equally bad.

I come from a communist country, but communism was only worse than democracy simply because communism was tyrannical. But democracy isn't much better. My grandfather who lived under constitutional monarchy, communism and capitalism used to tell me as a child how constitutional monarchy was the best in his opinion, and we discussed this for a long time and well into my teenager years actually. Monarchy has an aristocratic tendency, and since the monarch is guaranteed almost life-time rule, he's not going to be searching for power, since he already has it. His efforts will be elsewhere.

if you are loyal to your moral principles and ultimately to love, loyalty to your family and friends is a natural extension of this. — TimeLine

I agree

But if members of your household or friends are not applying themselves similarly to principles of love, your loyalty [to love] cannot be shaken and ultimately it is their choice to abandon the application of these principles. Your loyalty is to love and so it is to humanity as a whole and is not specific to your family. "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." Hence love is a choice. — TimeLine

I also agree with this.

:-! — TimeLine

Don't laugh you, it was very well-written :P haha! xD

I remember writing on here recently that "bad character" is an oxymoron, and that character is fundamentally good. Similarly, I'd probably argue that loyalty is also inherently good, so perhaps my earlier statement is oxymoronic too, but I was just trying to clarify the kind of loyalty I find myself valuing.

I remember writing on here recently that "bad character" is an oxymoron, and that character is fundamentally good. Similarly, I'd probably argue that loyalty is also inherently good, so perhaps my earlier statement is oxymoronic, but I was just trying to clarify the kind of loyalty I find myself valuing. — Heister Eggcart

That's a shame. Your earlier statement made more sense and was more agreeable. Loyalty being good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad seems absurd or lacking in meaning. By the former, I mean contradictory, and by the latter, I mean, for example, that it would be a bit like praising someone for restraint because they only cut off one of the innocent victim's ears and their nose, rather than both of their ears and their nose. The latter, as illustrated by example, is also quite absurd, albeit in a different sense.

Loyalty being good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad seems absurd or lacking in meaning. — Sapientia

wat

I've never suggested this to be the case.

wat

I've never suggested this to be the case. — Heister Eggcart

If loyalty is inherently good, then it's good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad. If it is inherently good, then it is good in itself, by virtue of it's nature, regardless of what (or who) one is loyal to, or whether it (or they) is (or are) itself (or themself) good or bad.

(Sorry if the brackets are excessive (except I'm not really sorry)).

If loyalty is inherently good, then it's good even when it's loyalty to something (or someone) bad. If it is inherently good, then it is good in itself, by virtue of it's nature, regardless of what (or who) one is loyal to, or whether it (or they) is (or are) itself (or themself) good or bad. — Sapientia

"Loyalty" to the bad is not loyalty, I thought I already made that clear with my bringing up of "bad character."

I think ones moral values should transcend emotional connections and to value principles above people, even if it is family. — TimeLine

That's interesting. I agree insofar as whether or not it's family isn't what should be most important. But, for me at least, it's emotional connections whichever way you look at it, and you'd just be swapping one for another, rather than transcending emotional connections. And I think that although ethical principles can be more important than certain people, ethical principles are more important in relation to people than, say, abstract concepts like purity.

Those people didn't just think to themselves out of the blue "Let's panic and run for the exit". They did so as a reaction to someone shouting "Fire!", which caused panic and alarm, — Sapientia

Someone can yell "Fire" while people hearing that do not panic like idiots, no?

Someone can yell "Fire" while people hearing that do not panick like idiots, no? — Terrapin Station

Don't you know about the fight or flight response? Don't you realise that there are some things that are outside of our control? Like what adrenaline can do to you, for example?

"Loyalty" to the bad is not loyalty, I thought I already made that clear with my bringing up of "bad character." — Heister Eggcart

No, that wasn't clear to me, but I did suspect that you might go down that route. It's getting more and more absurd. Of course there can be loyalty to the bad! Haven't you heard about the Mafia?! What about the Nazis?! (Let me guess, they're not examples of True Scots- I mean, loyalty). Your use of scare quotes is totally misguided, and your position is ludicrous.

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

Wow, okay. We're polar opposites in that regard.

That makes loyalty too relative for my taste. An ideal like loyalty must be virtuous in and of itself, otherwise it's only moral in its application, which I wouldn't be on board with.

Don't you know about the fight or flight response? — Sapientia

Right. So "No" is your answer?

Your scores are:
Care 80.6%
Fairness 69.4%
Loyalty 61.1%
Authority 63.9%
Purity 66.7%
Liberty 75%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.
Your morality is closest to that of a Conservative.

I would post image, but don't know how.

Posting images from your desktop does not seem to be possible at this time. If you have an image on a web site, though, capture the image address and then paste that address in the address box of the image command (click icon on the text box) like this



The "image address of your avatar in the post above is http://i-6uf0utvje8gy-cdn.plushcontent.com/uploads/userpics/615/n9PJRBAH0A2TQ.jpg

Meh. It won't paste any image. Just the link text.

I would post image, but don't know how. — Thorongil

That was my reply to you when you were talking about pragmatics, so obviously nothing to do with morality, I don't understand why you'd expect it to have anything to do with morality, granting that you yourself weren't talking about morality there :-} — Agustino

I was only talking about pragmatics in the first place because you bloody brought it up! If we've strayed off course, it is you who has lead us there. My initial reply was to question it's ethical relevance, given that this discussion is about ethics. You said something vague about it supposedly illustrating character. Are you now saying that it has nothing to do with morality? If so, why bring it up? No more red herrings, please.

No I accept no such thing. It's never the right thing to do... — Agustino

That's hilarious! So you're disagreeing with yourself now, are you? Okay then.

Here's the quote:

...betrayal isn't the right way of opposing something or someone, unless one is absolutely compelled to resort to it. — Agustino

That implies that betrayal is the right way of opposing something or someone if one is absolutely compelled to resort to it. So you need to retract one of your statements to avoid contradiction.

Right if someone is immoral, go ahead and be immoral yourself when dealing with them... Sounds good! — Agustino

Well, obviously that's not what I'm suggesting, since I don't think that you'd be immoral yourself. That's just your assessment, which I think is mistaken.

What have I been telling you all this time? Did I say opposing immorality is the right thing to do? Did I say that betrayal isn't the right way to oppose immorality? Doesn't this mean that there is a right way, which doesn't involve betrayal, to oppose immorality?! :s — Agustino

My point was only taking into consideration limited either-or situations, and it was only about betrayal as it relates to loyality simpliciter, rather than loyalty to the good. Your point about opposing immorality misses the vital point I've been making about the problem with placing loyalty above other more important moral values. These more important values determine what is moral or immoral, and so by placing loyalty above them, in my assessment, that could mean that in being loyal to something, that something could be immoral, and if it was, then, rather than opposing immorality, you'd be complicit in it.

And if betraying a loyalty isn't the right way to oppose immorality in these difficult, limited, either-or situations, then what would be? If you remain loyal to the principle that you shouldn't ever deceive anyone, then in the hidden hostage situation, that could mean that the hostage would be murdered, in part because of your loyalty, and I think that that'd be an ethically worse alternative. The right thing to do would be to prevent innocent people being murdered, and if deception worked (which it might well do, and it certainly has a better chance of working then simply telling the truth about where the hostage is hiding), then I think that you could look back and rightly say that it was the right thing to do compared to alternatives: telling the truth, getting shot by attempting to take the gun off of the guy, doing nothing...

I think that it'd be misguided to assume that there'll be a right way to oppose immorality which doesn't involve betrayal in these sorts of situations. If you were already part of something immoral, perhaps unknowingly, such that you were loyal to them and vice versa, then how would you oppose immorality and rightly get yourself out of that situation without betraying that of which you're a part?

Okay, in my view of things, there are situations where there simply is no right thing to do full stop. — Agustino

That might answer some of the questions I asked above, but I think that it's the wrong answer. Betrayal can be part of doing the right thing. If you've got yourself mixed up in something bad, the right thing to do would be to betray the bad people involved by walking away and abandoning them before the situation gets any worse. That way, for example, you could avoid going along with these bad people when they commit a serious crime - and, moreover, you could even prevent it at an earlier stage, when it isn't quite as serious, by alerting the authorities, so some good could even come out of it - perhaps even redemption or a step towards it. (And no, you're not superman, like Wosret seems to picture himself in these hypothetical situations, so you can't stop them on your own, unassisted by the police).

I said that a traitor has a bad character. Why does he have a bad character? Because he doesn't exemplify loyalty, one of the virtues. Why is loyalty a virtue? Because it is necessary for us in order to care for each other and avoid harming one another. Furthermore, loyalty is necessary for authenticity - loyalty to values in this case. Loyalty is a character trait - not a moral or immoral action. It is a moral character trait. — Agustino

I've already told you my criteria for virtue, and taking them into account, as well as what is possible, it follows that loyalty isn't necessarily a virtue. So when you say, simply, that loyalty is a virtue, I reject that. It either is or it isn't, depending on the relevant context. There are things which can qualify and things which can disqualify.

Being loyal to something (or someone) you shouldn't be loyal to disqualifies loyalty in that form from being virtuous. That it can be virtuous in other forms doesn't make loyalty a virtue. Yet that is the error you seem to have made.

We probably agree about the more obviously good situations, in which being loyal is indeed a good thing and a virtue. But that isn't enough to support your claim that loyalty is a virtue, because it's not all roses. And even if loyalty is necessary for these sort of good situations to arise, that wouldn't make it a virtue either. You can't sweep the badness under the rug; and loyalty can go hand in hand with badness - there's nothing which makes them mutually exclusive. In these situations, it's a vice: not a moral character trait, but an immoral one, given the context and how it's put to use.

It doesn't always work.

Hey, don't break my lute, Shyster Bumdart.

That makes loyalty too relative for my taste. An ideal like loyalty must be virtuous in and of itself, otherwise it's only moral in its application, which I wouldn't be on board with. — Heister Eggcart

It isn't a matter of taste, or what you would or wouldn't be on board with, or about matching reality to your ideals. That approach seems disingenuous and backwards.

I think about how things are, and I try to match my thinking so that it reflects reality. And the reality I see involves loyalty as what must surely be a vice, since it is present in immoral situations - think about the Mafia - in which the right thing to do would be to break off this loyalty, even if it means betrayal; and, furthermore, since loyalty can and - in some situations - does make matters worse, leading to further immorality. This is very evident if you examine these kinds of situations. Loyalty to a heinous organisation which commits immoral acts is surely a vice. How can it not be? Because it would ruin your quaint little idealised notion of loyalty as a virtue? Sorry, but that's just how it is. You can either face up to this harsh reality or stick your head in the sand. Your choice.

Aristotle had the right idea with his golden mean. Not only can a quality be disqualified as a virtue because of excess or deficiency, it can be disqualified if put to use wrongly, like by being loyal to the Mafia. It then becomes a vice. Rushing to battle is not brave, but reckless. And loyalty to that which is immoral is itself immoral, so it can't be a virtue, given the nature of virtue. It must be a vice. Virtue, good. Vice, bad. It's not complicated.

Right. So "No" is your answer? — Terrapin Station

It's a loaded question, so I'm not going to answer it with a "yes" or a "no". I read between the lines and decided instead to criticise the assumption implied by your question. Better to cut to the chase and avoid those kinds of questions.

That's interesting. I agree insofar as whether or not it's family isn't what should be most important. But, for me at least, it's emotional connections whichever way you look at it, and you'd just be swapping one for another, rather than transcending emotional connections. And I think that although ethical principles can be more important than certain people, ethical principles are more important in relation to people than, say, abstract concepts like purity. — Sapientia

It is not necessarily rearranging but rather when one transcends to a moral consciousness that is individual and free, their emotions transcend along with it to a sophistication necessary to work in line with reason. The courage to face geworfenheit by creating our own family through choice - the love you accept from a partner, the friends you choose to have in your life, the people in your community - rather than ones pre-existing biological and social environment that lacks this choice means that you overcome learned prejudices, ideas and even psychological decoys. It is not abandoning or being disloyal but rather approaching the world around you consciously without allowing your emotions to guide you along some subjective path because that is just the way that it is.

Our emotions promote feelings where conscience is concerned and thus ethical principles are an inevitable result of this; if our emotions are a mess, what exactly happens to our conscience and morality? Reason may appear cold, but it is quite the reverse; you become emotional for the right reasons when your mind is clear enough and this clarity is only possible through free-will.

As for purity, its involvement in the political domain is highly dangerous to civil liberties and traverses a landscape that could set a social structure that renounces our humanity.