Wouldn't the same be true for almost all moralising? Very rarely do the would-be moralisers herd people at gunpoint into rooms before speaking. [...] I can't think of many examples where people are forced to listen to moral arguments. — Isaac
individuals can be forceful in non-physical ways.
Think for example of applying social pressure, using misleading rhetorical devices, non-horizontal dialogue, etc. — Tzeentch
Then there is morality that's implicit in law, which is applied through the threat of violence ('at gunpoint'). — Tzeentch
if the intention isn't genuine — Tzeentch
What is it about these that you find 'non-kosher'? — Isaac
Genuine being...? I assume if I want to persuade you to give more to charity, my intention is as genuine as if you want to persuade me to meddle less? — Isaac
I see a wealthy person and say "it's really greedy of you to keep all your wealth, children are starving!"
You see a meddling person (for example me, in the above situation) and say "you didn't ought meddle in that man's affairs, it's up to him what to do with his money, morality is about personal virtue, not imposing on others" (or something like that).
Are we still both on a par? Have I crossed a line yet in my intervention which you haven't crossed in yours? — Isaac
Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. — Tzeentch
Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. — Tzeentch
I may think something along those lines (and of course here on this forum, I write down what I think), — Tzeentch
the meddling only happens when there's an unwelcome effort to influence someone. — Tzeentch
I wouldn't accuse you or anyone else of meddling just because they post their thoughts on a forum. — Tzeentch
The argument... ... seems to be trying to persuade me of a position you think is right. Is that then unethical? — Isaac
In the example I gave I could simply be 'thinking' the man greedy and happening to vocalise what I think. — Isaac
How would you know it was unwelcome in advance? — Isaac
What kind of action do you think people ought take to ensure their efforts are not unwelcome? — Isaac
Any and all moral declarations attempting to influence others will take place during some voluntary conversation. — Isaac
I'm not yet seeing the difference you're trying to get at between a forum like this and any other normal conversation. — Isaac
I'm not trying to persuade you, or anyone on TPF. My purpose here is testing my views, and looking for interesting insights that I may have failed to recognize. — Tzeentch
If there is truly no intention to meddle, this belongs to the realm of tragedy and ignorance. — Tzeentch
Horizontal dialogue, for example, which is characterized by respect for the other's view point. — Tzeentch
the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's — Tzeentch
One example would be how many moral 'lessons' take place when one is still a child - when one's brain isn't fully developed and one doesn't really possess the tools to give any pushback to the ideas that are being presented. — Tzeentch
Another could be how people are repeatedly exposed to moral messages, in the news, in media, in commercials, etc. A lot of this may even take place subconsciously. I would argue that the nature of those things isn't exactly voluntary. — Tzeentch
When people voluntarily join in the exercise of sharing and discussing views, this is of course not meddling. — Tzeentch
Yes, but intent is not enough. You sell yourself short. You do persuade. and unless you've been living in a cave for your adult life, you'll know that when you present arguments as you do here, they sometimes persuade. — Isaac
Sure. But immoral. That's your claim. A moral action is good in both intent and outcome. Intent alone isn't enough. so any act of conversation which actually does persuade someone (even if you intended it not to) is immoral because it's had the effect of meddling in their affairs. — Isaac
You said earlier that non-horizontal dialogue was one which assumes the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's — Isaac
I can respect you and still think you're wrong, I hope. — Isaac
How is teaching a child morals different from teaching them language, or maths, or history, or biology...? — Isaac
But people can tun off the TV, no? If we're concerned about the subconscious, then your posts here have more to worry about than their general persuasiveness. There's a whole slew of subconscious messages they might be conveying. Again taking intent and effect. — Isaac
Yes. Moral views should also manifest in what kind of system one would advocate for or oppose, and how they treat others, in ways that constitute as going beyond the personal. — Judaka
That's a fantastic insight, I've underplayed these elements. To lessen the blow of one's views on others, for whichever reasons, could motivate the "personal" characterisation. One's moral view might be deemed inappropriate, and mightn't be tolerated by others, and the personal characterisation makes sense there too. I've seen some very passive-aggressive cases of it as well now that I think about it. — Judaka
This is a rather uncharitable representation of those who follow a personal moral code, and one which I cannot agree with. — Tzeentch
The focus of the sage on self-cultivation is as old as philosophy itself, and perhaps older. We can judge by the nature of their behavior (asceticism, isolation, etc.) and writings that these were in fact genuine motivations towards self-cultivation, and not attempts to 'have it both ways.' — Tzeentch
Sometimes that changes people's minds, but the form such interactions take matters, which is why I make the distinction. — Tzeentch
I have shared my view on what constitutes a moral act, not on what constitutes an immoral act, and I believe the two don't function exactly the same. — Tzeentch
it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others — Tzeentch
The act of persuading someone is typified by a strong belief that one's own belief is better than the other's, no? — Tzeentch
I don't think you can respect my views while simultaneously believing them to be categorically wrong. — Tzeentch
There isn't necessarily a distinction, and the same thing applies (though, in subjects that teach tools rather than views it seems less relevant). The nature and shape of the student-teacher relationship therefore is of great importance, because it too implies a non-horizontal relationship. — Tzeentch
I wouldn't have these types of conversations with people who cannot push back against my ideas.
So yes, such things should be taken into account. — Tzeentch
So these acts of persuasion are not immoral, but not moral either. — Isaac
...so in what way 'pitfall'? — Isaac
No, I don't agree. If you and I were carrying a large object through the woods and reach a fork in the road. I think we ought go left and you right, I needn't have any strong conviction about left, nor you right, but we can clearly only go one way, so we must decide I must persuade you, or you I. — Isaac
There are loads of views I respect but thing are wrong (I don't see any need for 'categorically' here). — Isaac
But 'of great importance' is a different kettle of fish entirely to 'pitfalls'. — Isaac
If subconscious effects have to now be taken into account, your posts become a lot more risky. — Isaac
I can't help feeling all of this is a very long winded post-hoc way round the fact that your posts are fine because you have good intentions. You're not trying to hurt people and you're not trying to use them for your own gain, so it's fine that you post the way you do. doesn't that just seem simpler? — Isaac
Immoral acts depend first and foremost on the intention — Tzeentch
I don't know why you'd have to be persuaded if you didn't feel very strongly about left or right. I would say "Right" and you would shrug your shoulders and right we went! — Tzeentch
obviously a child needs to be taught things — Tzeentch
I'm not sure why you're turning this into something I'm trying to do, all of a sudden. :chin: — Tzeentch
I've not heard you rate the two elements before (but I may be misremembering). Intention and effect are necessary but intention is 'first and foremost'. That complicates any judgement a little. How does this 'first and foremost' cash out in terms of moral judgement, for you? If a person really strongly intended a good thing, but a bad thing occurred, is that moral because their intentions is 'first and foremost'? The element of weighting adds a new dimension to my understanding of your moral system. — Isaac
Then I'm persuaded. Otherwise we'd go left. — Isaac
Why? Why meddle? — Isaac
I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way. — Isaac
I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such. — Jacques
Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are acts using morality as a justification, where those acts constitute unwanted meddling. — Judaka
What may make this disposition appear threatening to some, is that it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others, and it disarms those who would. — Tzeentch
Consider these examples: — Tzeentch
I think we're using different ideas of what persuasion entails. It seems persuasion to you means the act of changing another's mind. — Tzeentch
I'd appreciate you come to your point. — Tzeentch
Who cares about people discussing things and sharing their opinions, where "agreeing to disagree" is always a viable option, and there's no stigma attached to any views? That's utterly benign.
Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are... — Judaka
you know the position you're interpreting him to have is idiotic, and you're pushing that interpretation despite being explicitly and repeatedly corrected. — Judaka
In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, — Judaka
An intelligent reptile would likely make different evaluations than an intelligent chimpanzee, although there would likely be some overlaps, such as: not killing, not harming, not stealing... just to name a few.Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it? — Judaka
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.