Australian Politics Forum - What is Morality?

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #105 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 12:11pm

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

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.

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. Wink

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #106 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 1:42pm

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. Wink

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

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #107 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 5:52pm

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

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.

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 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.

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 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…

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

Quote:

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. Wink

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.

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #108 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:28pm

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?

Grin

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?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 4^th, 2010 at 6:36pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #109 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 8:28pm

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

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? Grin

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 4^th, 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.

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #110 - Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:19pm

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... Grin

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 5^th, 2010 at 7:17am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #111 - Sep 5^th, 2010 at 9:58am

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III Gold Member Offline Posts: 10300 Gender:	Re: What is Morality? Reply #112 - Sep 6^th, 2010 at 8:44am athos wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 11:43am: Using rational of humanism and nihilism everything can be moral and justified. (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?
Back to top	IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10300
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #113 - Sep 6^th, 2010 at 9:09am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #114 - Sep 6^th, 2010 at 10:45am

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 6^th, 2010 at 9:58pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10300
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #115 - Sep 7^th, 2010 at 1:02pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #116 - Sep 8^th, 2010 at 7:57am

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.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: What is Morality? Reply #117 - Sep 8^th, 2010 at 8:36am He was the arch enemy of Sherlock Holmes. Professor Morality, that's it.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: What is Morality?
Reply #118 - Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:31pm

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.

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

Sappho Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1406 Gender:	Re: What is Morality? Reply #119 - Sep 8^th, 2010 at 1:33pm 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?
Back to top	"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables." IP Logged