I agree with this, and although I tried I cannot express it any better.This means most people's morality will align on my account, even if they have different moral frameworks for arriving at the "yes/no" portion of whether to act. — AmadeusD
I second this.Ah, well. There are millions. Millions of things make me uncomfortable, and I'd rather not be the kind of person who did them because that would be, on my account, shameful or embarrassing. These extend to no one else, even in cases that would effect someone else, attitudinally speaking. I don't want to be that person, regardless of who is effected. — AmadeusD
I wouldn't want to live an 'unexamined life' or without ever wholeheartedly loving anyone else. I also wouldn't want be a coward or servile. (I'm sure there's more ...)With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
There are actions that aren't considered immoral, but I wouldn't be that person. Rudeness is not illegal or immoral, but I wouldn't do that face to face with people. — L'éléphant
Mid: This is my view of morality, and we're lucky that only humans are sentient enough to be considered moral agents. This means most people's morality will align on my account, even if they have different moral frameworks for arriving at the "yes/no" portion of whether to act.
Long: Ah, well. There are millions. Millions of things make me uncomfortable, and I'd rather not be the kind of person who did them because that would be, on my account, shameful or embarrassing. These extend to no one else, even in cases that would effect someone else, attitudinally speaking. I don't want to be that person, regardless of who is effected — AmadeusD
Is there anything wrong with eating the flesh of a member of one's own species? Some tribes considered it a homage to the departed relative to retain some portion of their being; some paid their slain enemies a compliment by partaking of their might, or to communicate with the gods or to demonstrate their power over another group. There is some mystery (and pay-walls) over how cannibalism actually become a taboo. But you still wouldn't want to be the guy that ate his neighbour. — Vera Mont
The moral good and bad is supposed to transcend all differences of social context. — Metaphysician Undercover
With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
The question is, is cannibalism, or incest, or any of a number of victimless immoralities, only "bad" because "we" say so? — Astrophel
Everything to do with morality and ethics is good or bad only because "we say so". — Vera Mont
Yes. Alcoholism. — fdrake
But how does one separate what is "merely" said from what has a grounding apart from the mere saying? — Astrophel
Not unless they're handed down from heaven.Ethics gets interesting when we move into the uncertain territories of underlying assumptions. Laws, rules, norms, principles are at best, prime facie compelling. Is there anything in ethics that is more than this? — Astrophel
One doesn't. One separates the mores and laws that make sense according to one's own judgment from those that are outmoded or counterproductive. Beyond socially imposed limitations, there is no "law of the jungle" or "natural law". — Vera Mont
Not unless they're handed down from heaven. — Vera Mont
It has philosophical foundations. Philosophy is also a product of human thought in response to human social interaction. Moralities are founded in the perceived welfare of the social unit.So ethics really has no foundation at all? — Astrophel
Exactly. If a rule doesn't apply to current social reality, or is no longer useful in promoting the well-being of the polity, why keep adhering to it? In fact, people don't. Laws usually get struck off the books long after people have been ignoring them and officials ceased to enforce them. It's how a society that actually operates that determines what's good and bad for it. How it usually happens is: social philosophers publish treatises, then journalist popularize their ideas, then people protest - it's the legal machinery that lags far behind."Outmoded" and "counterproductive" confer nothing beyond utility of ethics. — Astrophel
What else could it be? Of course, you have to remember that 'social construction' has its roots in a 250 million-year-old termite mound. We descended from a very long line of social animals, all of which had and have rules of acceptable behaviour. When a species evolves out of a previous one, its abilities, requirements and behaviours change accordingly, an so must its social conventions. When the environment changes, or the social organization gains complexity, its mores are adjusted to the new configuration. The conduct or war is different from the rules of peacetime; what is acceptable in times of plenty becomes a crime in a time of famine.Ethics thus just stands exclusively in the social construction. — Astrophel
Beyond.... to where? Seems a common enough crime to me. Of course, most criminals do not confess voluntarily.The ethical violation of Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov lies beyond breaking a society's rules, don't you think? — Astrophel
Beyond.... to where? — Vera Mont
Is this morally exhaustively conceived in the social institutions that would express the prohibition? — Astrophel
without moral sanction or legal repercussion. In most human cultures, no such prohibition applies to other species, which are considered legitimate prey. Many cultures have permitted or do still permit some unfavoured members of their own society to be treated that way.to bludgeon, burn, rip and tear, or otherwise offend and afflict another's living body, — Astrophel
If you profess faith in a supreme being, you are required to believe there is.Or is there more to it than this set of rules, laws, sentiments toward, and so forth, that the put forward this prohibition? — Astrophel
without moral sanction or legal repercussion. In most human cultures, no such prohibition applies to other species, which are considered legitimate prey. Many cultures have permitted or do still permit some unfavoured members of their own society to be treated that way. — Vera Mont
If you profess faith in a supreme being, you are required to believe there is. — Vera Mont
With this in mind do you think there things that aren’t immoral but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that does them even if you’re the only person affected? — Captain Homicide
But most folks leave out of their life calculations that most actions are done or not-done for now-reasons, neglecting future-reasons. That is, when you get older, either you cannot any more, or you realize that should/should-not yields to either I will do, or I will die never having done. And add to this the importance of memory. You cannot remember what you have not done. — tim wood
Which is to say that their moral code has made them deny a significant part of their own humanity. — tim wood
The question is, in my mind, IF an act is not morally objectionable as a private act, then what does this say about the public judgment that it IS objectionable? Isn't the latter rendered vacuous, no better than the same the personal "feelings" of revulsion that I suspend when trying to be objective and fair and nonjudgmental? — Astrophel
So the ethical prohibition against torture is all about my emotional regard for torture, the empathy, compassion and so forth that step forward when such a thing is witnessed, and the laws we have about this are grounded in this same thing, only collectively. Let's say this is true. But is this only what ethics is about, or is there that which we are ethical ABOUT that is also in ethics?Yep. Morals are emotional positions and nought else, on my view. Its a good idea to discuss them, and form groups of affinity. Some would very much enjoy seeing a woman 'engage' with her dog on a bus. It may be their optimal fantasy, in fact. — AmadeusD
If I'm understanding you, I think its redundant question. We are 'ethical' about many things, but this is also a function of our position on what is morally interested. — AmadeusD
The metaethical discussion about why a person might find something morally interesting isn't that relevant to the thread. The thread assumes S has a moral outlook, and acts can be permissible but they wouldn't want to do them. — AmadeusD
That's an interesting one. What do you mean by alcoholism? Alcohol use disorder includes a broad range of behaviours. — Tom Storm
a chronic relapsing disorder characterized by alcohol abuse or dependence, as compulsive use of alcoholic beverages, the development of physical or psychological symptoms upon reducing or ceasing intake, and decreased ability to function socially and professionally. — Dictionary.com, alcohol use disorder
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.