Re: Let me turn that around

Post #104,870 by Arkadiy 6/4/03 6:08:35 PM Reply	Re: Let me turn that around So, you are telling me that working with people's interests and leaving their moral rules alone is the right way. Perhaps. It's definitely the most practical way. However. Which is the better result, by your own defenition: 1) to convince a fundamentalist that it's advantageous to leave an atheist alone or 2) to convince a fundamentalist that it's _wrong_ to offer people a choice between death and conversion ? My jujement says that #2 is better. It seems to me that morality is like free will: whether there are absolute moral rules or not, one has to act as if his moral system is absolute. Furthermore, when 2 people act out their "absolute" moral beliefs, there can be 2 possible outcomes: either one destroys another, or they learn to coexist. I'd observe that some moral systems share certain core that makes coexistance possible. That core may be called "absolute morality". It includes, among other things, certain flexibility. "Thou shalt not have things thine way all the time". "Consider other's feelings". Golden rule. And such. There is another possible approach here. I wonder what you folks would say... Let's state 3 premises: 1. Each culture/morality has some set of standards/rules that ensure that the society does not rip itself apart. Things like "golden rule", "thou shalt not steal" and so on. People who live by the rules are called "moral" people. They may not prosper, but they get very particular form of respect from most of society 2. Moral rules do not apply to every human being. There always is a circle beyond which "people" are no longer people, and, hence, are no longer subjects to morality. In the American South we had blacks, in country club we have some bum off park bench, in a Christian State we have "heretics" and so on. 3. (the hardest to accept) The person whose circle is wider is considered a "better" person by people with more narrow circle. He/she may be called foolish, crazy or dangerous, but never "evil". At least, not sincerely. That core set of rules that allows society to exist is the absolute morality. Everybody has a circle to which it applies. Even the most fanatic believer has some tolerance. The difference is in the breadth of the circle. A Shiite mullah prays on a clay pad made with some dust from Mecca, he's not going to kill his paritioner who does not have such pad. Some tolerance is needed even in fundamentalism. A mafiosi whose morality say that a traitor should not live does not kill his mother, no matter how irritating she may be. Some "shalt not kill" is needed even in murder. A CEO (hardest to believe) who packeted hundreds of millions from shareholders pays in full for his son's education. Some honesty exists even in theft. Some say that core morality developed from lots of human interactions. Some say it's God's gift. Just as long as it's there. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #104,917 by ben_tilly 6/4/03 11:06:03 PM Reply	And we continue to disagree On your first question. Of course I find the second result better. But that result often is not achievable, and once I have convinced myself that it is not achievable in a particular case, settling for the result that I can achieve is better than tilting at windmills. About the rest, your third point about a "core morality" reflects what I have seen many people claim, and what many obviously want to be true. Unfortunately it does not accord with my experience. You want specific counter-examples? I have met and heard plenty of right-wing people (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson for instance) who dismiss people like Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky as "ungodly Communists" despite the fact that they have "wider" moralities. If you believe, as the religious right does, that morality is defined by adherence to a specific religious text, then anything that deviates from the true and narrow (for instance acceptance of homosexuals or abortion) can quite easily get you labelled "evil". Going further, there are no principles that I can think of which is broad enough to deserve the name "absolute morality". Oh, it is a common conceit to think that there must be. But I doubt that there is any characteristic which is so universal that it can be considered absolute. I certainly have never encountered any that stood up to my examination. And I have looked, starting with a bias for believing that there must be one (and that it furthermore should roughly match what I hold near and dear). Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #104,952 by Arkadiy 6/5/03 10:08:32 AM Reply	Tiling at giants that look like windmills is a superbly moral act, and throughly unpractical. But, I guess, we'll have to keep on disagreeing. I may question the idea that Falwell and Robertson themselves are guided by their moral principles when they pronounce Nader evil. Not everything a person says is a moral statement. As to absolute morality - can you imagine a stable society (a stable group of people of any sort) that does not consider some very particular things good when applied to its members? I'd appreciate a counterexample. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #105,088 by ben_tilly 6/6/03 5:22:22 AM Reply	Our moralities are different I see no particular value in banging my head against a brick wall. If you do, then that is your business. As for Jerry Falwell, etc, I have no idea what their morality is. However I have personally known very sincere people whose moral code was derived directly from their understanding of the Bible. They didn't respect people whose value systems were more generous - they saw said people as tools of Satan. As for your "stable society" comment, what characteristic did you want to say is necessary? Thou shalt not kill? Look at Polynesian societies which accepted using cannibalism as a means of population control? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Examine hazing rituals. Etc, etc, etc. Our tendancy is to believe that many things must resemble that with which we are familiar. But the world is stranger than we (or at least I) generally imagine. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #105,119 by Arkadiy 6/6/03 11:47:30 AM Reply	Could you explain, in your own words, the difference between "moral" and "practical"? I would love to hear it. Polinesian cannibalism seems to be associated with warfare wherever I can find it on the Internet. And we all know that prisoners of war aren't really people, don't we? Can you point me at non-war-related cannibalism? Hazing rituals? Again, not everything a person does is moral. It's more a case of "I suffered for somebody else's fun, therefore you shall suffer for my enjoyment". Very human and practical, but I doubt that the prerpetrators pause to think about right and wrong (as opposed to pleasant and "cool"). Additionally, in extreme cases (such as gang or cult initiation rituals), people who undergo it are not quite people yet - they have to earn that privilege. Can't argue about "Tools of Satan". I guess you have me there. My only answer is that such people are a rarity, and, if you get them together in one place, aren't likely to form a stable society. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #105,121 by boxley 6/6/03 11:59:10 AM Reply	non warfare cannibalism, see hindu sects will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] "I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
Post #105,126 by Arkadiy 6/6/03 12:21:08 PM Reply	Links? Also, sects fit in the definition of "circles" perfectly. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #105,131 by boxley 6/6/03 1:05:13 PM Reply	links [link\|http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAXM6OXFGD.html\|http://news.tbo.com/.../MGAXM6OXFGD.html] another site [link\|http://www.healing-tao.co.uk/ht_taooftantra.htm\|http://www.healing-t...t_taooftantra.htm] For many this is enlightenment enough. Others continue to surrender: possessions, dwelling, family, becoming Saddhu, beyond ritual. Beyond the beyond, the Aghora sect live tantra \ufffdat the Left Hand of God\ufffd (7), frequenting cremation-grounds, eating human flesh and excrement, having sex with the dead, surrendering all attachment to shorten their chosen path by many incarnations. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] "I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
Post #105,140 by Arkadiy 6/6/03 2:13:21 PM Reply	The report is rife with references to things like "sin", "forbidden" and "revulsion". They do it specifically because it's wrong. -- Less Is More. In my book, About Face, I introduce over 50 powerful design axioms. This is one of them. --Alan Cooper. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum
Post #105,143 by boxley 6/6/03 2:20:02 PM Reply	good way to untie the mind from humanity will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] "I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
Post #106,811 by ben_tilly 6/21/03 2:16:54 PM Reply	Explanation My belief is that people internally have systems of morality. This system doesn't always match what they say, or what they do, but when people see themselves acting in ways that don't match their internal morality, they feel emotions like guilt. To me, therefore, moral behaviour means behaviour which I think is dictated by the internal sense of morality of the person acting. For instance I consider a lot of what Richard Stallman does to be moral behaviour, because it is motivated by his morality (or appears to be - read what he says) even if the issues involved don't match my sense of right and wrong. I don't consider similar choices on the part of Bob Young to be moral behaviour because his self-described morality is quite different. (He had at one point an excellent talk on why it was in Red Hat's marketing self-interest to act in ways that the FSF considered moral.) By contrast "practical" means just that, courses of actions that might be indicated because they are doable and not necessarily for any other reason. As for Polynesian cannibalism, I likewise cannot find any links to what I was thinking of online. My memory, however, is of a series of articles that I had to read once for a philosophy course, in it they described a Polynesian cult on a densely populated island which was highly promiscuous, and then killed the resulting infants as a form of birth control. As you might imagine, the appalling image stuck in my mind... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!