Or, at least, what is the basis of morality?

"[Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alex Saunders (The Philosophers Zone).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

Or, at least, what is the basis of morality? "[Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alex Saunders (The Philosophers Zone).

Alan Saunders. He is a Schopenhauerian in this. Schopenhauer declared that the true basis of morality is compassion or sympathy. (A much simpler formulation than Saunders's)

BUT.

The Royal Danish Society of Scientific Studies ran an essay competition in 1837: "Are the source and foundation of morals to be looked for in an idea of morality lying immediately in consciousness (or conscience) and in the analysis of other fundamental moral concepts springing from that idea, or are they to be looked for in a different ground of knowledge?". The only entry submitted was by Schoenhauer. He didn't win. The Danes said he misunderstood the question. Very smacking unsympathetic, what? No wonder Schopenhauer became big on pessimism.
;D

;D

Poor old Schoenhauer... Apparently he lived his whole life haunted by a sense of despair.

Let me give an example:

It is immoral to use an illegal copy of Windows 7 on your computer, but it is perfectly moral for Microsoft to charge an outrageous sum of
money for an operating system that exposes your computer to viruses by virtue of its design.

What is Morality?


Number 5 in the 4th race at Canturbury last week.

Does the exercise of morality necessary require choice?

Was Kurt Gerstein wrong to join the SS in an attempt to minimise the suffering of Jews during the holocaust and to ensure he could bear witness to the atrocities of the Third Reich?

Was he wrong to advocate the use of Zyklon-B over Carbon Monoxide to reduce the suffering of those about to be murdered?

Should he have chosen to resist the Nazis by protesting, even if his protestations would have had no effect and would have led to his own murder?

Were Gerstein's options chosen moral?

---------------------------------

Given Australia's history as Britain's island prison, is it moral for Australians to advocate the use of a far flung island to process "illegals"?

---------------------------------

Would it be immoral for the German government to confine their "illegals" to ghettos?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 11:28am:

Does the exercise of morality necessary require choice? is it moral for Australians to advocate the use of a far flung island to process "illegals",

While I get where you are coming from I do not support labelling refugees as Illegal’s  this is the first step used to justify discrininating against a small group of applicants?

Dnarever wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 11:38am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 31st, 2010 at 11:28am: Does the exercise of morality necessary require choice? is it moral for Australians to advocate the use of a far flung island to process "illegals", While I get where you are coming from I do not support labelling refugees as Illegal’s  this is the first step used to justify discrininating against a small group of applicants?

I agree, hence the quotes...

One step towards their definition and vilification as Untermenschen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woEP6TMmXNA


Sonja: Boris, Let me show you how absurd your position is. Let's say there is no God, and each man is free to do exactly as he chooses. What prevents you from murdering somebody?
Boris: Murder's immoral.
Sonja: Immorality is subjective.
Boris: Yes, but subjectivity is objective.
Sonja: Not in a rational scheme of perception.
Boris: Perception is irrational. It implies immanence.
Sonja: But judgment of any system or a priori relation of phenomena exists in any rational or metaphysical or at least epistemological contradiction to an abstracted empirical concept such as being or to be or to occur in the thing itself or of the thing itself.
Boris: Yeah, I've said that many times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NipAXdBtaDs

Been a while since I had to look up two words in the same paragraph, I had no idea what she was on about.


Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere - "to remain within" - refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence,

Epistemology (from Greek) theory of knowledge

Metaphysics:

What it means to a layman: somewhere between "crystal healing" and "tree hugging" in the Dewey decimal system.

What it means to a philosopher: No! How many times do I have to tell you? Nothing whatever to do with this New Age stuff! Now move my book away from the stand containing Shirley MacLaine, or I shall be very upset.

Epistemology:  A philosopher and his wife are out for a drive in the country. The wife says, 'Oh, look! Those sheep have been shorn.'

'Yes,' says the philosopher. 'On this side.'

Morals are judgments that we see as being right in this world.

Sometimes that judgment may be in sympathy with the general populace, sometimes not.
The judgment may cost us, in our freedom, financially or socially, but our moral sense says "This is the right thing to do"

If it is possible that an asylum seeker left his homeland to avoid being persecuted for the equivalent of (metaphorically speaking) "stealing a loaf of bread", is it moral for an Australian or any Australian government to advocate sending him to a far-flung island as a prisoner?

of your fllow citizens are d@1ckheads.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 11:44pm:

If it is possible that an asylum seeker left his homeland to avoid being persecuted for the equivalent of (metaphorically speaking) "stealing a loaf of bread", is it moral for an Australian or any Australian government to advocate sending him to a far-flung island as a prisoner?

Asylum is a political idea, and then only in the context of protection from a political regime that denies freedom.

If stealing a loaf of bread is a political act, then asylum is to be granted. If the bread is stoln to be sold on the black market for twice the price, then it's not a political but a criminal act and so no protection is warranted.

Also, a regime that criminalises ordinary human behaviour is oppressive of its people and those oppressed by it deserve protection.

But you can't claim to be seeking asylum if your country has free elections but you think 95% of your countrymen are complete pr!cks and are out to destroy you just because they don't believe that you have the right to sell stolen bread on the black market.

Soren wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:02pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 31st, 2010 at 11:44pm: If it is possible that an asylum seeker left his homeland to avoid being persecuted for the equivalent of (metaphorically speaking) "stealing a loaf of bread", is it moral for an Australian or any Australian government to advocate sending him to a far-flung island as a prisoner? Asylum is a political idea, and then only in the context of protection from a political regime that denies freedom. If stealing a loaf of bread is a political act, then asylum is to be granted. If the bread is stoln to be sold on the black market for twice the price, then it's not a political but a criminal act and so no protection is warranted. Also, a regime that criminalises ordinary human behaviour is oppressive of its people and those oppressed by it deserve protection. But you can't claim to be seeking asylum if your country has free elections but you think 95% of your countrymen are complete pr!cks and are out to destroy you just because they don't believe that you have the right to sell stolen bread on the black market.

Let's say the metaphor of "stealing a loaf of bread" referred, say to "associating with a non-muslim" in a country dominated by the Islamic perversion... For which the victim has been marked for death.

Would there be something morally questionable if Germany initiated negotiations to set up a processing centre for their "illegals" in, say, Poland?

Well if I had the choice of waiting in a detention centre in Timor, or the middle of the bloody desert, I would choose Timor, every time.

The thing about asylum seekers is that the demand outstrips the supply by a very large degree, and the ones who can afford to buy passage on an illegal boat do not necessarily have a greater right or claim to be processed more rapidly than those waiting in refugee centres across asia, so effectively they are buying the privilege of faster processing, which is not right, or moral, on any level.

Personally, I believe that the process centres around the world need to be better supported, so that people will not take to desperate action, but respect the process necessary to relocate them.
Those who decide not to respect that process should be sent to the back of the queue, and be made to.

While I agree that the vilification of refugees is an immoral thing to do, I hardly think comparing processing centres to Nazi death camps reflects fairly on the work that they are trying to do, and the inherent fairness they are trying to embed into the system.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:09am:

Well if I had the choice of waiting in a detention centre in Timor, or the middle of the bloody desert, I would choose Timor, every time.

How about within, or close to, the metropolitan area of a major Australian city?


mozzaok wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:09am:

While I agree that the vilification of refugees is an immoral thing to do, I hardly think comparing processing centres to Nazi death camps reflects fairly on the work that they are trying to do, and the inherent fairness they are trying to embed into the system.

And neither, of course, would any German government intend to set up a death camp in Poland for illegal immigrants… The question is, would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government to propose the creation of a detention centre in Poland? Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea?

Would it be unthinkable (and immoral) for Britain to petition an Australian government to set up a detention centre in Tasmania for its illegal immigrants?

Silly me, I thought this thread was on morals !!!

Not govts , detention centres and the like.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:27am:

Silly me, I thought this thread was on morals !!! Not govts , detention centres and the like.

It's about the nature of morality.

The basis of morality must, at least in part, be about empathy/sympathy for the other.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:28am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:27am: Silly me, I thought this thread was on morals !!! Not govts , detention centres and the like. It's about the nature of morality. The basis of morality must, at least in part, be about empathy/sympathy for the other.

And maybe to act morally requires an awareness of one's collective/personal history and one's responsibility for its consequences.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 8:20am:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:09am: Well if I had the choice of waiting in a detention centre in Timor, or the middle of the bloody desert, I would choose Timor, every time. How about within, or close to, the metropolitan area of a major Australian city? mozzaok wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 8:09am: While I agree that the vilification of refugees is an immoral thing to do, I hardly think comparing processing centres to Nazi death camps reflects fairly on the work that they are trying to do, and the inherent fairness they are trying to embed into the system. And neither, of course, would any German government intend to set up a death camp in Poland for illegal immigrants… The question is, would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government to propose the creation of a detention centre in Poland? Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea?

It would be perfectly reasonable for Germany to do this if those refugees were coming from countries on the eastern borders of Poland if those countries were still under Soviet rule but Poland wasn't.  Arriving in Poland, now a safe place, they would request asylum and seek resettlement in third countries, including Germany. Whether Germany accepts them or not is for Germany to decide and has no obligation to them.

Germany has an obligation to provide safe haven to people only when Germany is the first safe stop for those are fleeing political oppression.

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 11:06am:

It would be perfectly reasonable for Germany to do this if those refugees were coming from countries on the eastern borders of Poland if those countries were still under Soviet rule but Poland wasn't.  Arriving in Poland, now a safe place, they would request asylum and seek resettlement in third countries, including Germany. Whether Germany accepts them or not is for Germany to decide and has no obligation to them. Germany has an obligation to provide safe haven to people only when Germany is the first safe stop for those are fleeing political oppression.

Would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government, in order, say, to appease the German people demanding a final solution to the "undesirables" question (e.g. Gypsies without papers), to propose the establishment of a detention centre in Poland to process those detained? Should that German government expect serious international protests over such a proposal?

Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea?

Yeah, it would be unthinkable of a German government to speak of a final solution.

Different issue, though.

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 1:35pm:

Yeah, it would be unthinkable of a German government to speak of a final solution. Different issue, though.

Would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government, in order, say, to appease the German people demanding an answer to the "undesirables" question (e.g. Gypsies without papers), to propose the establishment of a detention centre in Poland to process those detained? Should that German government expect serious international protests over such a proposal?

Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea?

Are moral more a personal thing ?
Can we say a govt is moral or not, anymore than we could say a building is lucky ?
Do we as voters guide a govts morals ?

Is asking endless rhetorical questions immoral ?
Why do I ask ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:28pm:

Are moral more a personal thing ? Can we say a govt is moral or not, anymore than we could say a building is lucky ? Do we as voters guide a govts morals ?

Are you saying members of parliament, when acting in their capacity as politicians, should be exempt from morality?


Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:28pm:

Is asking endless rhetorical questions immoral ? Why do I ask ?

I'm asking the same question... What is interesting, though, is the cowardice of those who won't/can't address the question directly.

Quote:

Are you saying members of parliament, when acting in their capacity as politicians, should be exempt from morality?

if we vote on our morals, the govts will make moral decisions, or they will be out.
Course, there are many different morals working on any one political decision ........ so it ain't that easy for the govt.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 2:23pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:35pm: Yeah, it would be unthinkable of a German government to speak of a final solution. Different issue, though. Would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government, in order, say, to appease the German people demanding an answer to the "undesirables" question (e.g. Gypsies without papers), to propose the establishment of a detention centre in Poland to process those detained? Should that German government expect serious international protests over such a proposal? Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea?

Helian, you are asking he same question with only slightly different inbuilt biases. If not 'final solution', then 'appease'.  

Is it morally OK for Germany (Der Staat, Das Volk, whatever you want to call it) to refuse hospitality to unidentified persons from any ethnic group? Yes.
Could Germany ask its neighbours,  through whose territories these un-papered persons of any ethnic background travel to Germany, to help contain them? Yes.
So could Germany ask Denmark to help contain them? Yes.
Is Poland another neighbouring country? yes
Do unpapered persons of any ethnic background travel through Poland to Germany? Yes.
Could Germany ask Poland (*gulp*) to help contain them? Yes.



I hope this answers all your questions.

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 2:23pm: Soren wrote on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 1:35pm: Yeah, it would be unthinkable of a German government to speak of a final solution. Different issue, though. Would it be immoral (or perceived to be immoral) for a German government, in order, say, to appease the German people demanding an answer to the "undesirables" question (e.g. Gypsies without papers), to propose the establishment of a detention centre in Poland to process those detained? Should that German government expect serious international protests over such a proposal? Would it not be unthinkable for any German government to even consider the idea? Helian, you are asking he same question with only slightly different inbuilt biases. If not 'final solution', then 'appease'.   Is it morally OK for Germany (Der Staat, Das Volk, whatever you want to call it) to refuse hospitality to unidentified persons from any ethnic group? Yes. Could Germany ask its neighbours,  through whose territories these un-papered persons of any ethnic background travel to Germany, to help contain them? Yes. So could Germany ask Denmark to help contain them? Yes. Is Poland another neighbouring country? yes Do unpapered persons of any ethnic background travel through Poland to Germany? Yes. Could Germany ask Poland (*gulp*) to help contain them? Yes. I hope this answers all your questions.

My question is: Do you believe it would be moral (would it be morally questionable) for Germany to ask this of Poland? (Not using the "get out of jail free" if you pardon the pun by suggesting only those who it could be proved entered Germany through Poland but any and all).

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:10pm:

Quote: Are you saying members of parliament, when acting in their capacity as politicians, should be exempt from morality? if we vote on our morals, the govts will make moral decisions, or they will be out. Course, there are many different morals working on any one political decision ........ so it ain't that easy for the govt.

Nor for individuals sometimes.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 3:45pm:
My question is: Do you believe it would be moral (would it be morally questionable) for Germany to ask this of Poland? (Not using the "get out of jail free" if you pardon the pun by suggesting only those who it could be proved entered Germany through Poland but any and all).
[/quote]

Well, if Germany asked all its neighbours, why not?
Asking only Poland and not any of the others would be not about the Gypsies but about 1 September 1939. DIfferent question.

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 4:53pm:

Well, if Germany asked all its neighbours, why not? Asking only Poland and not any of the others would be not about the Gypsies but about 1 September 1939. DIfferent question.

If Germany asked all its neighbours to take all its undesirables, would it not still be immoral for Germany to do so? Using Poland makes the question more sensitive and brings into relief the basis for the next question... Do nations have a responsibility to take a particular moral lead where the nation's history warrants it (i.e. Should Germany show more sensitivity towards such a question than, say Denmark?)

Were Britain to act in this manner (seeking to send them to Australia) would that be an immoral act?

Should Australia consider what the (perceived) moral implications (given the nation's history) are/could be of sending "undesirables" to far flung islands?

If you are illegally in a country, without ID, it is morally OK for that country to send you packing and deport you anywhere it sees fit PROVIDED that they can do so safely.
They don't know where you are from, so 'far-flung' is relative in these cases.

What is the 'moral lead' in which you imply some countries may be obliged to take interest? What is source of the implied moral requirement on any country to act contrary to its own laws and  - dare I say it? - its own interests?

Walking down an Indian street, am I obliged to give bakhsheesh to every street urchin that asks for it? First 10 only? 100? How much each?

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:38pm:

If you are illegally in a country, without ID, it is morally OK for that country to send you packing and deport you anywhere it sees fit PROVIDED that they can do so safely. They don't know where you are from, so 'far-flung' is relative in these cases. What is the 'moral lead' in which you imply some countries may be obliged to take interest? What is source of the implied moral requirement on any country to act contrary to its own laws and  - dare I say it? - its own interests? Walking down an Indian street, am I obliged to give bakhsheesh to every street urchin that asks for it? First 10 only? 100? How much each?

Soren, firstly... good on you for having the balls to take on this question at all...

I believe (as most if not all of Germany now knows almost instinctively) that to inflict further suffering through incarceration under such circumstances, is unthinkable.

What is the 'moral lead'? Should it not be unthinkable that, given Australian history, that we too would add to the suffering of the desperate by advocating their detention on far flung island prisons?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 30^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

Or, at least, what is the basis of morality? "[Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alex Saunders (The Philosophers Zone).

As someone said, that is Schopenhauer's view, but I'd say it goes further back than him. In reality, morality is whatever those in power says it is. Morality is a set of social practices that benefits a certain group. Morality is not held in place by any innate moral absolute born inside us, it is invented by the ruling classes of the zeitgeist. Shame, guilt, rewards, punishments, jail, fines, violence, and the threat of violence is how morality is held in place. It has come in so many forms across time and cultures; what seems moral to one culutre, may be deemed as immoral by another. The same with individuals, what is seen as moral by one person may be deemed immoral by another.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 31^st, 2010 at 5:27pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 30th, 2010 at 9:39am: Or, at least, what is the basis of morality? "[Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alex Saunders (The Philosophers Zone). As someone said, that is Schopenhauer's view, but I'd say it goes further back than him. In reality, morality is whatever those in power says it is. Morality is a set of social practices that benefits a certain group. Morality is not held in place by any innate moral absolute born inside us, it is invented by the ruling classes of the zeitgeist. Shame, guilt, rewards, punishments, jail, fines, violence, and the threat of violence is how morality is held in place. It has come in so many forms across time and cultures; what seems moral to one culutre, may be deemed as immoral by another. The same with individuals, what is seen as moral by one person may be deemed immoral by another.

A touch on the cynical side...

Do you mean only totalitarians impose a taboo on, say, the abuse of children? Is that not something that resonates in all non-psychopathic humans?

Soren wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2010 at 5:38pm:

If you are illegally in a country, without ID, it is morally OK for that country to send you packing and deport you anywhere it sees fit PROVIDED that they can do so safely. They don't know where you are from, so 'far-flung' is relative in these cases. What is the 'moral lead' in which you imply some countries may be obliged to take interest? What is source of the implied moral requirement on any country to act contrary to its own laws and  - dare I say it? - its own interests? Walking down an Indian street, am I obliged to give bakhsheesh to every street urchin that asks for it? First 10 only? 100? How much each?

As a signatory to the Geneva Convention on refugees, we can't send them packing just because they have no paperwork.  If we did, then we'd be in breach of the convention.

- which is fine if we want to be in the block of countries that are not signatory to that convention, however most developed countries, including Canada, the UK and the US are signatories.

In terms of morality, it comes down to the question of - Should we sign an international convention if we intend to breach its conditions? I'd say that it would be immoral to do so.

- and incidentally, Nauru is not a signatory to the convention.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 7:25am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Aug 31st, 2010 at 5:27pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 30th, 2010 at 9:39am: Or, at least, what is the basis of morality? "[Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alex Saunders (The Philosophers Zone). As someone said, that is Schopenhauer's view, but I'd say it goes further back than him. In reality, morality is whatever those in power says it is. Morality is a set of social practices that benefits a certain group. Morality is not held in place by any innate moral absolute born inside us, it is invented by the ruling classes of the zeitgeist. Shame, guilt, rewards, punishments, jail, fines, violence, and the threat of violence is how morality is held in place. It has come in so many forms across time and cultures; what seems moral to one culutre, may be deemed as immoral by another. The same with individuals, what is seen as moral by one person may be deemed immoral by another. A touch on the cynical side... Do you mean only totalitarians impose a taboo on, say, the abuse of children? Is that not something that resonates in all non-psychopathic humans?

Child labour in the West was commonplace a hundred odd years ago. I doubt they thought it was psychopathic behaviour. More like it was perfectly acceptable to extract as much capital as possible from someone's labour power.

What is moral is whatever those in power say it is.
Not to say I agree with child abuse, I am just taking a realist view of the world after examining history and the idealist metaphysics that underpins all human rights.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:57pm:

[Child labour in the West was commonplace a hundred odd years ago. I doubt they thought it was psychopathic behaviour. More like it was perfectly acceptable to extract as much capital as possible from someone's labour power. What is moral is whatever those in power say it is. Not to say I agree with child abuse, I am just taking a realist view of the world after examining history and the idealist metaphysics that underpins all human rights.

Child labour was commonplace then because economic necessity demanded that it must be so, which is not to say that those who are "controlled by those who control the means of production" consider this moral... except perhaps where one is convinced that hard work, like unearned suffering, is necessarily redemptive.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 4:57pm:

What is moral is whatever those in power say it is. Not to say I agree with child abuse, I am just taking a realist view of the world after examining history and the idealist metaphysics that underpins all human rights.

Would, say, class struggle even occur if those oppressed did not intuit the inherent immorality of exploitation?

Would there have been an American revolution if the unreasonable restriction of rights by a remote aristocracy did not seem, to those upon whom it was imposed, at the very least immoral?

Doesn't the idea of rule of law and due process over all in society regardless of class seem more moral than the idea of divine right of kings to capriciously impose law on their subjects at will?

I don't know if morality is a given, but I think that it's almost a given.
Religious teachings, psychological teachings, philosophical teachings.. all the same stuff as far as I can see.

"Seeking] to sympathise [empathise], or at least to [be able to] see something familiar and recognisable and worthwhile and valuable in the people you meet... For me, that is the basis of morality" - Alan Saunders (The Philosophers Zone)."

I agree but would stipulate that it goes beyond the people you meet to encompass one's own civilization.

I also like what Time has to say about power, but again would stipulate to include agents of authority rather than merely those in power. An agent of authority can be you peer group, parents, school etc...

I also think that morality changes over time according to the value place therein. For example, in the past, when child mortality was high, the value placed on children was lower than it is today in places of low mortality. This lesser moral attitude towards children was enforced not by those in power, but by peers and parents.

There is more to it than that of course. Something needs to be said about numbers affected impacting the moral response.

I am shocked with the lack of spirituality of all of you so far. Perhaps this is due to fact that you’ve been trained (I deliberately don’t use word educated) strictly in limited western reason and Aristotle's syllogism, which is something like only 20% of human brain capacity. Maybe this is one of the reasons for so obvious crises of spirituality in western civilization. Fortunately there is eastern philosophy that is primarily based on inspiration and intuition which provides much better connection between our mind and universal spiritual values. Well never is late, maybe this can help you all:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_68.html

What western civilization critically needs is a new spiritual heart. Cheap substitutes, such as the worship of work, the worship of wealth, the worship of health, the worship of sex, or the worship of your country will not cut it. If western civilization is to survive they’ll need to undergo a pretty radical transformation that involves rejecting all of these inferior forms of modern worship.

Now to help you to find answer on your question I am going to give you a homework.

Let’s start with the lesson 1 - tutorial:

Everyone has to figure out for himself what the morality is.

Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard.
You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time.

What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.

Let’s start with lesson 1 - tutorial:

Everyone has to figure out for himself what the morality is.

Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard.
You have been given 100% guarantees that you won’t be discovered and prosecuted during your life time.

What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.



But how will I know they are actually dead, I wouldn't want to take money under false pretences.

I would need to know the job was done properly and why the person was woth $10 mil; so I would need to why and do it up close and personal, make sure it was done right.

It's about pride in ones work

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:04pm:

What western civilization critically needs is a new spiritual heart. Cheap substitutes, such as the worship of work, the worship of wealth, the worship of health, the worship of sex, or the worship of your country will not cut it. If western civilization is to survive they’ll need to undergo a pretty radical transformation that involves rejecting all of these inferior forms of modern worship.

"Modern worship" ;D

Name a example of sophisticated western society over the last 2500 years within which its citizens did not nor should have aspired to health, wealth, sexual expression and fidelity to the state.

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:04pm:

Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard. You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time. What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.

Here's a better one...

A runaway train is hurtling down the track towards 5 men working on the track who are unaware of what is about to happen to them and cannot be contacted. There is a second track just before the 5 men onto which the train can be diverted by you simply by pulling a lever in front of you. However, there is one man working on the second track (equally unaware of the runaway train) who will certainly be killed if you pull the lever....

Do you pull the lever?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:23pm:

athos wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:04pm: Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard. You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time. What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?. Here's a better one... A runaway train is hurtling down the track towards 5 men working on the track who are unaware of what is about to happen to them and cannot be contacted. There is a second track just before the 5 men onto which the train can be diverted by you simply by pulling a lever in front of you. However, there is one man working on the second track (equally unaware of the runaway train) who will certainly be killed if you pull the lever.... Do you pull the lever?

Helian, your's is not a better thought experiment. Yours is just a different thought experiment.

The Runaway Train is designed to show our inclination towards Utility outcomes. Most people are going to pull the lever to ensure the greatest number survive. In the same sense, if you are in a car and you have lost brake control in a built up zone with people ahead of you crossing the road, with few on the footpath, utility dictates that you will veer towards the footpath so as to reduce the amount of human suffering and death. A more real life example is that of the pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson River, not knowing they would survive, but doing so as it was the least populated space causing the least amount of damage.

The first thought experiment though speaks to something completely different. Utility is not a factor in this. So the question remains... What prevents a person for pushing that button?

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:04pm:

I am shocked with the lack of spirituality of all of you so far. Perhaps this is due to fact that you’ve been trained (I deliberately don’t use word educated) strictly in limited western reason and Aristotle's syllogism, which is something like only 20% of human brain capacity. Maybe this is one of the reasons for so obvious crises of spirituality in western civilization.

Give me a shortcoming that takes 2500 years to catch up with us any day.


Quote:

Fortunately there is eastern philosophy that is primarily based on inspiration and intuition which provides much better connection between our mind and universal spiritual values. Well never is late, maybe this can help you all: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_68.html What western civilization critically needs is a new spiritual heart. Cheap substitutes, such as the worship of work, the worship of wealth, the worship of health, the worship of sex, or the worship of your country will not cut it. If western civilization is to survive they’ll need to undergo a pretty radical transformation that involves rejecting all of these inferior forms of modern worship.

The only thing that will save western civilisation is if it becomes a version of some phoney eastern civilisation. Brilliant idea!! Your own, I suspect.


Quote:

Now to help you to find answer on your question I am going to give you a homework. Let’s start with the lesson 1 - tutorial: Everyone has to figure out for himself what the morality is. Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard. You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time. What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.

ANy chance for that someone to be called something like 'athos' and the other side of the world be somewhere in 'Italia'?
If so, you could save most, if not all, of that $10 mil.

;D

Soren wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:52pm:

athos wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:04pm: I am shocked with the lack of spirituality of all of you so far. Perhaps this is due to fact that you’ve been trained (I deliberately don’t use word educated) strictly in limited western reason and Aristotle's syllogism, which is something like only 20% of human brain capacity. Maybe this is one of the reasons for so obvious crises of spirituality in western civilization. Give me a shortcoming that takes 2500 years to catch up with us any day. Quote: Fortunately there is eastern philosophy that is primarily based on inspiration and intuition which provides much better connection between our mind and universal spiritual values. Well never is late, maybe this can help you all: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_68.html What western civilization critically needs is a new spiritual heart. Cheap substitutes, such as the worship of work, the worship of wealth, the worship of health, the worship of sex, or the worship of your country will not cut it. If western civilization is to survive they’ll need to undergo a pretty radical transformation that involves rejecting all of these inferior forms of modern worship. The only thing that will save western civilisation is if it becomes a version of some phoney eastern civilisation. Brilliant idea!! Your own, I suspect. [quote] Now to help you to find answer on your question I am going to give you a homework. Let’s start with the lesson 1 - tutorial: Everyone has to figure out for himself what the morality is. Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard. You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time. What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.

ANy chance for that someone to be called something like 'athos' and the other side of the world be somewhere in 'Italia'?
If so, you could save most, if not all, of that $10 mil.

;D
[/quote]

Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do.

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do.

You'd have to have rocks in your head if you believed that citizens within "eastern societies" did not aspire to wealth.

Sappho wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:48pm:

Helian, your's is not a better thought experiment. Yours is just a different thought experiment. ... The first thought experiment though speaks to something completely different. Utility is not a factor in this. So the question remains... What prevents a person for pushing that button?

Better at least in that we're more likely to receive honest replies.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:11pm:

athos wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 1:08pm: Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do. You'd have to have rocks in your head if you believed that citizens within "eastern societies" did not aspire to wealth.

Another example of parallel lines of thinking and total misunderstanding. My point was that Reason and Aristotelian syllogism (only about 20% of human brain capacity) does not provide answers in aspects of life including spirituality. The western educational system also should start teaching intuition and inspiration that are very important aspects of eastern philosophy and almost totally neglected in the culture of western way of thinking.

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:32pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 2:11pm: athos wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 1:08pm: Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do. You'd have to have rocks in your head if you believed that citizens within "eastern societies" did not aspire to wealth. Another example of parallel lines of thinking and total misunderstanding. My point was that Reason and Aristotelian syllogism (only about 20% of human brain capacity) does not provide answers in aspects of life including spirituality. The western educational system also should start teaching intuition and inspiration that are very important aspects of eastern philosophy and almost totally neglected in the culture of western way of thinking.

Oh the pain, the spiritual pain....

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1283401374/0#0

You wouldn't know Aristotelian syllogism if it was shoved up your nostrils.

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/palin.jpg

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:32pm:

Another example of parallel lines of thinking and total misunderstanding. My point was that Reason and Aristotelian syllogism (only about 20% of human brain capacity) does not provide answers in aspects of life including spirituality. The western educational system also should start teaching intuition and inspiration that are very important aspects of eastern philosophy and almost totally neglected in the culture of western way of thinking.

You're fantasising about Shangri-La. Maybe you need to live in an eastern village/town without clean water, no electricity, no infrastructure etc, to understand that your "20% of human brain capacity" provides a whole heap of spiritual comfort, as you, your spouse and your kids sleep soundly in the west at night safe in the knowledge that your tomorrow (relative to a destitute"non-Aristotelian" eastern village) is assured.

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do.

This complete lack of intuition and spirituality gives me a great emotional pain.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 1:50am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 4:57pm: What is moral is whatever those in power say it is. Not to say I agree with child abuse, I am just taking a realist view of the world after examining history and the idealist metaphysics that underpins all human rights. Would, say, class struggle even occur if those oppressed did not intuit the inherent immorality of exploitation? Would there have been an American revolution if the unreasonable restriction of rights by a remote aristocracy did not seem, to those upon whom it was imposed, at the very least immoral? Doesn't the idea of rule of law and due process over all in society regardless of class seem more moral than the idea of divine right of kings to capriciously impose law on their subjects at will?

I'd say it was deemed immoral to those exploited groups because they lacked power. To say it is inherently immoral to be subjugated by another class, a king, or an aristocracy refers to an invisible metaphysics. That it was perceived to be immoral to be subjugated by a king, class, or aristocracy is a positing of morality after the fact. The idea of equal rights is only an ideal that has to be enforced, ironically by a ruling class.

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 12:04pm:

I am shocked with the lack of spirituality of all of you so far. Perhaps this is due to fact that you’ve been trained (I deliberately don’t use word educated) strictly in limited western reason and Aristotle's syllogism, which is something like only 20% of human brain capacity. Maybe this is one of the reasons for so obvious crises of spirituality in western civilization. Fortunately there is eastern philosophy that is primarily based on inspiration and intuition which provides much better connection between our mind and universal spiritual values. Well never is late, maybe this can help you all: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_68.html What western civilization critically needs is a new spiritual heart. Cheap substitutes, such as the worship of work, the worship of wealth, the worship of health, the worship of sex, or the worship of your country will not cut it. If western civilization is to survive they’ll need to undergo a pretty radical transformation that involves rejecting all of these inferior forms of modern worship. Now to help you to find answer on your question I am going to give you a homework. Let’s start with the lesson 1 - tutorial: Everyone has to figure out for himself what the morality is. Imagine that you have an offer of 10 million dollars to kill someone, who you don’t know and who is on the other side of this planet, by simply pressing the certain button on your computer keyboard. You have been given 100% guarantees that you will remain anonymous , won’t be discovered during your life time. What is that possibly can prevent you to commit such act?.

I am unsure of the connection of morality to spirituality?

athos wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:32pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 2:11pm: athos wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 1:08pm: Soren I think better for you and the society if you remain just a successful pragmatic Middle eastern merchant and to continue worshiping golden calf in accordance with your great tradition. Believe me that’s only what you can do. You'd have to have rocks in your head if you believed that citizens within "eastern societies" did not aspire to wealth. Another example of parallel lines of thinking and total misunderstanding. My point was that Reason and Aristotelian syllogism (only about 20% of human brain capacity) does not provide answers in aspects of life including spirituality. The western educational system also should start teaching intuition and inspiration that are very important aspects of eastern philosophy and almost totally neglected in the culture of western way of thinking.

I'd argue inspiration does actually play a large part in Western culture, not so much education though. For example, sport and music. Aspiring athletes and musicians look up to and examine the elites in order to emulate and better them.

As for intuition, isn't intuition really a judgement on something that has been deeply embedded in the unconscious after years and years of introjected observation on that something? That is, repeated previous experience on a particular issue gets embedded deep in our psyche, and because we make a snap judgement on that issue it is deemed "intuition".
Intuition is no mystery or anything mystical. It is merely an all too human psychological process.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 4:16pm:

I'd say it was deemed immoral to those exploited groups because they lacked power. To say it is inherently immoral to be subjugated by another class, a king, or an aristocracy refers to an invisible metaphysics. That it was perceived to be immoral to be subjugated by a king, class, or aristocracy is a positing of morality after the fact. The idea of equal rights is only an ideal that has to be enforced, ironically by a ruling class.

I'd suggest it was deemed immoral to those exploited groups because they perceived their suffering to be severe, undeserved and preventable.... Doing something about it (after the fact of perception) is where the problem of powerlessness would arise.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 6:04pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 4:16pm: I'd say it was deemed immoral to those exploited groups because they lacked power. To say it is inherently immoral to be subjugated by another class, a king, or an aristocracy refers to an invisible metaphysics. That it was perceived to be immoral to be subjugated by a king, class, or aristocracy is a positing of morality after the fact. The idea of equal rights is only an ideal that has to be enforced, ironically by a ruling class. I'd suggest it was deemed immoral to those exploited groups because they perceived their suffering to be severe, undeserved and preventable.... Doing something about it (after the fact of perception) is where the problem of powerlessness would arise.

Perhaps we could look at morality this way: is it invented by human beings, or, is it metaphorically sitting on an eternal shelf somewhere within the human being?
The former denotes morality as an artform; something crafty human beings have devised for set purposes. The latter denotes an eternal, immutable essence devised by something divine.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 6:52pm:

Perhaps we could look at morality this way: is it invented by human beings, or, is it metaphorically sitting on an eternal shelf somewhere within the human being? The former denotes morality as an artform; something crafty human beings have devised for set purposes. The latter denotes an eternal, immutable essence devised by something divine.

I'd suggest that if you needed to ask that question, then you're already too alienated from humanity to empathise with those, for whom such a question might be immoral even for the fact of it's asking.

Morality is a set of beliefs, rules and principles accepted via conseus of a particular group of people that concern what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to do, think, etc. Again, "I am not thinking about it any harder than that".

Helian, I enjoy your vocabulary topics.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 8:33pm:

Morality is a set of beliefs, rules and principles accepted via conseus of a particular group of people that concern what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to do, think, etc. Again, "I am not thinking about it any harder than that".

Can you imagine a sense of morality as a priori... As sewn into the weave of one's DNA, (without the necessity of an uber-sewer, of course ;) ) .


aikmann4 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 8:33pm:

Helian, I enjoy your vocabulary topics.

Thanks Imp.

Quote:

Can you imagine a sense of morality as a priori... As sown into the weave of one's DNA,

Yes. This has been very well discussed. It of course however, like all traits, extremely highly variable to environmental and situational influences. Morality is the product of various environmental pressures, intelligence and various psychological traits. Morality in some form or another seems to be present throughout the animal kingdom, and animals that have brain structures closer to man exhibit moral behavior more similar to the moral behavior of man than animals with neurological systems more removed.

John Derbyshire on morality in the animal kingdom (I'm not at what minute he gets into it, but it's all good)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW1O63ikAOw

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 9:01pm:

Quote: Can you imagine a sense of morality as a priori... As sown into the weave of one's DNA, Yes. This has been very well discussed. It of course however, like all traits, extremely highly variable to environmental and situational influences. Morality is the product of various environmental pressures, intelligence and various psychological traits. Morality in some form or another seems to be present throughout the animal kingdom, and animals that have brain structures closer to man exhibit moral behavior more similar to the moral behavior of man than animals with neurological systems more removed. John Derbyshire on morality in the animal kingdom (I'm not at what minute he gets into it, but it's all good)

So you don't really think that morality is a set of beliefs, rules and principles accepted via consensus of a particular group of people that concern what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to do, think, etc?

I think it can be both. Certainly there are a lot of things that we don't do now (due to an agreement that these things are immoral and inexcusable) that were institutional and normal several hundred years ago. I don't think it is plausible to ascribe changes in moral attitudes towards these things to genetic transformations. That these things are right or wrong is heavily rooted in a general societal consenus.  There are definitely genetic influences however that push facets of our senses of morality in certain directions. I think it's too complicated to ponder just for the purposes of a message board thread.

aikmann4 wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 9:14pm:

I think it can be both. Certainly there are a lot of things that we don't do now (due to an agreement that these things are immoral and inexcusable) that were institutional and normal several hundred years ago. I don't think it is plausible to ascribe changes in moral attitudes towards these things to genetic transformations. That these things are right or wrong is heavily rooted in a general societal consenus.  There are definitely genetic influences however that push facets of our senses of morality in certain directions. I think it's too complicated to ponder just for the purposes of a message board thread.

Oui, si, Ja, sicher, for sure.

For Sam Harris, a science of morality is simply an account of the behaviors, rules, cultural artifacts, and emotions that constitute the moral life... more» http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality.harris.html

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 8:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 6:52pm: Perhaps we could look at morality this way: is it invented by human beings, or, is it metaphorically sitting on an eternal shelf somewhere within the human being? The former denotes morality as an artform; something crafty human beings have devised for set purposes. The latter denotes an eternal, immutable essence devised by something divine. I'd suggest that if you needed to ask that question, then you're already too alienated from humanity to empathise with those, for whom such a question might be immoral even for the fact of it's asking.

Cop out.

I asked the question because I am interested in debating the topic in an impartial way; exactly how scholars are supposed to look at topics. If I was only interested in justifying my own prejudices on the issue there'd be no point of being on a debate forum.

The question is valid because it goes into the whole free will versus determinism argument.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2010 at 2:16pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:48pm: Helian, your's is not a better thought experiment. Yours is just a different thought experiment. ... The first thought experiment though speaks to something completely different. Utility is not a factor in this. So the question remains... What prevents a person for pushing that button? Better at least in that we're more likely to receive honest replies.

I disagree. Your thought experiment is about numbers that can survive and not so much about morality... except that by number crunching, we humans highlight our social context to which utility is applied. Empathy really doesn't play a significant role in this. If it did, then conflict would arise in the decision making. For example... Do I have a right to actively deny the autonomy of one man in order to save five who would be otherwise dead without my acting?

Compare the runaway train to this thought experiment which aims to highlight the lack of moral consideration in your thought experiment.

An otherwise healthy man is deemed brain dead and his organs if harvested could save the lives of five other men who will die without such intervention. The family of the brain dead man refuses to have the body harvested for religious reasons. Do we act anyway to harvest those organs and save the lives of five men? Utility alone would say yes. But utility ignores autonomy and it is autonomy that is the real moral consideration here.

So whilst it is that in situations of immediate emergency, utility serves us well to ensure the greatest number survive, in other matters it is the autonomy of others to which our moral considerations need to be applied.

So, what would prevent us from pressing the button in the initial thought experiment? One would hope that it is the right to autonomy that the person at risk of murder has.  

Sappho wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 11:35am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 2:16pm: Sappho wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:48pm: Helian, your's is not a better thought experiment. Yours is just a different thought experiment. ... The first thought experiment though speaks to something completely different. Utility is not a factor in this. So the question remains... What prevents a person for pushing that button? Better at least in that we're more likely to receive honest replies. I disagree. Your thought experiment is about numbers that can survive and not so much about morality... except that by number crunching, we humans highlight our social context to which utility is applied. Empathy really doesn't play a significant role in this. If it did, then conflict would arise in the decision making. For example... Do I have a right to actively deny the autonomy of one man in order to save five who would be otherwise dead without my acting?

But when other permutations of the experiment are used (such as you being required to push a fat man onto the track to stop the train hitting the five), it adds another dimension to the thought experiment... How do we feel about being as directly responsible for the death of one as it is possible to be (by way of direct physical contact), even if 5 others would be saved... (i.e. No nice, convenient unconscious victim or the remote killing of someone we cannot see or be compelled to empathise with).

The trouble with these thought experiments is that they leave out the single most important feature of moral action and present scenarios as if moral  action was merely a calculation of the currency of moral 'units' the experimenter has invented to show off his supposed cleverness. It betrays the undelying presumption of the experimenter: moral action is calculating.
But of course it isn't.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 12:31pm:

It betrays the undelying presumption of the experimenter: moral action is calculating. But of course it isn't.

True. It's arising is pre-rational and immediate. Which is why, when it comes to thought experiments, they're better when they allow for one to imagine an interaction with another sentient being as opposed to the pushing of a button causing an action unexperienced.

Morality? Morality?

Who owns morality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3o8cBSdBmE

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 12:08pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 11:35am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 2:16pm: Sappho wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 12:48pm: Helian, your's is not a better thought experiment. Yours is just a different thought experiment. ... The first thought experiment though speaks to something completely different. Utility is not a factor in this. So the question remains... What prevents a person for pushing that button? Better at least in that we're more likely to receive honest replies. I disagree. Your thought experiment is about numbers that can survive and not so much about morality... except that by number crunching, we humans highlight our social context to which utility is applied. Empathy really doesn't play a significant role in this. If it did, then conflict would arise in the decision making. For example... Do I have a right to actively deny the autonomy of one man in order to save five who would be otherwise dead without my acting? But when other permutations of the experiment are used (such as you being required to push a fat man onto the track to stop the train hitting the five), it adds another dimension to the thought experiment... How do we feel about being as directly responsible for the death of one as it is possible to be (by way of direct physical contact), even if 5 others would be saved... (i.e. No nice, convenient unconscious victim or the remote killing of someone we cannot see or be compelled to empathise with).

LOL... it is a runaway train Helian. There is no evidence to support the idea of the fat man stopping the train and thus saving the five other lives. Indeed the evidence runs to the contrary. The train runs over the person, or drags that person along with them and does not become derailed because of that.

Sappho wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 1:43pm:

LOL... it is a runaway train Helian. There is no evidence to support the idea of the fat man stopping the train and thus saving the five other lives. Indeed the evidence runs to the contrary. The train runs over the person, or drags that person along with them and does not become derailed because of that.

Come on Sappho, don't play dumb.

The point is to make the subject the direct agent of the cause of death and face to face with the one man which the subject must condemn to death (even if it is to save 5). That adds a whole other edge to the thought experiment... Harder to avoid imagining an empathic response.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 12:31pm:

The trouble with these thought experiments is that they leave out the single most important feature of moral action and present scenarios as if moral  action was merely a calculation of the currency of moral 'units' the experimenter has invented to show off his supposed cleverness. It betrays the undelying presumption of the experimenter: moral action is calculating. But of course it isn't.

I disagree. In cases of immediate emergency, utility is the immediate response. The will is towards the greatest number that can survive.

How many times have we heard of the disaster plane being veered away from populated areas by the pilot to ensure the least amount die? It those extremes it really is a numbers game.

Or what of the doctor in third world nations with limited supplies of treatment who must then decide who is most likely to survive if treated? Should they spread the treatment amongst all patients equally and in so doing increase the death rate because those who were most likely to survive did not receive the full treatment? Again, in those extremes it really is a numbers game.

In extremes we immediately calculate the best course of action that will ensure the greatest possible numbers that can survive.  

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 1:48pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 1:43pm: LOL... it is a runaway train Helian. There is no evidence to support the idea of the fat man stopping the train and thus saving the five other lives. Indeed the evidence runs to the contrary. The train runs over the person, or drags that person along with them and does not become derailed because of that. Come on Sappho, don't play dumb. The point is to make the subject the direct agent of the cause of death and face to face with the one man which the subject must condemn to death (even if it is to save 5). That adds a whole other edge to the thought experiment... Harder to avoid imagining an empathic response.

I'm not playing dumb, I am appealing to common sense. Common sense dictates that pushing the fat man in front of the runaway train will not save the five others... rather 6 die as a result of those actions.

If you want to engage the person in the morality of the situation, then use the example of the doctor with limited treatments where he must choose who will get those treatments and in so doing who will die for lack of treatment.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 12:43pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 12:31pm: It betrays the undelying presumption of the experimenter: moral action is calculating. But of course it isn't. True. It's arising is pre-rational and immediate. Which is why, when it comes to thought experiments, they're better when they allow for one to imagine an interaction with another sentient being as opposed to the pushing of a button causing an action unexperienced.

I don't think morality is pre-rational. Interaction is the key - moral action is about relationships, not equations. In thois sense it is closer to aesthetic judgement than to scientific claculation.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:00pm:

I don't think morality is pre-rational.

Really? You've never found yourself empathising with someone in pain (as opposed to consciously choosing to empathise) ?

Sappho wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 1:58pm:

I'm not playing dumb, I am appealing to common sense. Common sense dictates that pushing the fat man in front of the runaway train will not save the five others... rather 6 die as a result of those actions.

Well, then, let's say that by pushing the fat man onto the tracks, the track-bound vehicle would kill the man but be derailed, thus saving the lives of 5 others. However, you must look the fat man in the eye as you push him onto the tracks. How do you feel about being the agent of his death under those circumstances.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:06pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:00pm: I don't think morality is pre-rational. Really? You've never found yourself empathising with someone in pain (as opposed to consciously choosing to empathise) ?

Really. I may have empathised but never moralised with someone in pain.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:11pm:

Really. I may have empathised but never moralised with someone in pain.

So a defense of temporary insanity for an impulsive crime committed against the agent of the cause of pain would not be allowed in your world because the perpetrator must in all cases have made a conscious moral judgement and not acted pre-rationally?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 1:58pm: I'm not playing dumb, I am appealing to common sense. Common sense dictates that pushing the fat man in front of the runaway train will not save the five others... rather 6 die as a result of those actions. Well, then, let's say that by pushing the fat man onto the tracks, the track-bound vehicle would kill the man but be derailed, thus saving the lives of 5 others. However, you must look the fat man in the eye as you push him onto the tracks. How do you feel about being the agent of his death under those circumstances.

Yes, yes... and let's say that the tracks are made of gold studded with diamonds.....

Really Helian, as I said before, reality does not support the idea of a man derailing a train if run over by it. If it did, the news would be full of trains derailed by suicide victims. Do you know how many people die per week from being run over by trains in Melbourne alone?... approx 5 to 14 per week. Yet none of them derail the trains... go figure.


Quote:

If you want to engage the person in the morality of the situation, then use the example of the doctor with limited treatments where he must choose who will get those treatments and in so doing who will die for lack of treatment

You said nothing about this even though you demand that the agent of morality look them in the eye. Well the doctor is looking them in the eye when he is deciding who will be saved by the treatment and who will die for lack of treatment.

Every war, past present and future, is of an economic nature.
Is that immoral?

We are all whores, it's just the price that is to be determined.
Ergo: Morality depends wholly upon price.

Sound right? Why not?i

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:16pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:11pm: Really. I may have empathised but never moralised with someone in pain. So a defense of temporary insanity for an impulsive crime committed against the agent of the cause of pain would not be allowed in your world because the perpetrator must in all cases have made a conscious moral judgement and not acted pre-rationally?

Well, if you put it like that then empathy and morality must be the same thing. And criminal law. And psychiatry. ANd whatever else you want to toss into the mix.
Morality then, to quote Woody Allen, is like aything else.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vWnlWimLeo


"The issue is always fascism".

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:37pm:

Well, if you put it like that then empathy and morality must be the same thing.

Not the same thing but is it not common to feel (without the need to necessarily intellectualise it) a sense of wrongness when you witness the unearned suffering of another?

Sappho wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:25pm:

Yes, yes... and let's say that the tracks are made of gold studded with diamonds..... Really Helian, as I said before, reality does not support the idea of a man derailing a train if run over by it. If it did, the news would be full of trains derailed by suicide victims. Do you know how many people die per week from being run over by trains in Melbourne alone?... approx 5 to 14 per week. Yet none of them derail the trains... go figure. Quote: If you want to engage the person in the morality of the situation, then use the example of the doctor with limited treatments where he must choose who will get those treatments and in so doing who will die for lack of treatment You said nothing about this even though you demand that the agent of morality look them in the eye. Well the doctor is looking them in the eye when he is deciding who will be saved by the treatment and who will die for lack of treatment.

Would the doctor be required to push the unlucky ones into a body crusher or bash them to death with a club, or does he have the "luxury" of just not turning up at the bedside of the condemned?

It's a much harder decision when the subject must interact with the victim to cause his death as opposed to being able to do a runner.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:01pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:37pm: Well, if you put it like that then empathy and morality must be the same thing. Not the same thing but is it not common to feel (without the need to necessarily intellectualise it) a sense of wrongness when you witness the unearned suffering of another?

Morality is not about how you feel - even as you have feelings when acting morally.

Pitying unearned suffering doe not necessarily correlate to moral wrongness - unless you attribute morality to the universe and believe, with the hindus, that every kind of suffering is earned.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:25pm: Yes, yes... and let's say that the tracks are made of gold studded with diamonds..... Really Helian, as I said before, reality does not support the idea of a man derailing a train if run over by it. If it did, the news would be full of trains derailed by suicide victims. Do you know how many people die per week from being run over by trains in Melbourne alone?... approx 5 to 14 per week. Yet none of them derail the trains... go figure. Quote: If you want to engage the person in the morality of the situation, then use the example of the doctor with limited treatments where he must choose who will get those treatments and in so doing who will die for lack of treatment You said nothing about this even though you demand that the agent of morality look them in the eye. Well the doctor is looking them in the eye when he is deciding who will be saved by the treatment and who will die for lack of treatment. Would the doctor be required to push the unlucky ones into a body crusher or bash them to death with a club, or does he have the "luxury" of just not turning up at the bedside of the condemned? It's a much harder decision when the subject must interact with the victim to cause his death as opposed to being able to do a runner.

Let's keep it in reality Helian. This is not a SAW film. This is about causing death and saving lives.

The doctor does have to tend to the patient's suffering death, which she/he has deemed necessary in order that another with treatment can survive. The doctor does have to do what she/he can to reduce that suffering. The doctor does have to live with the decision. The doctor does have to look the patient in the eye and communicate with empathy.

Sappho wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 4:46pm:

The doctor does have to tend to the patient's suffering death, which she/he has deemed necessary in order that another with treatment can survive.

Yeh, doesn't he just... however on the off-chance that nearly all of us here aren't licensed to practice medicine... let's get get'on back to the immediacy of my point.,, If you had to cause the death of one, within the minute... eye to eye... to save the life of 5, would you/could you do it?

Quote:

If you had to cause the death of one, within the minute... eye to eye... to save the life of 5, would you/could you do it?

That's why we mistakenly turn a blind eye to the bombing of other nations. A sheer lack of empathy.

Nature dictates that empathy will begin to evolve (within a man) somewhere in their early twenties.
This period is seen by right wingers as a period to "get over" and they will eventually discount their conscience as being unimportant.

If there is anything to be a slave to, there is none better than your own conscience.

Amadd wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:06am:

Nature dictates that empathy will begin to evolve (within a man) somewhere in their early twenties.

Empathy develops in infancy.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

Morality is not about how you feel - even as you have feelings when acting morally.

You don't think so? The idea of bashing someone for no reason wouldn't feel wrong to you?


Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

Pitying unearned suffering doe not necessarily correlate to moral wrongness - unless you attribute morality to the universe and believe, with the hindus, that every kind of suffering is earned.

True. But don't you think the idea of the unearned suffering of someone at the hands of another feels wrong? If you looked out your window and saw someone bashing over an old lady in the street to steal her bag, would you not feel a sense of outrage that arises from a sense of wrongness about the act?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 11:46pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 4:46pm: The doctor does have to tend to the patient's suffering death, which she/he has deemed necessary in order that another with treatment can survive. Yeh, doesn't he just... however on the off-chance that nearly all of us here aren't licensed to practice medicine... let's get get'on back to the immediacy of my point.,, If you had to cause the death of one, within the minute... eye to eye... to save the life of 5, would you/could you do it?

Depends Helian. Were I a Police Man having to shot the crim to save the five hostages... yes I would. But nearly all of us here are not practising Police Officers. So I guess that doesn't count.

If I had to defend myself to the death of the intruder, in order to protect my family... yes I would. But not all of us have a family which we live with... myself included. So I guess that doesn't count either.

Were I a solider who had to shot a sniper in order to save others in my group... yes I would. But not all of us are soliders. So yet again... we can't count that.

Going back to the rail worker pushing the fat man... oh wait lets not go there... not all of us work for the railways... so that can't count.

I find it ironic that you can suggest Time is alienated from humanity... and then demand that we personalise morality to such an extent that real life is discounted because we are not doctors... or what ever else.

Maybe, if you cannot empathise with the duties of others that actually do cause death, then perhaps you are too alienated from society to even consider the morality of same.  

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:16pm: Soren wrote on Sep 3rd, 2010 at 2:11pm: Really. I may have empathised but never moralised with someone in pain. So a defense of temporary insanity for an impulsive crime committed against the agent of the cause of pain would not be allowed in your world because the perpetrator must in all cases have made a conscious moral judgement and not acted pre-rationally? Well, if you put it like that then empathy and morality must be the same thing. And criminal law. And psychiatry. ANd whatever else you want to toss into the mix. Morality then, to quote Woody Allen, is like aything else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vWnlWimLeo "The issue is always fascism".

I guess morality is not about talking but more about walking.
For example you are talking about all sort of moral thinks and than rape your Koren step daughter. Typical merchant's ethics.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:38am:

Amadd wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:06am: Nature dictates that empathy will begin to evolve (within a man) somewhere in their early twenties. Empathy develops in infancy.

I think that there is a great confusion attached to empathy. I think that those who use the word really mean sympathy.

I think humanity generally is quite sympathetic but not so empathetic. Were we more empathetic there would not be the social and political issues we have.

I think the Aboriginal experience highlights this very difference... we have all the sympathy in the world for them but little if any empathy.  

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

Depends Helian. Were I a Police Man having to shot the crim to save the five hostages... yes I would. But nearly all of us here are not practising Police Officers. So I guess that doesn't count. If I had to defend myself to the death of the intruder, in order to protect my family... yes I would. But not all of us have a family which we live with... myself included. So I guess that doesn't count either. Were I a solider who had to shot a sniper in order to save others in my group... yes I would. But not all of us are soliders. So yet again... we can't count that. Going back to the rail worker pushing the fat man... oh wait lets not go there... not all of us work for the railways... so that can't count. I find it ironic that you can suggest Time is alienated from humanity... and then demand that we personalise morality to such an extent that real life is discounted because we are not doctors... or what ever else. Maybe, if you cannot empathise with the duties of others that actually do cause death, then perhaps you are too alienated from society to even consider the morality of same.

It was you who would not accept the train scenario because "all 6 would die", then you asked me to empathise with a doctor...

You've danced around the question of how you would imagine you'd feel were you the most immediate agent of death of an innocent (even were it to save 5), because, I'm guessing you, like nearly all of us, would recoil at the thought of killing an innocent. We would instinctively feel it is wrong (without having to intellectualise it), regardless of its utility. Most of us would be more "comfortable" with the decision if we could pull a lever / press a button/ sign a death warrant / withhold treatment... anything but look our victim in the eye and administer death... Perhaps because we know our minds would more easily cloud the sense of natural crushing guilt via a process of intellectualisation when spared the "inconvenience" of the graphic image of our "crime" replaying in full colour in our nightmares.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:20am:

I think that there is a great confusion attached to empathy. I think that those who use the word really mean sympathy. I think humanity generally is quite sympathetic but not so empathetic. Were we more empathetic there would not be the social and political issues we have. I think the Aboriginal experience highlights this very difference... we have all the sympathy in the world for them but little if any empathy.

Yes, but for me that word is "pity"... I consider pity a contemptible and worthless emotion felt by those who do not aspire to doing anything for the object of their attention (not at least where it would come at any significant expense or inconvenience).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 10:20am: I think that there is a great confusion attached to empathy. I think that those who use the word really mean sympathy. I think humanity generally is quite sympathetic but not so empathetic. Were we more empathetic there would not be the social and political issues we have. I think the Aboriginal experience highlights this very difference... we have all the sympathy in the world for them but little if any empathy.   Yes, but for me that word is "pity"... I consider pity a contemptible and worthless emotion felt by those who do not aspire to doing anything for the object of their attention (not at least where it would come at any significant expense or inconvenience).

Nice to agree for a change. Pity is part and parcel of the definition of sympathy by the way. It is a shallow emotion that does not require social responsibly to act. It's enough to feel and throw a bit of cash at the object of pity.

Now empathy is a whole different story. It is a sophisticated, thoughtful approach to meaningful outcomes for the object of that empathy. It is the source of real morality and not the superficial if it feels wrong it must be wrong approach. Empathy addresses the 'why' and 'how' of wrongness or goodness for that matter.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:01am:

Nice to agree for a change. Pity is part and parcel of the definition of sympathy by the way.

Yes, I agree (again!), but as sympathy is so parsimonious an emotion in its giving, that it deserves pity's more syllabic frugality.  :D  :D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 10:14am: Depends Helian. Were I a Police Man having to shot the crim to save the five hostages... yes I would. But nearly all of us here are not practising Police Officers. So I guess that doesn't count. If I had to defend myself to the death of the intruder, in order to protect my family... yes I would. But not all of us have a family which we live with... myself included. So I guess that doesn't count either. Were I a solider who had to shot a sniper in order to save others in my group... yes I would. But not all of us are soliders. So yet again... we can't count that. Going back to the rail worker pushing the fat man... oh wait lets not go there... not all of us work for the railways... so that can't count. I find it ironic that you can suggest Time is alienated from humanity... and then demand that we personalise morality to such an extent that real life is discounted because we are not doctors... or what ever else. Maybe, if you cannot empathise with the duties of others that actually do cause death, then perhaps you are too alienated from society to even consider the morality of same.   It was you who would not accept the train scenario because "all 6 would die", then you asked me to empathise with a doctor... You've danced around the question of how you would imagine you'd feel were you the most immediate agent of death of an innocent (even were it to save 5), because, I'm guessing you, like nearly all of us, would recoil at the thought of killing an innocent. We would instinctively feel it is wrong (without having to intellectualise it), regardless of its utility. Most of us would be more "comfortable" with the decision if we could pull a lever / press a button/ sign a death warrant / withhold treatment... anything but look our victim in the eye and administer death... Perhaps because we know our minds would more easily cloud the sense of natural crushing guilt via a process of intellectualisation when spared the "inconvenience" of the graphic image of our "crime" replaying in full colour in our nightmares.

I remember an episode of Mash... not the whole episode, just a particular part of it that disturbed the Alan Alder character, and disturbed me also, since I was a kid watching. A number of mash characters and Vietnamese are in a bus in a hostile location. They have to be quiet lest they be found and killed. A mothers infant is crying and everyone is desperate to quiet the infant. The Alan Alder character pleas with anger for the baby to be shut up.

In the end, the mother suffocates her baby in order that the bus of people have a better chance of survival. Would I do the same thing? Tragically... yes I would... and for the rest of my days I would be haunted by that act. It would not be enough to know that my actions had saved the lives of all others in the bus. It would not be enough to know that given the same set of circumstances I would do it again. My grief would be inconsolable and quite possibly result in my suicide.

Nonetheless... I would suffocate my infant for the greater good. The greater good is the survival of many.  

Your fat man thought experiment is seriously flawed Helian. I simply will not address it. It lacks reality. It lacks sensibility. It does nothing to link us in with the tragedy entailed to taking the life of another. Hopefully, the Mash thought experiment resolves those issues and identifies the serious conflict that can result in acting morally for the good of the many.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:13am:

I remember an episode of Mash... not the whole episode, just a particular part of it that disturbed the Alan Alder character, and disturbed me also, since I was a kid watching. A number of mash characters and Vietnamese are in a bus in a hostile location. They have to be quiet lest they be found and killed. A mothers infant is crying and everyone is desperate to quiet the infant. The Alan Alder character pleas with anger for the baby to be shut up. In the end, the mother suffocates her baby in order that the bus of people have a better chance of survival. Would I do the same thing? Tragically... yes I would... and for the rest of my days I would be haunted by that act. It would not be enough to know that my actions had saved the lives of all others in the bus. It would not be enough to know that given the same set of circumstances I would do it again. My grief would be inconsolable and quite possibly result in my suicide. Nonetheless... I would suffocate my infant for the greater good. The greater good is the survival of many.

Yes, you may well do what you know you must... But your awareness of your act's wrongness, as you admit, would haunt you forever, becuase you'd feel without thinking about it, regardless of its necessity, that the act is wrong)... However, if you removed yourself from genetic relationship to the victim and, say, killed an unrelated innocent (less so an infant than a child that could look you in the eye and with whom you could more easily empathise) you would remove the mammalian female response to instinctive protection of your child... not that you'd feel it was less wrong in terms of killing an innocent, just that you'd be less likely to want to commit suicide, I'd imagine. Of course the Mash episode made the woman's decision a double-whammy for maximum emotional effect.

Jews during the Holocaust were forced to make those decisions daily and many endured it by transferring the entire responsibility for their forced actions onto the German people themselves... Which they deserved then and still do today.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:13am:

Your fat man thought experiment is seriously flawed Helian. I simply will not address it. It lacks reality. It lacks sensibility. It does nothing to link us in with the tragedy entailed to taking the life of another.

Don't get too precious, Sappho you knew from the git-go what I was getting at.

Using rational of humanism and nihilism everything can be moral and justified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMSjjLib4-s&feature=related

(Don't worry it's in English)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:26am:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 11:13am: I remember an episode of Mash... not the whole episode, just a particular part of it that disturbed the Alan Alder character, and disturbed me also, since I was a kid watching. A number of mash characters and Vietnamese are in a bus in a hostile location. They have to be quiet lest they be found and killed. A mothers infant is crying and everyone is desperate to quiet the infant. The Alan Alder character pleas with anger for the baby to be shut up. In the end, the mother suffocates her baby in order that the bus of people have a better chance of survival. Would I do the same thing? Tragically... yes I would... and for the rest of my days I would be haunted by that act. It would not be enough to know that my actions had saved the lives of all others in the bus. It would not be enough to know that given the same set of circumstances I would do it again. My grief would be inconsolable and quite possibly result in my suicide. Nonetheless... I would suffocate my infant for the greater good. The greater good is the survival of many.   Yes, you may well do what you know you must... But your awareness of your act's wrongness, as you admit, would haunt you forever, becuase you'd feel without thinking about it, regardless of its necessity, that the act is wrong)... However, if you removed yourself from genetic relationship to the victim and, say, killed an unrelated innocent (less so an infant than a child that could look you in the eye and with whom you could more easily empathise) you would remove the mammalian female response to instinctive protection of your child... not that you'd feel it was less wrong in terms of killing an innocent, just that you'd be less likely to want to commit suicide, I'd imagine. Of course the Mash episode made the woman's decision a double-whammy for maximum emotional effect. Jews during the Holocaust were forced to make those decisions daily and many endured it by transferring the entire responsibility for their forced actions onto the German people themselves... Which they deserved then and still do today.

This is where you and I differ. I do not view the act as right or wrong. I view it as a moral necessity. Lives must be saved. Were it another's child that I had suffocated, for the good of the many, I could probably deal with it much better.

I'm not Christian or of any faith, so the idea of the sanctity of life holds no influence with me. Not all killings are wrong therefore, although some killings can be mighty tragic entailing profound emotional responses.  


Quote:

Don't get too precious, Sappho you knew from the git-go what I was getting at.

It is not the destination, but the journey to that destination which brings meaning Helian. Your journey with the fat man was ludicrous and did not take us to the desired destination. Just because I knew what you were on about, does not mean that other readers also have that foresight... and I express myself as much for the readership as I do for myself and those with whom I engage.   ;)

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

This is where you and I differ. I do not view the act as right or wrong. I view it as a moral necessity. Lives must be saved. Were it another's child that I had suffocated, for the good of the many, I could probably deal with it much better.

I'd be willing to bet you could not make that statement to yourself in a mirror without your internal bullshit detector flagging it with a visible flicker of the eye.

Sure you could intellectualise it after the event... But at 3:00AM when your cerebral "self-protectorator" is sleeping it off and you wake in fright at the ghastly image of yourself as the innocent’s agent of death replayed in full colour... Well, you’d better have a good bottle of Scotch by your bedside, at the ready … Or start hanging out with Vietnam vets, or both, or ... something.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

I'm not Christian or of any faith, so the idea of the sanctity of life holds no influence with me.

And nor do you need to be (Christian or whatever) to know that even you don’t believe that bullshit… If you did, you would not have admitted that suicide would be a possible resolution where you had to deal with the emotional fallout after having killed your own child.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Not all killings are wrong therefore, although some killings can be mighty tragic entailing profound emotional responses.

Not all killings of the innocents are deemed ultimately wrong by virtue of utilitarian arguments made in defence of the act, after the fact… And yet…


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

It is not the destination, but the journey to that destination which brings meaning Helian. Your journey with the fat man was ludicrous and did not take us to the desired destination. Just because I knew what you were on about, does not mean that other readers also have that foresight... and I express myself as much for the readership as I do for myself and those with whom I engage.   ;)

Could you not leave that judgement to them? Do you not trust your own readers?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 1:42pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:11pm: This is where you and I differ. I do not view the act as right or wrong. I view it as a moral necessity. Lives must be saved. Were it another's child that I had suffocated, for the good of the many, I could probably deal with it much better. I'd be willing to bet you could not make that statement to yourself in a mirror without your internal bullshit detector flagging it with a visible flicker of the eye.

My conscience is in harmony with my intellectual and emotional intelligence. There is no right or wrong... only tragedy as one innocent life is sacrificed in order to save the lives of many.


Quote:

Sure you could intellectualise it after the event... But at 3:00AM when your cerebral "self-protectorator" is sleeping it off and you wake in fright at the ghastly image of yourself as the innocent’s agent of death replayed in full colour... Well, you’d better have a good bottle of Scotch by your bedside, at the ready … Or start hanging out with Vietnam vets, or both, or ... something.

Post traumatic stress disorder does not result from wrong deeds alone... it results from extreme trauma such as the tragedy in question entails.


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:11pm: I'm not Christian or of any faith, so the idea of the sanctity of life holds no influence with me. And nor do you need to be (Christian or whatever) to know that even you don’t believe that bullshit… If you did, you would not have admitted that suicide would be a possible resolution where you had to deal with the emotional fallout after having killed your own child.

So to you human life is sanctified. Tell me, why is a human life more sanctified than a higher order primate such as an ape or baboon? To me they are all primates... all animals... all in it to survive.


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:11pm: Not all killings are wrong therefore, although some killings can be mighty tragic entailing profound emotional responses. Not all killings of the innocents are deemed ultimately wrong by virtue of utilitarian arguments made in defence of the act, after the fact… And yet…

And yet killing the homosapien is wrong all of the time?  


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:11pm: It is not the destination, but the journey to that destination which brings meaning Helian. Your journey with the fat man was ludicrous and did not take us to the desired destination. Just because I knew what you were on about, does not mean that other readers also have that foresight... and I express myself as much for the readership as I do for myself and those with whom I engage.   ;) Could you not leave that judgement to them? Do you not trust your own readers?

I do not trust that all of the readership are so well versed in moral studies as to be able to enter debate at the intermediate stage without some kind of background thinking that leads to that intermediate discussion. They have a right to know how one gets from a to b. They have a right to see sensible reasoning so that they may determine their own moral compass having been fully appraised.

One should never lift the ladder on knowledge as it denies the right to climb that ladder.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

My conscience is in harmony with my intellectual and emotional intelligence. There is no right or wrong... only tragedy as one innocent life is sacrificed in order to save the lives of many.

C'mon Sappho You're not related to Spock....

Or.... are you?

;D


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

So to you human life is sanctified. Tell me, why is a human life more sanctified than a higher order primate such as an ape or baboon?

Silly question coming from you... Human life is more sanctified because humans have a greater capacity to suffer.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

And yet killing the homosapien is wrong all of the time?

No, only innocent ones.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

I do not trust that all of the readership are so well versed in moral studies as to be able to enter debate at the intermediate stage without some kind of background thinking that leads to that intermediate discussion. They have a right to know how one gets from a to b. They have a right to see sensible reasoning so that they may determine their own moral compass having been fully appraised. One should never lift the ladder on knowledge as it denies the right to climb that ladder.

Saphh, come on... You're being a touch condescending (and, dare I say, moralising)... Why assume our readers have names like Jethro who have to saddle up and make a 2 day ride to the supply store to order a book? Can't you trust that they could speak to Mr Google just like us?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 5:52pm: My conscience is in harmony with my intellectual and emotional intelligence. There is no right or wrong... only tragedy as one innocent life is sacrificed in order to save the lives of many. C'mon Sappho You're not related to Spock.... Or.... are you? ;D

Well, I am very controlled emotionally and excellent in a crisis. In normal life I am quite often noted for my calm and reasoned manner.  On the other hand, I can fake emotional content along with the best of them and am known on line to do exactly that. Which would you prefer?


Quote:

Silly question coming from you... Human life is more sanctified because humans have a greater capacity to suffer.

Oh really? How did you work that out? If you poach one of their tribe, do they not suffer that loss emotionally? If you terrorize them, do they not suffer enormous fear? If you chop off the hand for an ashtray, do they not suffer great physical pain and death? etc... etc...


Quote:

Sappho wrote on Sep 4th, 2010 at 12:11pm: And yet killing the homosapien is wrong all of the time?   No, only innocent ones.

Are you a pacifist? I ask, because most who die in war are innocent be they soldiers, civilians or captives; be they the attacking or defending force.

What of a child born with anencephaly and left to die or killed. Is that wrong given that the infant is an innocent? Should we not do everything in our power to keep these little innocents alive, irrespective of the cost?


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 5:52pm:

One should never lift the ladder on knowledge as it denies the right to climb that ladder.

Saphh, come on... You're being a touch condescending (and, dare I say, moralising)... Why assume our readers have names like Jethro who have to saddle up and make a 2 day ride to the supply store to order a book? Can't you trust that they could speak to Mr Google just like us?[/quote]

I think you are taking it to extremes by invoking a strawman. I never said that they were Jethro's. I expect that they are like most people, of average intelligence but with a touch more curiosity than most. That does not mean to say that they are well versed or read in matters of morality and ethics. The average size of the philosophy section in your average book shop or local library, being tiny, is testament to that.

People who assume too much share less and so cannot carry their readership along for the journey. People who assume too little share much and can carry the readership along for the journey, with those who can skim reading to gain a gist and those who can't actually gaining in knowledge as they read in detail.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Well, I am very controlled emotionally and excellent in a crisis. In normal life I am quite often noted for my calm and reasoned manner.  On the other hand, I can fake emotional content along with the best of them and am known on line to do exactly that. Which would you prefer?

Not sure... What are you really offering? A fridge or a bullshit artist... ;D

But seriously... So you could administer death to an innocent (face to face, eye to eye) then (in order to save 5) without the expectation of a sense of wrongness, even if you believe you could overcome that immediate sense of wrongness with Spock-like calm?

That was where my original question was leading... Direct interaction. Not remote administration (such that you'd be spared the personal experience of co-witnessing your act with the knowledge that the victim identified you as the killer). Could you push someone to their death, even if it were to save 5?


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Oh really? How did you work that out? If you poach one of their tribe, do they not suffer that loss emotionally? If you terrorize them, do they not suffer enormous fear? If you chop off the hand for an ashtray, do they not suffer great physical pain and death? etc... etc...

Yes, they'd suffer... But they have a greatly diminished capacity to sense the wrongness of the act (if they sense it at all), they're spared awareness of mortality and the capacity to transmit their experience of suffering beyond the event.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

Are you a pacifist? I ask, because most who die in war are innocent be they soldiers, civilians or captives; be they the attacking or defending force.

Those who experience war (and the death of innocents), I'm sure, would also experience a sense of wrongness inherent in the act.


Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

I think you are taking it to extremes by invoking a strawman. I never said that they were Jethro's. I expect that they are like most people, of average intelligence but with a touch more curiosity than most. That does not mean to say that they are well versed or read in matters of morality and ethics. The average size of the philosophy section in your average book shop or local library, being tiny, is testament to that. People who assume too much share less and so cannot carry their readership along for the journey. People who assume too little share much and can carry the readership along for the journey, with those who can skim reading to gain a gist and those who can't actually gaining in knowledge as they read in detail.

You presume a lot (or maybe not enough) about the readers here... I don't believe the original question was so esoteric that someone of average intelligence (perhaps even a child) could not have followed it.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 10:39am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 8:14pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 6:52pm: Perhaps we could look at morality this way: is it invented by human beings, or, is it metaphorically sitting on an eternal shelf somewhere within the human being? The former denotes morality as an artform; something crafty human beings have devised for set purposes. The latter denotes an eternal, immutable essence devised by something divine. I'd suggest that if you needed to ask that question, then you're already too alienated from humanity to empathise with those, for whom such a question might be immoral even for the fact of it's asking. Cop out. I asked the question because I am interested in debating the topic in an impartial way; exactly how scholars are supposed to look at topics. If I was only interested in justifying my own prejudices on the issue there'd be no point of being on a debate forum. The question is valid because it goes into the whole free will versus determinism argument.

Impartial (and objective) you think? Morality must be either a device imposed for cynical reasons by power-mongering humans or something a deity has imposed on us... "Either-Or" is it Time?

Tell me... Could you push one person to his death in order to save 5? And if you believe you could, Do you think you'd hesitate (involuntarily) before killing the one, even for a moment?

If you concede that you'd hesitate, then why would you hesitate? Would it be because you intuit the inherent wrongness of the act?

athos wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:43am:

Using rational of humanism and nihilism everything can be moral and justified. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMSjjLib4-s&feature=related (Don't worry it's in English)

Is there any school of thought that doesn't back up its moral code with shame, guilt, violence, fines, jail etc?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 10:39am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 8:14pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 2nd, 2010 at 6:52pm: Perhaps we could look at morality this way: is it invented by human beings, or, is it metaphorically sitting on an eternal shelf somewhere within the human being? The former denotes morality as an artform; something crafty human beings have devised for set purposes. The latter denotes an eternal, immutable essence devised by something divine. I'd suggest that if you needed to ask that question, then you're already too alienated from humanity to empathise with those, for whom such a question might be immoral even for the fact of it's asking. Cop out. I asked the question because I am interested in debating the topic in an impartial way; exactly how scholars are supposed to look at topics. If I was only interested in justifying my own prejudices on the issue there'd be no point of being on a debate forum. The question is valid because it goes into the whole free will versus determinism argument.

Quote:

helian wrote Impartial (and objective) you think? Morality must be either a device imposed for cynical reasons by power-mongering humans or something a deity has imposed on us... "Either-Or" is it Time?

Pretty much. Does morality come from within or without? If it comes from within, then how are we born with it, who puts it there before any socialisation occurs? The usual answer is god. But I'd consider evolutionary biology here as well.
If it comes from without then you're acting in accordance with some pre-established social mores. Your conscience is a construction of society's rules that was introjected, or knowingly adopted, since you were born.

Is there a third way?


Quote:

helian wrote Tell me... Could you push one person to his death in order to save 5? And if you believe you could, Do you think you'd hesitate (involuntarily) before killing the one, even for a moment? If you concede that you'd hesitate, then why would you hesitate? Would it be because you intuit the inherent wrongness of the act?

It would depend on what laws are in place. If I was going to be charged with murder for pushing the man to his death, then I wouldn't. If it was deemed the other way around, that it would be murder for allowing 5 to die, then I'd probably push him. This might sound robotic, but I would rather spend my time out of jail than in it.
I'd feel bad either way, but that is because my conscience has been constructed to the extent to accept killing is wrong. If I were born in a barbaric culture where killing people is just a normal daily occurrence, then my conscience would be constructed to accept that.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 9:09am:

Quote: helian wrote Impartial (and objective) you think? Morality must be either a device imposed for cynical reasons by power-mongering humans or something a deity has imposed on us... "Either-Or" is it Time? Pretty much. Does morality come from within or without? If it comes from within, then how are we born with it, who puts it there before any socialisation occurs? The usual answer is god. But I'd consider evolutionary biology here as well. If it comes from without then you're acting in accordance with some pre-established social mores. Your conscience is a construction of society's rules that was introjected, or knowingly adopted, since you were born. Is there a third way?

Your original suggestion was "if not god then crafty [cynical?] humans"...



Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 9:09am:

Quote: helian wrote Tell me... Could you push one person to his death in order to save 5? And if you believe you could, Do you think you'd hesitate (involuntarily) before killing the one, even for a moment? If you concede that you'd hesitate, then why would you hesitate? Would it be because you intuit the inherent wrongness of the act? It would depend on what laws are in place. If I was going to be charged with murder for pushing the man to his death, then I wouldn't. If it was deemed the other way around, that it would be murder for allowing 5 to die, then I'd probably push him. This might sound robotic, but I would rather spend my time out of jail than in it. I'd feel bad either way, but that is because my conscience has been constructed to the extent to accept killing is wrong. If I were born in a barbaric culture where killing people is just a normal daily occurrence, then my conscience would be constructed to accept that.

No jail, just the experience of pushing the one to his/her death and the knowledge that your victim identifies you as the perpetrator.

Nice dodge, but...

Maybe its the barbaric culture that cultivates subversion of a natural predisposition away from killing one's own kind. It's hard to imagine that an act as dramatic as killing one's own kind does not trigger a significant automatic negative psychological response before any intellectualising of the event.

Children (particularly boys) born into warrior cultures must be taught (or "dematernalised") before they are proficient enough at suppressing their natural repugnance towards killing their own kind to make "good" warriors... And/or cook them and eat them.

Quote:

helion wrote Your original suggestion was "if not god then crafty [cynical?] humans"...

It was, minus the cynical bit. But if morality comes from within, I am also willing to look at evolutionary biology as a contributing factor.


Quote:

No jail, just the experience of pushing the one to his/her death and the knowledge that your victim identifies you as the perpetrator.

If I held no animosity toward the individual(s), then yes I'd feel bad. But if the individual(s) were enemies, then I might even feel a sense of enjoyment.


Quote:

helion wrote Maybe its the barbaric culture that cultivates subversion of a natural predisposition away from killing one's own kind. It's hard to imagine that an act as dramatic as killing one's own kind does not trigger a significant automatic negative psychological response before any intellectualising of the event. Children (particularly boys) born into warrior cultures must be taught (or "dematernalised") before they are proficient enough at suppressing their natural repugnance towards killing their own kind to make "good" warriors... And/or cook them and eat them.

This is a Rousseauan view of man: born good but society makes him bad.
Whilst true that children must be taught to kill, aren't they also taught to empathize? Children require discipline and training on how to act in society; and this varies from culture to culture. There is a reasonable emphasis in our culture on disciplining children from a young age to resepect others; they obey through fear of being yelled at, smacks, sent to their room, detention, barred from activities like playstation, friends etc.
So I repeat, morality as instant empathy or sypamthy requires training.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

If I held no animosity toward the individual(s), then yes I'd feel bad. But if the individual(s) were enemies, then I might even feel a sense of enjoyment.

Yes, if the individual was an enemy then, I'd say, the instinct for self-preservation would take precedence over any sense of wrongness you might have felt otherwise. If that were not the case (an enemy), would you push the individual to his death?


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 7^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

This is a Rousseauan view of man: born good but society makes him bad. Whilst true that children must be taught to kill, aren't they also taught to empathize? Children require discipline and training on how to act in society; and this varies from culture to culture. There is a reasonable emphasis in our culture on disciplining children from a young age to resepect others; they obey through fear of being yelled at, smacks, sent to their room, detention, barred from activities like playstation, friends etc. So I repeat, morality as instant empathy or sypamthy requires training.

We're taught to cultivate empathy, but then don't you think we are born with a pre-disposition towards empathy? Infants, clear of pathology, appear to instinctively tend to empathise with their mother and other care-givers.  

He was the arch enemy of Sherlock Holmes. Professor Morality, that's it.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:19pm:

But seriously... So you could administer death to an innocent (face to face, eye to eye) then (in order to save 5) without the expectation of a sense of wrongness, even if you believe you could overcome that immediate sense of wrongness with Spock-like calm?

I am saying that I would not feel guilt, but that I would be very traumatised. In the same way that many soldiers do not feel guilt for killing other soldiers, but can be traumatised by the experience.

I put it to you that you are sympathising with the experience and not empathising. The former is a shallow, highly emotional response and very common, whereas the latter is a deep, highly thoughtful response and very uncommon.

I also put it to you that you are trying to brush all such scenarios with the same colour of paint when in actual fact, each scenario rests and turns upon its own merits.

Finally, I put it to you that you seem to think that proximity to the victim somehow makes the experience more meaningful... which is classic sympathy, whereas for empathy it matters naught the proximity of the victim... but rather the act itself and the reasoning behind that act.

Empathy does not necessarily engage the emotions, but rather the circumstances, culture, capabilities, intent....


Quote:

That was where my original question was leading... Direct interaction. [...] Could you push someone to their death, even if it were to save 5?

Again, trying to relegate these different scenarios into a set all of their own, trying to pigeon hole these experiences is the wrong approach... is an emotional response... and a rather immature one at that. It pays too much attention to the emotions and very limited attention to the circumstances. Moral behaviour is not synonymous with emotional behaviour.


Quote:

Yes, they'd suffer... But they have a greatly diminished capacity to sense the wrongness of the act (if they sense it at all), they're spared awareness of mortality and the capacity to transmit their experience of suffering beyond the event.

You've changed your tune Helian. You said it was the human capacity to suffer, but now you are saying it is our capacity to know wrongness and mortality.

Most humans however have no sense of mortality. They go to heaven or are reincarnated. Many humans have an extraordinarily dulled sense of wrongness which is why they can be so nasty to one another and blame that on likeability or lack there of, or the 's/he started it' approach. And then there are sociopaths.

So tell me, why is a sociopath more worthy than an ape?


Quote:

Those who experience war (and the death of innocents), I'm sure, would also experience a sense of wrongness inherent in the act.

Why are you sure? Why is wrongness inherent in the act of kill or be killed within a war scenario?


Quote:

You presume a lot (or maybe not enough) about the readers here... I don't believe the original question was so esoteric that someone of average intelligence (perhaps even a child) could not have followed it.

Are you saying that complex morality is derived genetically? Or, are you saying that complex morality is socialized and internalized in the same way by all individuals.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm:

What of a child born with anencephaly and left to die or killed. Is that wrong given that the infant is an innocent? Should we not do everything in our power to keep these little innocents alive, irrespective of the cost?

Why did you avoid addressing this question Helian?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 6^th, 2010 at 10:45am:

Maybe its the barbaric culture that cultivates subversion of a natural predisposition away from killing one's own kind. It's hard to imagine that an act as dramatic as killing one's own kind does not trigger a significant automatic negative psychological response before any intellectualising of the event.

Where do you get these crazy ideas. Humans have been killing humans since their beginning.


Quote:

Children (particularly boys) born into warrior cultures must be taught (or "dematernalised") before they are proficient enough at suppressing their natural repugnance towards killing their own kind to make "good" warriors... And/or cook them and eat them.

OMG! Sexism, thy name is Helian. 'Dematernalise?' LOL... the art of poison potions for the purpose of killing has long been a female art well documented.

Like I said, Humans have been killing Humans since their origin.

Sappho wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

I am saying that I would not feel guilt, but that I would be very traumatised. In the same way that many soldiers do not feel guilt for killing other soldiers, but can be traumatised by the experience.

In this scenario, you’re not a soldier compelled to shoot to kill or be shot at and killed, so you're not in a position to transfer responsibility for your actions to the state.


Sappho wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

You've changed your tune Helian. You said it was the human capacity to suffer, but now you are saying it is our capacity to know wrongness and mortality.

I said humans have a greater capacity to suffer… Awareness of one’s inevitable death being a uniquely human way of suffering including human awareness of one's inevitable decline.


Sappho wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

Most humans however have no sense of mortality. They go to heaven or are reincarnated.

All humans have the capacity to contemplate their mortality and all functioning human minds have a very real sense of mortality. Even the religious betray their awareness of death’s finality when, in a moment of unselfconscious diminished artifice, they speak of the sensibilities of the dead in the past tense.


Sappho wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

Many humans have an extraordinarily dulled sense of wrongness which is why they can be so nasty to one another and blame that on likeability or lack there of, or the 's/he started it' approach. And then there are sociopaths.

That’s true. Like we’re all born with an instinct and the faculty for speech, but not such that this alone will guarantee we will inevitably become great communicators.

Sappho wrote on Sep 8^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

OMG! Sexism, thy name is Helian. 'Dematernalise?' LOL... the art of poison potions for the purpose of killing has long been a female art well documented.

And then there's the Amazons... Sure, they're a myth... But any bird, real or not, who could hack off her own right tit ... Now that's one mean fridge of a mother.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 7:29am:

In this scenario, you’re not a soldier compelled to shoot to kill or be shot at and killed, so you're not in a position to transfer responsibility for your actions to the state.

So you are coming to terms with the notion of the morality in causing death being a case by case application. It seems that you concede at least that soldiers are not wrong for the killing they cause. I did not claim to be the soldier by the way.


Quote:

I said humans have a greater capacity to suffer… Awareness of one’s inevitable death being a uniquely human way of suffering including human awareness of one's inevitable decline.

If humans are aware of their mortality, why are they not suffering? Why do they plan for the future which is uncertain, since death is inevitable? I do not see suffering due to the inevitability of death amongst the mortal humans. Unless you mean to claim that our grief expressed for the loss of loved ones to death is the measure of our knowing mortality.

Elephants grieve and grieve quite profoundly. They visit the grave yard of their loved ones and grieve before moving on. Other elephants in the group not so affected because they were not so close to the one that is dead, stand back allowing those closest to grieve the loss to death of those they have loved.

Why is an elephants suffering less than a humans?


Quote:

All humans have the capacity to contemplate their mortality and all functioning human minds have a very real sense of mortality.

All humans? I don't think so Helian. Surely you mean many humans? Very young children are human and cannot contemplate their mortality. Those humans born with significant intellectual disabilities cannot contemplate their mortality. Those humans who subsequently become significantly intellectually disabled through accidents, dementia or profound mental illness cannot contemplate their mortality. Those three categories alone represent a very large minority who cannot contemplate mortality.

Is this significant minority of humans less worthy than those elephants who grieve for the dead?


Quote:

Even the religious betray their awareness of death’s finality when, in a moment of unselfconscious diminished artifice, they speak of the sensibilities of the dead in the past tense.

That's not true. When speaking of memories, the dead are referred to in the past tense, however, when speaking of the present the dead are referred to in the present tense. i.e. "He IS at peace now in heaven." or, "I hope my husband comes to take me to heaven when it is my time."


Quote:

That’s true. Like we’re all born with an instinct and the faculty for speech, but not such that this alone will guarantee we will inevitably become great communicators.

We do not know enough about the human brain to claim as yet that there is a moral component in the same sense that there is a language component. We can talk about our capacity to reason which is the function of the frontal lobe. I would suggest that morality is a reflection of our capacity to reason.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 7:45am:

Sappho wrote on Sep 8th, 2010 at 2:07pm: OMG! Sexism, thy name is Helian. 'Dematernalise?' LOL... the art of poison potions for the purpose of killing has long been a female art well documented. And then there's the Amazons... Sure, they're a myth... But any bird, real or not, who could hack off her own right tit ... Now that's one mean fridge of a mother.

LOL... more sexism Helian? Must be, given all the passionate women of history, for example Queen Boudica, you seek out an ice maiden of myth.

Sappho wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

So you are coming to terms with the notion of the morality in causing death being a case by case application. It seems that you concede at least that soldiers are not wrong for the killing they cause. I did not claim to be the soldier by the way.

Never suggested that the moral valency of an action causing death couldn't vary on a case by case basis. My question was could you, as Sappho the average Joette, not Sappho the imaginary cop, soldier, doctor push someone to their death (even if it were to save 5)... At the moment of that act as you interacted with your victim, would you sense an inherent wrongness of the act, even if you could later justify your action by its utility.


Sappho wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Quote: I said humans have a greater capacity to suffer… Awareness of one’s inevitable death being a uniquely human way of suffering including human awareness of one's inevitable decline. If humans are aware of their mortality, why are they not suffering? Why do they plan for the future which is uncertain, since death is inevitable? I do not see suffering due to the inevitability of death amongst the mortal humans. Unless you mean to claim that our grief expressed for the loss of loved ones to death is the measure of our knowing mortality.

Ah we're touching on the first great (noble) truth of Buddhism "All life is suffering" or as M. Scott Peck opened with in his classic, The Road Less Travelled - "Life is difficult".

If you haven't ever perceived that suffering... Grab a flagon and have a deep and meaningful with some friends / acquaintances...

But then

"Suffering is the consequence of struggle,
Struggle, the price of challenge,
Challenge, the precondition for a sense of value...
From value, comes meaning"

If you're not willing to suffer, you'll never know meaning.


Sappho wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Quote: All humans have the capacity to contemplate their mortality and all functioning human minds have a very real sense of mortality. All humans? I don't think so Helian. Surely you mean many humans? Very young children are human and cannot contemplate their mortality. Those humans born with significant intellectual disabilities cannot contemplate their mortality. Those humans who subsequently become significantly intellectually disabled through accidents, dementia or profound mental illness cannot contemplate their mortality. Those three categories alone represent a very large minority who cannot contemplate mortality.

Yes not all humans are capable of fully contemplating their mortality... Children will acquire that faculty, those suffering dementia did...


Sappho wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

Quote: Even the religious betray their awareness of death’s finality when, in a moment of unselfconscious diminished artifice, they speak of the sensibilities of the dead in the past tense. That's not true. When speaking of memories, the dead are referred to in the past tense, however, when speaking of the present the dead are referred to in the present tense. i.e. "He IS at peace now in heaven." or, "I hope my husband comes to take me to heaven when it is my time."

And when a significant event occurs, in a moment of unselfconscious expression, the line often goes "I wish Mum/Dad/____ were here to see this, they would have loved it", or "Thank God Mum/Dad/_____ aren't alive to see this".

Sappho wrote on Sep 9^th, 2010 at 1:58pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 9th, 2010 at 7:45am: Sappho wrote on Sep 8th, 2010 at 2:07pm: OMG! Sexism, thy name is Helian. 'Dematernalise?' LOL... the art of poison potions for the purpose of killing has long been a female art well documented. And then there's the Amazons... Sure, they're a myth... But any bird, real or not, who could hack off her own right tit ... Now that's one mean fridge of a mother. LOL... more sexism Helian? Must be, given all the passionate women of history, for example Queen Boudica, you seek out an ice maiden of myth.

Yes, the legend of Queen Boudica... All true do you think?

What is Morality???

At 1st instance ( and without having read this topic in its entirety ) I'd say morality is just another arbitrary social construct whose barriers constantly shift over time and space.

If you were expecting something more comprehensive and possibly even nerdy ---> TOUGH!

Oh and here are 2 more words for you to think about! Ockham's Razor .. smirk :P