But emotion is primary, in my view, in that it is the primary guiding force, whereas reason has secondary functions. I get this powerful intuitive feeling about what is right or wrong, and I think of that as my conscience, and try to follow it in order to be ethical. This conscience is foundational, whereas reason is like a tool which can be used in an attempt - which might or might not be successful - to control conflicting emotions, and to arrange priorities. Being conscientious is no guarantee of acting morally, but I cannot go against my conscience in good faith without thinking and feeling that I have done wrong. — Sapientia

From a Kantian perspective, perhaps that may be viz. the relation between reason and sensibility but I find myself questioning why - when I become conscious or understand an experience - emotions dissipate. I assume that to be the result of our cognitive functions - the dual between conscious and subconscious experience, though the latter is still a form of consciousness we are just unable to articulate - and thus when we experience something we may not understand at conscious level, it inevitably drops to the subconscious state. We then begin to experience intuitive feelings and the emotions that follow when we encounter an experience that provokes our subconscious to communicate with us, but we are not aware of why - that is, we do not understand it at conscious level - and when we do, the emotions dissipate. It is why intuition - or our subconscious state - can also trick us, or as I said earlier 'psychological decoys' where a person can have irrational feelings of fear or cowardice only because they fail to understand at conscious level why they feel that way. When one transcends to a state of moral consciousness, they no longer rely on subconscious emotions or feelings of right or wrong, because they know what is right or wrong.

Thus, reason stands superior to intuition because our conscious state is more sensible than our subconscious state of mind, though they are clearly interconnected.

It is important to overcome prejudice, bad ideas and psychological decoys - even if that means being disloyal, since loyalty is worthless and ought to be eschewed if it is loyalty to that which is immoral. And loyalty should always be a secondary consideration. That which is moral warrants loyalty more than anything else which is not necessarily moral, whether that be family, tradition, religion, nation, some abstract concept, or any personal quality deemed to be a virtue. — Sapientia

It depends on how you interpret loyalty; as said earlier, I am loyal to my country but my loyalty is through both my adherence to social, economic and legal requirements along with my constructive criticism of its flaws, whereas for some criticism is viewed as an act of disloyalty. On the contrary, if a person blindly follows and defends tooth and nail acts that can be constituted as immoral, their disloyalty is greater since they endanger the very object of their defence; and what happens when the blind lead the blind? What type of friends would you have if they performed a love for you but failed to care enough about the dangers of your flaws? I would hardly call them a friend. Loyalty is an act of love, it is not turning your back and disappearing but it is also not blindly defending tooth and nail. It is simply caring enough to want what would bring about the greatest good.

if Betty kisses two lads on a night out, who cares? — Emptyheady

Let's see - maybe her future husband? Maybe, if the "two lads" have partners, maybe one of them? Maybe their conscience? Maybe their families? The web is so interlinked that sexual affairs ripple outwards and affect much more than just the people involved in consenting to it. Furthermore, there always are the spiritual effects which remain seared in memory, so it's no trifling affair at all.

If she wants to get shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night, laissez faire, though I would not consider her marriage material. — Emptyheady

How quaint. If getting shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night is not immoral, how come you do not consider her marriage material? How can she be deficient if there's nothing morally wrong with what she's done? Clearly you think there is something seriously wrong with what she's done, or otherwise you wouldn't judge her character to be such that she's not "marriage material" - you take away with your left hand what your right hand gives. I dislike men who treat women like straw dogs.

Furthermore, you must distinguish between how the law should be - whether the law should permit getting shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night - how social norms should be - whether society through its mechanisms of peer pressure and eduction should permit such an occurence - and how morality is - whether or not such an occurence is immoral. For example, I believe that the law should be laissez faire, but I think social norms shouldn't be laissez faire, nor should society be uninterested in whether or not it happens - education should always be at work in preventing it. Morally the question though is settled - it is immoral.

John hiring the more attractive one rather than what the author deemed as the more competent one. If it is his business -- that is how I interpreted the context of the question -- it is up to him what he prefers. — Emptyheady

It may be his business, but this has nothing to do with the morality of his choice. His choice is highly immoral because he objectifies the woman in question, and chooses her not for what she's supposed to be chosen - doing the job right - but rather for her physical characteristics, based on his own selfishness. On top of this, he's also being unfair to the other person who is more capable. Now the immorality of his choice doesn't necessarily imply he shouldn't be legally allowed to make that choice. But it is important to distinguish the two. When you say laissez faire I suppose you're only talking about how the law should be, not about the morality of the choice at all.

KILL THOSE FILTHY VEGETARIANS — Heister Eggcart

Hey! Take it easy ol' dog.

:’( Why did you remove the gif? It was hilarious! >:O

Haha, sorry, was editing it! :D

Haha, sorry, was editing it! :D — TimeLine

:P (L) yay! haha

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0

And here I thought I was a social conservative. I do make a fundamental distinction between my own personal views and my unwillingness to forcefully impose these on others through government action. A strange mix of practical conservatism and theoretical libertarianism, I guess. Economically I'm pretty hostile to unbridled capitalism. I didn't really like how many of these questions were framed.

Please note there is a difference here that I've explained to Emptyheaded above.

Furthermore, you must distinguish between how the law should be - whether the law should permit getting shafted by 15 blokes on an adventurous night - how social norms should be - whether society through its mechanisms of peer pressure and eduction should permit such an occurence - and how morality is - whether or not such an occurence is immoral. For example, I believe that the law should be laissez faire, but I think social norms shouldn't be laissez faire, nor should society be uninterested in whether or not it happens - education should always be at work in preventing it. Morally the question though is settled - it is immoral. — Agustino

I agree with those distinctions. I feel like many of these issues--at least ones related to personal moral standards and behavior--should be battled out at the grassroots level of culture and values. I'd much rather people freely choose the good than be forced into it against their will. So, for example, I'm against abortion personally (which concerns only my wife and I) as a symptom of the overall cheapening of life, but I would like for others to arrive at that same view on their own and not through government action.

There are of course certain exceptions to my respect for personal liberty, particularly when involving issues which cannot be isolated from the 'common good.' In the economic sphere especially I'm as unsympathetic to socially irresponsible capitalists as could possibly be. Ethical, communally-responsible capitalism is commendable, or would be if it existed within a society of virtuous citizens inspired by more than a love of money and single-minded devotion to profits above all other considerations.

I would also add that I'm not against the public educational system inculcating a certain set of religiously-neutral but socially (and individually) beneficial values into students. I'm referring to fairly benign things that I think most people would agree upon: the importance of hard work and personal responsibility, an understanding of how our lives are intimately connected with others in our community, an appreciation for our historical heritage which should should honor that tradition by also being reflective and critical when necessary, holding doors open and saying 'please' and 'thank you' etc.

It depends on how you interpret loyalty; as said earlier, I am loyal to my country but my loyalty is through both my adherence to social, economic and legal requirements along with my constructive criticism of its flaws, whereas for some criticism is viewed as an act of disloyalty. — TimeLine

I think there are situations in which constructive criticism would not be enough: situations in which the right thing to do would be to retract or break off your loyalty. I'm only loyal to aspects of my country, not the whole thing, warts and all.

On the contrary, if a person blindly follows and defends tooth and nail acts that can be constituted as immoral, their disloyalty is greater since they endanger the very object of their defence; and what happens when the blind lead the blind? What type of friends would you have if they performed a love for you but failed to care enough about the dangers of your flaws? I would hardly call them a friend. — TimeLine

I agree.

Loyalty is an act of love, it is not turning your back and disappearing but it is also not blindly defending tooth and nail. It is simply caring enough to want what would bring about the greatest good. — TimeLine

I disagree. I don't think that love is the most characteristic feature of loyalty. It wouldn't even apply in some cases: for example, in cases in which an emotion is there instead of love, and which has some - but not all - features in common with love, and which isn't quite so strong a feeling. Honour and duty strike me as more characteristic or prominent than love, and I think that care would be more broadly applicable than love, with regards to loyalty.

I also don't think that you can rightly exclude "blindly defending tooth and nail" as a possible feature or consequence of loyalty. I think that an examination of loyalty which is as impartial as it can be would lead to an inclusion of the good as well as the bad. But I think that some people are biased in that they seem to desire for loyalty to be kept untarnished - or at least not as tarnished as it can be, in light of some cases - so they superficially make it so that loyalty will always match their ideal of it. In other words, wishful thinking.

I think there are situations in which constructive criticism would not be enough: situations in which the right thing to do would be to retract or break off your loyalty. I'm only loyal to aspects of my country, not the whole thing, warts and all. — Sapientia

You can't be part loyal. Loyalty is a choice, an expression of your moral position and so what you are saying is no different to what I said; by choosing aspects of your country is merely criticising other aspects that you do not agree with.

I disagree. I don't think that love is the most characteristic feature of loyalty. It wouldn't even apply in some cases: for example, in cases in which an emotion is there instead of love, and which has some - but not all - features in common with love, and which isn't quite so strong a feeling. Honour and duty strike me as more characteristic or prominent than love, and I think that care would be more broadly applicable than love, with regards to loyalty.

I also don't think that you can rightly exclude "blindly defending tooth and nail" as a possible feature or consequence of loyalty. I think that an examination of loyalty which is as impartial as it can be would lead to an inclusion of the good as well as the bad. But I think that some people are biased in that they seem to desire for loyalty to be kept untarnished - or at least not as tarnished as it can be, in light of some cases - so they superficially make it so that loyalty will always match their ideal of it. In other words, wishful thinking. — Sapientia

Love is a term I use to denote moral consciousness and loyalty can - along with honour and duty [or responsibility] - be expressions of our morality. I am quite firm on my belief that love is a choice and not some subjective, sweeping feeling [hence the consciousness] that, without reason, can be self-deceitful and even sometimes dangerous to our own well-being. Hence my previous remark on the superiority of reason over intuition. Concepts, such as pride, is an example of this danger; without reason, pride can lead us further away from intellectual and emotional progress, but within reason, can empower us to appreciate our individuality. Loyalty works the same way, that without reason can be dangerous.

It does not mean that because of our failure to apply our moral position consciously and correctly that somehow loyalty itself is flawed; the flaw is the expression and that is a individual choice.

Damn, that political compass test is ridiculously biased.

I believe that the law should be laissez faire — Agustino

Good, then we are done here.

Damn, that political compass test is ridiculously biased. — darthbarracuda

How?

Good, then we are done here. — Emptyheady

The test was a moral test though, so we're not done at all...

It's a loaded question, so I'm not going to answer it with a "yes" or a "no". — Sapientia

It's only loaded in that if you answer straightforwardly and honestly, it weakens the ideas you want to support. So you're answering politically instead.

You can't be part loyal. Loyalty is a choice, an expression of your moral position and so what you are saying is no different to what I said; by choosing aspects of your country is merely criticising other aspects that you do not agree with. — TimeLine

What I said wasn't about being part loyal, it was about being loyal to parts - only those parts which deserve your loyalty.

I'm not merely talking about being critical of or disagreeing with certain aspects of my country, since it's possible to do that whilst being loyal to my country. But I don't think that justice would be served by universally taking that approach. Like I said, sometimes the right way to go about it would be to go further by retracting or breaking off your loyalty - or by not committing your loyalty in the first place.

I wouldn't say, like you did, that I am loyal to my country through, among other things, constructive criticism of its flaws. I wouldn't start with loyalty to my country and then proceed from there. I would start by considering various aspects of my country, and then try to figure out whether or not it is deserving of my loyalty. And in so doing, I've reached the conclusion that only certain aspects of my country are deserving of my loyalty. So I would not say that I'm loyal to my country - unless the situation changed, which it is unlikely to do, since there will likely always be aspects which are not deserving of my loyalty, and which I could not include in a broader 'loyalty to my country', since they are the very reason that I am not loyal to my country. I might be able to do so if all of the flawed aspects of my country were only ever as serious as to make constructive criticism the right response, but some of the flaws are too serious to warrant being treated in that way.

Love is a term I use to denote moral consciousness and loyalty can - along with honour and duty [or responsibility] - be expressions of our morality. — TimeLine

I don't agree with using the word "love" in that way. It's unclear without clarification and is likely to be misunderstood.

But I agree that those qualities can be expressions of our morality, if, by that, you don't mean to imply that they're necessarily moral, but rather that they're an expression of one's moral values.

The bottom line is that these qualities can be bad, immoral, a vice...

I am quite firm on my belief that love is a choice and not some subjective, sweeping feeling [hence the consciousness] that, without reason, can be self-deceitful and even sometimes dangerous to our own well-being. — TimeLine

Well, I think that that belief is mistaken, firm or otherwise. Love isn't a choice. Love is indeed a subjective feeling - it can't be otherwise. Love can influence choice and can't itself be chosen. I do not, and cannot, choose who or what I love, or even whether to love. Love just happens as a result of something or other.

But sure, you can love the wrong thing, you can feel a sense of deception about love, and it can sometimes be dangerous to our own well-being.

Hence my previous remark on the superiority of reason over intuition. — TimeLine

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Both are fallible, but with respect to ethics, my intuitions tend to be more powerful than anything that my reason or anyone else's can come up with. If, intuitively, I find something right or wrong, then attempting to use reason to find a way around that can be futile. Furthermore, I think that our moral views are founded intuitively, and tend to align with and remain close to those foundations. Reason is the slave of the passions, not vice versa.

Concepts, such as pride, is an example of this danger; without reason, pride can lead us further away from intellectual and emotional progress, but within reason, can empower us to appreciate our individuality. Loyalty works the same way, that without reason can be dangerous. — TimeLine

This is similar to what I was getting at earlier by bringing up balance, excess, and deficiency. And yes, reason plays a part in that. But we disagree over its overall significance.

It does not mean that because of our failure to apply our moral position consciously and correctly that somehow loyalty itself is flawed; the flaw is the expression and that is a individual choice. — TimeLine

I wouldn't say that loyalty itself is flawed. Nor, like others, would I explain this by saying that that is because loyalty in itself is a virtue, or that it is intrinsically good. I think that much of this ethical talk about loyalty in itself is false or meaningless.

It makes sense to take context into account, which can in some cases suggest loyalty as a vice; that to be loyal in these circumstances would be flawed. But it isn't as simple as being a choice, since it isn't a matter in which we have an entirely free will. Rather, our moral values and those emotions relating to them can and do have varying degrees of influence on our thoughts, beliefs, intentions, and actions.

It's only loaded in that if you answer straightforwardly and honestly, it weakens the ideas you want to support. So you're answering politically instead. — Terrapin Station

No, it would only superficially appear that way. Loaded questions are a tactic used by sophists, and it wouldn't be wise to allow oneself to be tricked by those kind of tactics. I'm here for philosophy, not sophistry.

So you're claiming the question implies a fallacious argument?

So you're claiming the question implies a fallacious argument? — Terrapin Station

I'm claiming that it's a loaded question:

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.

All such tests would be so.

Categorizing political opinions is, itself, value-laden by the very values it seeks to categorize. In some way by putting this or that thought in this or that category you forbid, permit, and extol such and such depending on who is doing the talking and the listening.

I'm claiming that it's a loaded question: — Sapientia

Well what definition of "sophistry" are you using?

Well what definition of "sophistry" are you using? — Terrapin Station

:-d

Would you rather dance around where our substantial disagreement lies than properly discuss it? You could start by making explicit those assumptions implicit in your loaded question. I'm guessing it's something like: anyone who doesn't act as if they were always fully in control of the way in which they react is an idiot, and is entirely responsible for reacting in ways that I deem to be idiotic. And the problem with that assumption is that it is blind to a wealth of evidence which contradicts it.

I notice that day by day Sappy is becoming a better politician... one day he may actually end up the Prime Minister of Britain :-O

anyone who doesn't act as if they were always fully in control of the way in which they react is an idiot, and is entirely responsible for reacting in ways that I deem to be idiotic. — Sapientia

That's not something I'd agree with. I was sincerely asking you the question I asked. Maybe you believe that it couldn't be the case that someone would yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks, etc. I don't know. That's why I asked you. I believe that sometimes people do things like yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks etc. If there was an "assumption" in my question, that was it--that I believe that people don't always freak out when someone yells "Fire," but apparently you believe that that's not possible.

That's not something I'd agree with. I was sincerely asking you the question I asked. Maybe you believe that it couldn't be the case that someone would yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks, etc. I don't know. That's why I asked you. I believe that sometimes people do things like yell "Fire" where people do not panic and trample other folks etc. If there was an "assumption" in my question, that was it--that I believe that people don't always freak out when someone yells "Fire," but apparently you believe that that's not possible. — Terrapin Station

Okay. Perhaps I was reading more into it than was present. But then, you used the word "idiot" which I think is telling. You were judging their reaction as idiotic, which in turn seems to suggest that you hold them responsible to some extent, and that they could have acted otherwise. I don't think that that is necessarily true. So, my answer to your question would be that some people in that situation might not react in that way, but that the whole situation is far more complex than you seemed to have acknowledged, and that a simple "yes" or "no" answer would not convey this.

And, although not logically impossible, in practice, it is unrealistic that an entire theatre full of people would react in a calm and controlled manner.

So, my answer to your question would be that some people in that situation might not react in that way, — Sapientia

Right. So it can't be simply that saying "Fire" is causal to some specific behavior. There has to be more to it than that. There have to be some other factors that make the difference to whether some specific behavior obtains or not in the wake of someone yelling "Fire."

Right. So it can't be simply that saying "Fire" is causal to some specific behavior. There has to be more to it than that. There have to be some other factors that make the difference to whether some specific behavior obtains or not in the wake of someone yelling "Fire." — Terrapin Station

I never suggested otherwise. If you look back over our discussion, you will see that.

My objection was against your not counting that - namely, someone yelling "Fire!" - as a causal factor - and a significant one at that - for whatever harm might ensue. Instead, you just listed other factors - factors which wouldn't even make sense without that primary trigger to the events which consequently followed.

My objection was against your not counting that - namely, someone yelling "Fire!" - as a causal factor - and a significant one at that - for whatever harm might ensue. Instead, you just listed other factors - factors which wouldn't even make sense without that primary trigger to the events which consequently followed. — Sapientia

The problem is that if yelling "Fire" doesn't cause the behavior in every situation, how do we show that it's causal at all? Why wouldn't the other factors, whatever they are, be the causal factors instead?

The problem is that if yelling "Fire" doesn't cause the behavior in every situation, how do we show that it's causal at all? Why wouldn't the other factors, whatever they are, be the causal factors instead? — Terrapin Station

Every situation isn't exactly the same, but most have things in common, and they tend to produce the same sort of result way more often than not. They do so to such an extent that the results are highly predictable. And the results can be explained by what we know about human nature, which includes natural reactions, and by what we know to be the probable cause of those reactions.

This isn't solely a matter for philosophy. Science can explain much of this. If you want to know about this sort of thing, I'd direct you towards the science, rather than invite you to philosophically speculate about it irrespective of it.

And besides, this is common sense. Most people wouldn't need a more in-depth explanation.