I have shown why I disagree. — Merkwurdichliebe

No you haven't.

It's entirely unclear to me what your view is, as you said 'exactly' when I said something that contradicted something you'd just said.

Now, do you think that moral reasons are grounded in self-interest or not?

Now, do you think that moral reasons are grounded in self-interest or not? — Bartricks

No. Moral reasoning is not grounded in self interest nor altruism. It is the reverse, self interest and altruism (as well as every other norm) become grounded in moral reasoning when they have been assigned an ethical value (e.g. good/evil, right/wrong). If there is no ethical value applied to a norm, it is likely an example of instrumental reasoning. Then, norms such as self interest and altruism become a nonmoral practical matter (e.g. correct/incorrect, like/dislike).

Morality is not universal in its particular demands (such as selflessness), unless, of course, we can show the existence of absolute morality. Until then, moral reason can only be universal in its demand for absolute compliance. Moral reason generally has no middle ground and makes no exceptions outside the case of an ethical dilemma.

Moral reason generally has no middle ground and makes no exceptions outside the case of an ethical dilemma. — Merkwurdichliebe

That means if an individual reasons that selflessness is an ethical good, he must always choose selflessness. That doesn't mean that selflessness is an ethical good for every individual.

If a person's moral reasoning tells him that it is good to be a selfish bastard that gets over on others, then it is the moral thing to do, and nothing can tell against it. — Merkwurdichliebe

The problem you and Moliere are not recognizing in this exchange is that you are reducing morality to selfishness/altruism. But these are only particular perspectives based on moral reasoning. And until we can demonstrate the existence of an universal and absolute moral code, morality as a matter of selfishness/altrusism has ground in nothing but baseless subjectivity. — Merkwurdichliebe

Hrmmm... smells like - Kantianism! :D

To which I'd say: go right ahead. Speak your mind. The abstruse nature of your reasoning will ensure that it never escapes into the wild, and you can have your truth all to yourself. The Kingdom of Ends, because God does not exist on high, will also not exist -- so why bother, if you're not immortal, to live with a code for a world that doesn't exist, that will not exist, and is even counter to the type of being you are?

As it is, baseless subjectivity is the defect being explored. Dedication to principles for a kingdom of ends that will eventually be is one way human beings carry on, ethically -- they even convince themselves that if they repeat certain patterns to themselves that they have contact with Forms or Eternal Good or something. We're an odd, irrational species.

But it's not a satisfying one, from what I can see. Who even understands it but a handful of nerds who like to read?

It's what I term a ghost-morality. The Holy Ghost on high watches you watching yourself doing things in a moral world that will never be.

Amen, brother. :smirk:

The good man enjoys sound sleep but the bad man doesn't. It boils down to that. Unfortunately, it seems this is more fiction than fact - to be found only/mostly in novels/plays/movies that aren't, as they say, based on a true story — Agent Smith

Well, first of all you never know how well or not someone sleeps. And then, it has to do with someone's ethical standards. I believe that criminals can sleep perfectly well, because they have their own "criminal" standards of ethics based on the group they belong to or are identified with. E.g. Mafia people place "family, "honor" and "loyalty" very high in their standards. And as long as they don't break these standards --i.e. their integrity-- I believe they can have a perfect sleep!
The same goes with cannibals eating human flesh ... It's in their menu of the day! :grin:

Always with the flattery, You just can't help yourself. :mask:

[....]because God does not exist on high, will also not exist -- so why bother, if you're not immortal, to live with a code for a world that doesn't exist, that will not exist, and is even counter to the type of being you are? — Moliere

If it matters for any reason, it is because: to stand firm on one's moral principles will prevent one from being a hypocrite, a pathetic wretch of a creature, worthy of neither love nor respect. Those people know who they are, regardless if it can ever be known or proven to another. Of course, this only begs the question: is this merely a relativistic opinion, or a universal truth?

As it is, baseless subjectivity is the defect being explored. Dedication to principles for a kingdom of ends that will eventually be is one way human beings carry on, ethically -- they even convince themselves that if they repeat certain patterns to themselves that they have contact with Forms or Eternal Good or something. We're an odd, irrational species. — Moliere

But it's not a satisfying one, from what I can see. Who even understands it but a handful of nerds who like to read? — Moliere

We certainly are odd. Its also why nerdy philosophers invent shit that nobody else understands nor cares about. And I also agree, that its not an edifying view of ethics. To be honest, i'm being lazy here. Compared to arguing for an absolute universal morality (in the Platonic sense), I have been taking the path of least resistance by settling on a more phenomenological perspective of morality (as you indicated).

Yeah, on target! One has to care for conscience to do its damage to the psyche, but it's precisely because one doesn't care that one is unethical/immoral.

Conscience is there to make the lives of good people more miserable than it already is with how the world works: without some evil survival is impossible!

Right. I rarely if ever use the term "conscience", but I can see that in this case it fits perfectly!

Maledictionem bonitatis: Having to be immoral to survive (re ought implies can) and never being able to forgive yourself for that (re conscience).

The little Latin I knew from school has been faded away. So, I have to believe you! :grin:

I am still thinking the thoughts, but I got to a point where I've assigned myself some reading - I got an idea for a bit of writing, so thanks for the proddings as always. I felt I owed a response, at least though, so here it is.

Always with the flattery, You just can't help yourself — Merkwurdichliebe

I'd call it camaraderie :D -- @180 Proof and I get along well, and who likes to be alone?

If it matters for any reason, it is because: to stand firm on one's moral principles will prevent one from being a hypocrite, a pathetic wretch of a creature, worthy of neither love nor respect. Those people know who they are, regardless if it can ever be known or proven to another. Of course, this only begs the question: is this merely a relativistic opinion, or a universal truth? — Merkwurdichliebe

I think that from the existential situation it's enough to say that it doesn't matter if its relative or universal -- the choice remains. It's because freedom is forced on us by our very existence that we find these questions.

We certainly are odd. Its also why nerdy philosophers invent shit that nobody else understands nor cares about. And I also agree, that its not an edifying view of ethics. To be honest, i'm being lazy here. Compared to arguing for an absolute universal morality (in the Platonic sense), I have been taking the path of least resistance by settling on a more phenomenological perspective of morality (as you indicated). — Merkwurdichliebe

I think even here that Nietzsche could say the same -- let the philosophers have their truth in their academies where they commune with the forms. No one is moved by these thoughts anymore -- objective or subjective, humans desire and do things from desire. No moral law or form could possibly hold sway, except on a small individual basis or, in the case of communities, with the use of violence.

:wink:

But I will also add

Being moral must include not just recognition of the existence of competing needs but a commitment to satisfying the needs of the other as well as oneself. — Banno

Aporia?

Or progress?

Progress. I think, thanks to yourself and everyone here, I skipped a few false thoughts.

As always, thanks to everyone who responded.

Being moral must include not just recognition of the existence of competing needs but a commitment to satisfying the needs of the other as well as oneself. — Banno

Perhaps, that certainly is an optimal view of morality. But what about the cases where being moral necessitates ignoring the existence of competing needs, and neglecting to satisfy the needs of the other as well as oneself?

You will always have to live with yourself. That's merely a fact.

It's the fact that you should always consider in making a choice.

Hence, a real ethic -- you *should* consider that you'll always be with yourself. — Moliere

I like the approach, but it occurs to me that you are leaving something out: death.

Romeo and Juliette are together in eternity. We can be like they are.

A slave might risk life and limb to escape or avenge or defend a comrade. A pessimist might hang himself by stepping off a stack of freshly printed volumes of his cold but windy manifesto.

To paraphrase Kerouac, maybe each of us is the void pretending to be a man pretending not to know the void.

I found this today and it's definitely part of what I'm going to be reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Levinas-Reader-Emmanuel/dp/0631164472


The rest of the list so far: Totality and Infinity, and Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, which I hadn't made the connection to before but actually is a great story for exploring Totality and Infinity since the main character sort of makes the arc which Levinas is describing in the essay. Also, specifically referencing the book since it includes the crucial 21st chapter, which Kubrick cut out for a nice bit of drama (but totally changing the meaning of the story!)

I agree - good catch!

So far what I have heard being left out, and agree with: Akrasia, the needs of others, and now death.

Totality and Infinity, and Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, which I hadn't made the connection to before but actually is a great story for exploring Totality and Infinity since the main character sort of makes the arc which Levinas is describing in the essay. — Moliere

:up: Thanks for this! I'd never made this connection either. Taking both off the shelf now ...

Glad to hear it. I make no promises on my rate of reading due to the chaos of life, but I look forward to discussing these texts.

I think that from the existential situation it's enough to say that it doesn't matter if its relative or universal -- the choice remains. It's because freedom is forced on us by our very existence that we find these questions. — Moliere

I agree, existentially speaking, universality is irrelevant. The reason I'm bringing up the universal is because I see a lot of opinions on this thread that say morality is about selfishness vs altruism, and I see this as taking the conversation away from existential ethics.

My point is: that which is universal to morality is necessary for existential ethics, whereas, a particular set of ethical principles (or a specific moral code) is not. Things like choice and conscience (meaning: an immanent sense of good and evil, not specific ethical principles) are universal to ethics, and hit directly on existential notions of morality.

I think even here that Nietzsche could say the same -- let the philosophers have their truth in their academies where they commune with the forms. No one is moved by these thoughts anymore -- objective or subjective, humans desire and do things from desire. — Moliere

When philosophers talk about desire, they call it normative. I can understand why no one is moved by these thoughts anymore.

No moral law or form could possibly hold sway, except on a small individual basis or, in the case of communities, with the use of violence.

Morality has it's greatest significance for the individual. There is always a demand on the individual to conform to the good, and in many cases this does not require the individual to judge others by his own moral standard. It is when the individual begins judging the other by his standard that community morality becomes relevant. I could see a genuine ethical system in the dynamic of a nuclear family. But outside of that, community morality begins veering off into the domain of appearances (viz.: what can you get away with, and what can they prove), and violence (whether through brainwashing or coercion). In ethics, the individual is always primary.