Forum Overview :: Rants
 
Absolut Morality by hit my head and forgot my nick 02/10/2003, 3:30pm PST
Little Crow wrote:

Does the beast even exist?


Depnds on who you asked. I'd say "yes but no," and then go about explaining.

Yes: The absolute morality posited by Kant's argument for categorical imperative may possibly exist, but not in the "oh yeah and there they are right in King James" sense. I'd say you're only really safe with ONE unbreakable rule: that you must always use your ability to determine right and wrong.

In that sense, the answer is also No: since the only rule is that you must determine right and wrong for yourself, given what you can determine from all observable information and all reasonable consequences. This is "situational," considered the opposite of "absolute," even though each requires the other to exist, even if their proponents won't admit to it or aren't sharp enough to recognize it.

No person can be perfect in this sense: you don't always have all the info, sometimes you miss things or mistake things for other things, you can't always tell what the outcomes will be: but there is never an excuse for not trying to figure it out. It's absolute in the sense that it's the only rule that's always in effect, no matter the context, which makes breaking it pretty much the only sin.

Random readers: don't waste my time with "murder is always wrong," the word carries two ideas, an act and a context, and is not part of a valid argument here. The idea that something is right or wrong regardless of context automatically excludes words like murder, but not "killing," which doesn't carry the same contextual baggage. Use your head before you reply, his questions are more complex than they appear.

Is morality simply a concept?


You know I have to be honest with you: it's so loaded with religious connotation that I stopped using it in reasonable debate. I use ethics since that term concerns human action, which is what we're really talking about here anyway.

Does it mean anything at all, for fuck's sake?


As above, any meaning "morality" had is lost, the language has mostly shifted beyond its capacity. Which is not to say we don't need a word, just that "morality" isn't it. The language needs a new one, just like we need a genderless, monosyllabic pronoun for "a person." "Him" or "Her" just isn't cutting it.

Or is it just some nebulous thing we created, like good manners, that separates us from the beasts of the field?


This is the part where Hokie jumps in and says "but good manners is good business, and once again economics trumps ethics," and is, of course, wrong. None of our cultures are older than the concept of the host/guest relationship. It's still a pretty fascinating subject, but it falls before situational ethics: if some traveller shows up at your house tired and thirsty, you offer him a seat at your table and a beer, and then he tells you he's got a backpack nuke and is on his way to Atlanta with it...you violate "good manners" and cut his throat.

It's interesting you made the connection between morality and manners, it leads me to suspect you already knew the answer to your own questions.

Some of you know me, as much as I've let you, at any rate. Most of you don't. Maybe it's been the chaotic circumstances of my life that have led me to this constant questioning of morality. The details, however titillating they may be, aren't really important, I don't guess. Suffice it to say that in this life I've been witness and many times willing party to events that would make your skin crawl and give you bad dreams for a month. Very amoral shit, it would seem, many times flat-out illegal (not that those two things always run parallel). Looking back, it seems that I always had reasons for the things I did, some sort of justification. Sometimes I really had no other choice. Or did I?


Action and inaction are both the consequence of choice. Maybe if we pretend you couldn't have guessed you'd end up in ethically problematic situations given the choices you'd made earlier, we could say you were in a tight spot and maybe made the right call at that point...but since I know the details you mentioned I'm not sure how we can pretend what I just said is true. I'd tell you the only way to relieve the guilt is to write a book or something, tell it all, name names, but I don't want you dead any more than you do.

And ethics and the law aren't always in sync because they're two seperate branches of philosophy. Civil disobedience requires faith that the law eventually bows to ethics...it just takes fucking forever. On the upside, no honest man is worried about illegal shit when there's questions of right and wrong present.

If a man does something that he feels is for a greater good, is that then moral, even though the action itself is amoral?


It depends whether or not there was another, less unethical way to go about it. If not, then yes. That's "Utilitarianism," those guys were pretty sharp.

Do the ends justify the means?


Not if there were means that didn't require justifying, by which I mean a more ethical option. If there is no ethical option, and you have to pick the "least unethical" option, then if the end is positive enough, the means are justified. Of course, you have no way of knowing the actual end before you go into the endeavor, so again: it's best not to use means that may need to be justified later, lest you end up with a guilty conscience. But you knew that.

Do we conform to society's notions of morality to become moral people?


Politicians pretend to. Of course, they take bribes for a living, so I don't put much stock in them.

Who's making these rules, anyway?


John Calvin, among others. Unfortunately you can't retroactively kill someone for being an asshole if they're already dead, but you do have to live with the consequences of past stupidity. Since the best action falls into the realm of the impossible, we have to look at the best action within what's possible, and ask the question: who is reinforcing these rules now?

And what then is the benefit of a so-called moral society, anyway?


This suddenly gets very complex: If you can't have more than one absolute rule, then it's tough to make laws or enforce them. It's also impossible to prove that someone did or did not take all observable information and potential consequences into account before acting. However, once we have our single imperative in place, we can derive rules from it, and then give judges a good deal of leeway in meting out punishments, that way if something doesn't quite fit or a circumstance exists that was unforseen when the rule was made, the judge gets to test his reason, and presumably we'll pick judges who are good at that...but that's the way it already works, and it really isn't broken, just very, very slow.

As far as "moral society," you should stay as far away from William Bennett as possible. The man's a crackpot. Reagan's Ashcroft, really. A moral society lets people make as many decisions for themselves as possible, even if they're dumb mistakes and sometimes they die. It's the direct cost to others that needs to be regulated, prohibited, punished. Any other discussion of moral society falls under that whole "morality is too loaded a word" problem: people are really talking religion.

If it's all up to interpretation, where has it all gotten us?


Ethical reason is more sophisticated than it used to be...it's kept up with technology and culture more than people think, the problem is E/N. If the individuals in a society can't discern between a reasoned ethical position and incessant babbling, it won't get us anywhere. You can't leave people to be free and force them to care about things simultaneously, though, so you just have to accept there's no moral society, and won't be. Change comes when enough are convinced of the right or wrong of an action, the less who care, the longer that change takes.

I know some of the biggest assholes around who claim the high ground because of their piety, or the fact that they're "law-abiding." Whoever claimed that the law of the land equated morality, you uppity cunts?


That french guy in the 1800s. Alexander something or other. "America is great because America is good" or some shit. Keep repeating it to yourself and it starts to sound pretty cozy. Back to civil disobedience, though: those people don't assume the law of the land is what's right, but they assume it can be changed. I think the self-satisfaction comes from the idea that we can change things that are wrong if we want to...good luck doing it without GE's backing, though.

I know this concept is an old one. Throughout history, the various churches and other spiritual institutions have always been there to step into that void and offer the ultimate reward for behaving according to their brand of morality: ultimate, eternal spiritual orgasm. And naturally, deviation will only land you in a world of shit. OBEY, OR BURN FOREVER. What could be more persuasive than perdition? For many, this is their ultimate compass. Paradise or Hell. Easy to choose, yeah? Life's choices are easy in a world of black and white. How comforting...

Unfortunately, my spirituality holds no such notions of punishment or reward for behavior. No bad Karma coming back to bite you in the ass. No reincarnation. I don't believe in any of that. No Universal Justice System in place, sorry. I say unfortunately because there are times I crave ignorance. I want the bliss that comes with that kind of conviction. My world is full of gray. I drag a chain 5 miles long behind me. Why? Couldn't I just as easily pardon myself? It's not that I hate myself, no. But I believe my own history will repeat if I drop the consequences of the past, and frankly that terrifies me. It was bad enough the first time. I'm living a righteous life now... I think. I've learned a lot from it all. I pursue the path less-traveled, as I see it, but I'm certainly not claiming any sort of moral superiority in any way from that. I have way too much baggage to purge for that kind of luxury in attitude.


This is the part where you pissed vag off. Everyone figures this out really early: church is like a security blanket for grown ups. It's worthless...unless you (psychologically) need it, then it's the greatest thing ever, then you're all better and it's worthless again. Mostly it's a support group. Like Alcoholics Anonymous but with no smoking and shitty coffee. There was a time when local communities revolved around churches, and there was a time when the sun revolved around a flat Earth, and both of those times are long since over. Now churches are free psych clinics and pleasant places to get married and nothing more. We've matured beyond that, which is why we're having such a hard time dealing with the countries who haven't.

Still, though, they have something to teach that could be useful to you: confession in many Baptist churches is public, and seems (psychologically) to work better than confession in Catholic churches. Coming in here or to that other place to admit you've sinned is like going to Catholic church: we'll hear your problems and feel you up a bit, but if you want to be really free of what you feel guilty about, buy some body armor and write a book. Public confession is more about the confessor than the public anyway.

you know me
PREVIOUS NEXT REPLY QUOTE
 
Absolute Morality? by Little Crow 02/10/2003, 12:05pm PST NEW
    This is not the place, and you are not the fag to do it. (nt) by Zseni 02/10/2003, 12:16pm PST NEW
        Re: This is not the place, and you are not the fag to do it. (nt) by Little Crow 02/10/2003, 1:01pm PST NEW
            Re: This is not the place, and you are not the fag to do it. (nt) by Zseni 02/10/2003, 1:11pm PST NEW
                Re: This is not the place, and you are not the fag to do it. (nt) by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 1:37pm PST NEW
                    you're. Grrr. NT NT by SB 02/10/2003, 1:38pm PST NEW
                    What was that bit from the other thread... by Atorofkittens 02/10/2003, 1:50pm PST NEW
                        Oh for the love of shit (nt) by SB 02/10/2003, 1:51pm PST NEW
                            Also: again, enough with the Fight Club! nt by fok 02/10/2003, 2:32pm PST NEW
            Re: This is not the place, and you are not the fag to do it. (nt) by fok 02/10/2003, 1:14pm PST NEW
                So, like, what's the "preview" button for? nt NT by fok 02/10/2003, 1:16pm PST NEW
        meh by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 1:26pm PST NEW
            Re: meh by Zseni 02/10/2003, 2:01pm PST NEW
                Wha? by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 2:36pm PST NEW
                    I think you broke him. Nice. (nt) by I need clarification 02/10/2003, 2:39pm PST NEW
                The faggot within by Chemdem 02/10/2003, 5:04pm PST NEW
                    Re: The faggot within by Zseni 02/10/2003, 5:08pm PST NEW
                        Honey that game is SO VERY OLD by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 5:11pm PST NEW
                            Wait wait lemme try your methodology, Heisenberg. by Zseni 02/10/2003, 5:13pm PST NEW
                                Re: Wait wait lemme try your methodology, Heisenberg. by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 5:18pm PST NEW
                                    I see my methodology is in the end triumphant. by Zseni 02/10/2003, 5:30pm PST NEW
                                        Re: I see my methodology is in the end triumphant. by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 9:17pm PST NEW
                                            Hehehe. HAHAHAHAHAH. WA HA HA HA HA. (nt) by Zseni 02/10/2003, 9:20pm PST NEW
                                                Not at all, I could do a better job. (NT) by Senor Barborito 02/10/2003, 9:22pm PST NEW
                                            Consistency by Lufteufel 02/11/2003, 11:27am PST NEW
                                                Your opinion has been noted and disregarded by Senor Barborito 02/11/2003, 11:48am PST NEW
                        The faggot among us by Chemdem 02/10/2003, 8:53pm PST NEW
                            Re: The faggot among us by Zseni 02/10/2003, 9:11pm PST NEW
                                All is fair in love and faggot by Chemdem 02/11/2003, 6:53pm PST NEW
                                    Re: All is fair in love and faggot by Zseni 02/11/2003, 7:20pm PST NEW
    Absolut Morality by hit my head and forgot my nick 02/10/2003, 3:30pm PST NEW
        Nice post by SB 02/10/2003, 4:14pm PST NEW
            Re: Nice post by Ray, of Light 02/10/2003, 5:52pm PST NEW
            It would take a cunning plan to pull off, yes by Little Crow 02/11/2003, 4:24am PST NEW
                Re: It would take a cunning plan to pull off, yes by Ray, of Light 02/11/2003, 10:42am PST NEW
                Re: It would take a cunning plan to pull off, yes by Senor Barborito 02/11/2003, 7:47pm PST NEW
                    Should read 'unreliable' -NT- NT by SB 02/11/2003, 7:48pm PST NEW
        Finally, For the Love of the Black Baby Jesus by Little Crow 02/11/2003, 3:22am PST NEW
    Uninformed answer by laudablepuss 02/10/2003, 3:51pm PST NEW
    Here it is: the answer you didn't know you sought by Ray, of Light 02/10/2003, 7:06pm PST NEW
        That was a good link by tired 02/10/2003, 10:41pm PST NEW
    Nihilism: ENGAGE! by mrs. johnson 02/11/2003, 1:57am PST NEW
        You're showering sparks all over the place. by conflictNo 02/11/2003, 3:08am PST NEW
            Thanks. Mistakes were made. People were killed. n/T NT by mrs. johnson 02/11/2003, 10:54am PST NEW
    Sounds like SOMEONE forgot to go on a Vision Quest! :( by Fussbett 02/11/2003, 2:25am PST NEW
    Re: Absolute Morality? by Zebco Fuckface 02/11/2003, 7:05am PST NEW
 
powered by pointy