Re: Not an expert.

Post #13,992 by addison 10/18/01 2:02:30 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. I meant, it's hard to be both forward-looking and and traditional at the same time. Not impossible, but hard. And harder for entire cultures than for specific persons. Aha. I see what you mean, now, hadn't thought of it like that. I don't, right this second, see a problem with a "tradition" of looking forward, but I see what you were objecting to. Well, technically, we have anarchy w/o governement. Not without morals. What? :) No, without common guidelines we have anarchy. We aren't required to have a government to have a society, or a shared moral code. Just in order to have a society we must agree on at least the rough outline of said moral code. Government is a way of mandating a moral code, but its not a requirement (on a small set of subjects. And therein lies our difference. You seem to think that people's morals are formed by logical reasoning on consequences of their acts. Not people as individuals. People in the context of cultures, and generations of them. I think you're presuming I mean individuals. And things change, shift. Oh.. Let me see how this will do for an example. Take women. (please!). Some parts of the world (China and India spring to mind as recent examples) do not afford the "protection" to women that our society does. (the obvious exceptions to it are immoral, by our societies standard). In parts of those cultures, it is "too expensive" to have women, so they are abandoned or killed at birth - or treated almost as livestock - in some cases valued less than livestock. Completely 180 from how women are "supposed" to be treated in our culture, right? (aren't you Russian? I've heard that there's a big cultural issue there, too, but I don't know all the details, saw a TV report one time, and one Russian was talking about the vast difference, and said somethng to the effect that "A [Russian] man can love a woman, but he can't be nice to her"). But anyway. Thus we've got a difference in how cultures treat the same sex. What happens if say, a dread disease spreads over those areas that are overpopulated now? and.. Suddenly, there are more men than women? Wouldn't that almost immediately change the status, how women are treated? Wouldn't you say that the morality in that case has been influenced by the need for children? (And without women...). Whereas in overpopulated areas, women (especially adding in other cultural/moral codes, such as dowrys, etc) are less likely to be nurtured/desired? Again, technically speaking, monarchy is more an obligation to protect and defend God's world than "divine blood". That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. I am just saying that morals cannot be explained by logic alone (although they can be inforced or perverted that way). There is more to being moral than just long-range prognosis. Ah. Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. What I was trying to say is that morals will come out, an many of them will be based in logic/long term forecasts, and those are the ones that tend to be "consistant" across the world. Addison
Post #13,998 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 2:31:45 PM Reply	More clear now. Ok, I think positions are better explained than before. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Ouch. I think this is a misuse of term. For peoples you have statistically prevalent behavior patterns. For persons you have moral decisions. Peoples don't make decisions. May be governements do (rather, leaders do), but not people. With regard to women - having 4 wives might or might not be practical and/or beneficial to society. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - an\ufffdar\ufffdchy 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>> That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. <<<<<<<<< That's what monarchs say. It may even be what bishops (ayatollas) say. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. >>>>>>>> Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. <<<<<<<< And I keep thinking that those "other things" matter more in certain _personal_ decisions than all of the above combined.
Post #14,001 by addison 10/18/01 3:08:38 PM Reply	Re: More clear now. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Yes, that was the context in which it was presented. We're discussing morals across people. The problem is its really something that's not defineable. Morals for 1 person aren't, either, but its a different problem. The best we can do is make approximations of understanding of individual's morals. So I'm talking of the "morals" of a culture, a society. By definition you have to have some shared morals to have either/both of those. 4 people can meet in America, and talk, and all of whom have some morals opposed to the others. But some morals will be the same. The idea of morality is one of those philisophical ones. Sometimes its by force you create/enforce morality. "I don't mind stealing from the Huge Store, but if I do, I'll get put in jail". (More often seen as "They won't mind, they're so big, this won't affect them"). But trying to drill down to the root as far as is possible, you get to "why are you doing what you're doing?" Why don't you want to be worried that anybody else on the street doesn't ascribe to your moral code that killing is wrong? After all, its possible that anybody you pass on the street doesn't. But its not very likely. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. This is another case where "moral" is too strong of a word, there's too many sub categories to file that under. Some people are Ok with that. Some cultures, its quite normal. Others, its not. Even inside say a smaller subset, its still one of those "it depends" issues. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? 3. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. It was [what they said] just a few hundred years ago. Until very very recently, in time scales. Addison
Post #14,005 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 3:29:46 PM Reply	End of discussion? OK, I think we can complete this discussion now. You were talking about morals of peoples (which I find a horrible misuse of the term, but that's irrelevant). I was talking about the sence of right and wrong "given" to an individual. How those 2 things interact is a whole another topic.
Post #14,008 by addison 10/18/01 3:34:58 PM Reply	In a sense. Because its a much bigger discussion than this. :) Addison
Post #14,052 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 6:52:29 PM Reply	And I _do_ avoid Religion forum for a reason :)

Welcome to IWETHEY!