TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- A world without tact.
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel Don't you think that people are predisposed to being soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish? I agree that things like manners and etiquette are learned but morals? I'm not convinced.

+1

I believe environments or situations will endorse these attributes, morals and behaviors.

Maybe the morals really break down into a ethnic, cultural or even human instinct that once again can be controlled but perhaps always present, regardless of training to rid of it.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie *punches Yohan in the balls*

stop punching my wooden balls!

I don't think that tact has anything to do with morality, rather it's all about manipulation. People employ tact in order to smooth interactions with others in an attempt to secure a desired outcome. For example; I have an employee who's falling behind at work because she's inefficient. I could say to her "you're either lazy or stupid and need to get your shit together otherwise you're useless to me," but chances are that won't work to motivate her. Rather then being perfectly blunt with her I'd likely be better off telling her "I appreciate the quality of work you're doing; however, we're a volume based operation and we need to improve your efficiency in order for you to remain profitable; here are a few stategies you may wish to employ..." Chances are the second method will yeild better results. This is probably why tact tends to go out the window during one off interactions with people from whom we don't believe can benefit us in anyway... like being curt with a telemarketer. Morality is really immaterial in diplomacy (which tact is really nothing more then a tool for), it's all about finding the best way to achieve your goal.

Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel I agree that things like manners and etiquette are learned but morals? I'm not convinced.

Morality is absolutely learned. What one deems to be moral or immoral is a product of their socialization and nothing more. 100 years ago just about anyone from an Anglo-christian background considered pre-marital sex to be immoral, now only the most staunch of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist of christians of Anglo background would hold to this belief. Simillarly, 40 years ago it was terribly immoral for a hindu to marry someone of a lower cast then their own; however, in the modern cosmopolitan areas of India this belief is quickly being abandoned. If morality was innate then it would not change; however, evolving social and economic conditions change our perception of the world around us, what used to be immoral becomes tolerable (sometimes even necessary), a few ground breakers disregard the old taboos, they are followed by others, eventually most from a given cohort will begin to believe that this formerlly immoral behaviour is now acceptable, eventually it will lose it's status as immoral.

Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Morality is absolutely learned. What one deems to be moral or immoral is a product of their socialization and nothing more. 100 years ago just about anyone from an Anglo-christian background considered pre-marital sex to be immoral, now only the most staunch of Roman Catholics and fundamentalist of christians of Anglo background would hold to this belief. Simillarly, 40 years ago it was terribly immoral for a hindu to marry someone of a lower cast then their own; however, in the modern cosmopolitan areas of India this belief is quickly being abandoned. If morality was innate then it would not change; however, evolving social and economic conditions change our perception of the world around us, what used to be immoral becomes tolerable (sometimes even necessary), a few ground breakers disregard the old taboos, they are followed by others, eventually most from a given cohort will begin to believe that this formerlly immoral behaviour is now acceptable, eventually it will lose it's status as immoral.

I still disagree. I still, from personal experience and many deep conversations with people I love and loathe, believe wholeheartedly that morals are mostly predisposed. I agree that environment will have effects on thesee morals but I still standby the fact that soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish are something that we can't necessarily change.

The argument you are using above is morality in religious terms. Ask my parents and grandparents if they had sex before marriage and I know that the answer will be yes. Dictated morality is very different than your personal morals. Let me explain - I will never be unfaithful. Ever. My morals will not allow it. My PERSONAL morals will make me change my circumtances before I would ever consider cheating.

People will shit on me but I will still care for their wellbeing. That is who I am. I hate it sometimes and really wish that I could look out for Number 1 more often but I don't. I doubt that I ever will. I am predisposed to that trait, trust me, I suffer a lot more than I should because I care too much.

I don't eat animals. I haven't ever since I knew what they were. the whole of my family do and I was the first 'vegetarian' my primary school had ever seen. Where did I have that from? Did I make it up myself from something I once heard (at the age of 2) or was I predisposed to the fact that I don't think my life is any more precious than a cow's?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel I still disagree. I still, from personal experience and many deep conversations with people I love and loathe, believe wholeheartedly that morals are mostly predisposed. I agree that environment will have effects on thesee morals but I still standby the fact that soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish are something that we can't necessarily change. The argument you are using above is morality in religious terms. Ask my parents and grandparents if they had sex before marriage and I know that the answer will be yes. Dictated morality is very different than your personal morals. Let me explain - I will never be unfaithful. Ever. My morals will not allow it. My PERSONAL morals will make me change my circumtances before I would ever consider cheating. People will shit on me but I will still care for their wellbeing. That is who I am. I hate it sometimes and really wish that I could look out for Number 1 more often but I don't. I doubt that I ever will. I am predisposed to that trait, trust me, I suffer a lot more than I should because I care too much. I don't eat animals. I haven't ever since I knew what they were. the whole of my family do and I was the first 'vegetarian' my primary school had ever seen. Where did I have that from? Did I make it up myself from something I once heard (at the age of 2) or was I predisposed to the fact that I don't think my life is any more precious than a cow's?

I think we have some confusion over terms here... soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish are personality traits, not moral positions. Additionally, morality is not individual, it is societal... whether or not you ascribe to the generally accepted moral code is your choice; however, just because you view something as immoral (or moral) does not mean it is.

With regard to your decision to be vegitarian; your story supports my position more then it does yours. You were not born with a sense that it was wrong to eat meat, this did not happen until after you learned meat was once part of a living creature. If ones positions on moral questions were inate then you would have always had the same ethical problems regarding the eating meat that you do now. I would suggest that it is probable that you were raised to be a compassionate person with a healthy respect for life, which you extended to non-human animal life. When you learned that in order to have a ham sandwich a pig had to die you decided that eating meat was inconsistant with your compassion for living beings... this is a decision you made based on things you were taught or otherwise learned, therefore, not inate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think we have some confusion over terms here... soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish are personality traits, not moral positions. Additionally, morality is not individual, it is societal... whether or not you ascribe to the generally accepted moral code is your choice; however, just because you view something as immoral (or moral) does not mean it is. With regard to your decision to be vegitarian; your story supports my position more then it does yours. You were not born with a sense that it was wrong to eat meat, this did not happen until after you learned meat was once part of a living creature. If ones positions on moral questions were inate then you would have always had the same ethical problems regarding the eating meat that you do now. I would suggest that it is probable that you were raised to be a compassionate person with a healthy respect for life, which you extended to non-human animal life. When you learned that in order to have a ham sandwich a pig had to die you decided that eating meat was inconsistant with your compassion for living beings... this is a decision you made based on things you were taught or otherwise learned, therefore, not inate.

I was subscribing to the definition of morality being your individual code of conduct as opposed to the societal, religious or philosophical meanings. Therefore, I couldn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks is 'moral', I am discussing my personal morals and where I believe that they came from which therefore means that my morals, to me, are moral. I believe them to be programmed into me before I was born, I chose to embrace that programming and run with it.

Don't you think that I was predisposed to the animal compassion? That's where we differ, I do. How could I make a decision morally on whether or not to eat meat until I knew what eating meat really was? I couldn't come out of the womb rejecting any dead flesh because I didn't know what it was - trust me when I say that the SECOND I knew what it was, I stopped eating it. I refuse to believe that I was a genius child at just under 2 years of age to have made that decision unless I was preprogrammed to be that way. I also think that personality traits that have moral undertones (helping an old lady across the road, sharing your sweets, telling the truth) are inate and can be nurtured or cancelled out during 'life'.

I am really enjoying this but I have a lot to do today so if I don't respond until later, it isn't because I have given up on you

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced

LOL!!!! Brotherly love LOL!!!!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel Don't you think that I was predisposed to the animal compassion? That's where we differ, I do. How could I make a decision morally on whether or not to eat meat until I knew what eating meat really was? I couldn't come out of the womb rejecting any dead flesh because I didn't know what it was - trust me when I say that the SECOND I knew what it was, I stopped eating it. I refuse to believe that I was a genius child at just under 2 years of age to have made that decision unless I was preprogrammed to be that way. I also think that personality traits that have moral undertones (helping an old lady across the road, sharing your sweets, telling the truth) are inate and can be nurtured or cancelled out during 'life'. I am really enjoying this but I have a lot to do today so if I don't respond until later, it isn't because I have given up on you

Again you've inadvertantly supported my position.... Indeed, you could not make a decision regarding whether or not there is something morally wrong with the consumption of meat until you learned what meat was. The key words here are decision and learned... if something is inate then there is no decision involved and no learning required, it simply is. Certainly, it's easy to confuse things that we have been taught early in life as being things that were always there because we don't recall learning them or being socialized to it. What you really need to look at in determining if something is socialized or inate is universality... if it isn't more or less universal amongst humans then it is not inate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Again you've inadvertantly supported my position.... Indeed, you could not make a decision regarding whether or not there is something morally wrong with the consumption of meat until you learned what meat was. The key words here are decision and learned... if something is inate then there is no decision involved and no learning required, it simply is. Certainly, it's easy to confuse things that we have been taught early in life as being things that were always there because we don't recall learning them or being socialized to it. What you really need to look at in determining if something is socialized or inate is universality... if it isn't more or less universal amongst humans then it is not inate.

Last one, cos I can't help myself. I don't think I made the decision, that is the whole point i am trying to make. I didn't decide really, if we are arguing semantics, to not eat meat, it just made no sense to me so I stopped. If I had never been fed meat, I wouldn't have had to stop anything, I would have just carried on - so would that have made it innate?

Also, universality is, in itself, a terrible argument for innate or learned behaviours. unless you solely believe that eating, sleeping, shitting and breathing are the only innate behaviours we have and that the rest is nurture..... ?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel Last one, cos I can't help myself. I don't think I made the decision, that is the whole point i am trying to make. I didn't decide really, if we are arguing semantics, to not eat meat, it just made no sense to me so I stopped. If I had never been fed meat, I wouldn't have had to stop anything, I would have just carried on - so would that have made it innate? Also, universality is, in itself, a terrible argument for innate or learned behaviours. unless you solely believe that eating, sleeping, shitting and breathing are the only innate behaviours we have and that the rest is nurture..... ?

What would have made it innate is if you had refused to eat meat from birth.

I disagree with you regarding universality, and I think you sell the human species short. There are a great number of things that are universal amongst humans (accepting a limited number of freaks of course). All humans seek to procreate (or at very least play a little slap and tickle), we all gather into groups, we all seek companionship, we all have a drive to learn, etc.... all of these things would be considered inate.

Who can argue with Craig's logic?


*spits in Craig's hair*

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Who can argue with Craig's logic? *spits in Craig's hair*

awwwww, thanks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard There are a great number of things that are universal amongst humans (accepting a limited number of freaks of course). All humans seek to procreate (or at very least play a little slap and tickle), we all gather into groups, we all seek companionship, we all have a drive to learn, etc.... all of these things would be considered inate.

I tend to think these actions are in part, driven by the subconscious need to survive.

Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie The drama threads got me thinking... Would you be the same person in a world without tact? I'm thinking along the lines of an action vs. intent kind of debate; the bigger question being: how innate is tact? It can obviously be learned...but even further to all this, is someone who is more innately tactful a "better" or "more good" person than a person who had to learn tact? I think this is a moral question. I apologize if it's inarticulate or confusing, I've been drinking, lolololol.

Hahaha don't worry - I think about stuff like that when I'm sober

For me, tact is just a means through which people attempt to effectively communicate. So in order to promt a certain reaction from someone, you will behave accordingly. Whether or not you do it consciously, it remains consistent. This premise of inciting action based on what you choose to do or not do is so deeply embedded in the human mind because (unlike Rousseau has debated) we are not solitary creatures.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie Who can argue with Craig's logic?

not i.

very intereseting reading.. thank you sir craig.

Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Kytracid "Genealogy of Morals".

a dangerous book...

we're all assholes, some just hide it better than others

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard soft/firm, kind/mean, caring/selfish are personality traits, not moral positions.

rgr that

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel The argument you are using above is morality in religious terms. Dictated morality is very different than your personal morals.

virtue or incline?
atoms or providence?

Take your pick. You either prescribe to theology or you're an evolutionist. Now if the former, then your morals are set in stone (literally! or whatever else you believe in) - but if the latter, and empirically speaking, how can you argue that your own "personal morals" are not a product of your own personal experience?

Morals are absolutely a posteriori. This is the reason why no moral statement can be objectivity proven right or wrong.

But it appears that you are more or less a Platonist than an Aristotelian. With that, I think you'd enjoy reading Kants Critique of Pure Reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_cookie virtue or incline? atoms or providence? Take your pick. You either prescribe to theology or you're an evolutionist. Now if the former, then your morals are set in stone (literally! or whatever else you believe in) - but if the latter, and empirically speaking, how can you argue that your own "personal morals" are not a product of your own personal experience? Morals are absolutely a posteriori. This is the reason why no moral statement can be objectivity proven right or wrong. But it appears that you are more or less a Platonist than an Aristotelian. With that, I think you'd enjoy reading Kants Critique of Pure Reason.

Did you not read anything that I had said earlier? You tell me, if my moral stance on eating meat wasn't predisposed to me, how could I make that decision as soon as I had the ability to ask the question, "Is the lamb chop on my plate the same as the baa lamb in my book?". unless, of course, you are subscribing to the theory of me being a genius child.... I don't feel that the decision was a decision, it is intrinsically who I am. Life is precious and if I can live my life without taking away life from others, that is how it shall be. To get even deeper, would I kill to keep myself alive? I don't think so. Would I eat the flesh of an already dead being? More than likely. Will I always help a passed-out person on the street, even if it puts me in danger. Yes. Even against my 'learned' behaviour, my innate personality would take over.

Perhaps I lack self preservation.

This still detracts from the point I was trying to make that was I believe that people are predisposed to personality traits that create that persons morals - perhaps I missed a step in my primitive explanation but you won't change my opinion.

I am definitely not a theologist. I would have thought that was obvious.

Plato had his head in the sky as far as Ideas being the concept of the reality and imo, emotions and goodness have sfa to do with maths.

Aristotle was close to godly, I am not. Contemporary Aristotelianism (after my fast research this morning) states that 'good' can only come out in social settings. Bollocks. You can think good and be good and bask in the happiness of good with no one around you.

Buddhist? Perhaps I am.

Still doesn't detract from my belief that 'good'/'bad' morals are formed from 'good'/'bad' personality traits that are innate to us.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel Aristotle was close to godly, I am not. Contemporary Aristotelianism (after my fast research this morning) states that 'good' can only come out in social settings. Bollocks. You can think good and be good and bask in the happiness of good with no one around you.

but i think thats correct (about social settings). reminds me of that "if a tree falls down and nobody's around, does it make a sound" dealio. we will usually always think that we're good persons, i doubt it there's somebody sitting all alone going "im a bad person, im a bad person" except mentally challenged.

also if theres nobody around how can you do good?? or bad for that matter.

i like this thread

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty i like this thread

agreed. thank you for this educational thread to go along with my social geo courses today

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty but i think thats correct (about social settings). reminds me of that "if a tree falls down and nobody's around, does it make a sound" dealio. we will usually always think that we're good persons, i doubt it there's somebody sitting all alone going "im a bad person, im a bad person" except mentally challenged. also if theres nobody around how can you do good?? or bad for that matter. i like this thread

You can THINK bad thoughts though.... I know people that enjoy others' misfortune, even if that misfortune is seemingly undeserved. They will cover up these thoughts with sickly sweet smiles that don't reach their eyes when they see that person....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A world without tact.

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel You can THINK bad thoughts though.... I know people that enjoy others' misfortune, even if that misfortune is seemingly undeserved. They will cover up these thoughts with sickly sweet smiles that don't reach their eyes when they see that person....

oh, i know that. believe me. but again they need those other people to enjoy themselves. when they're all alone, even those bad toughts will be good ones in their heads, dont you agree?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.