TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Morality is the way people govern their behavior toward other people.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Morality is the way people govern their behavior toward other people.

It's A way they govern their behavior.

Yeah yeah, there are also manners and lots of other considerations.

I think they're all part of a continuum really.

Narrow self-interest --> manners --> morals --> political ideology

The circle of consideration growing wider and wider.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT It's A way they govern their behavior.

God says you smell

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree God says you smell

If RJT smells like burnt animal flesh, then he is a pleasant fragrance unto the nostrils of the LORD.

If you think Kant's confusing to read, try it in the original German. I'm STILL angry at my professor for that one...

Sounds like a fun class though. There was a time a few years ago when I wanted to be a philosophy major... but I don't really want to teach, and well, there you go.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If RJT smells like burnt animal flesh, then he is a pleasant fragrance unto the nostrils of the LORD.

LMAO!

(Ah, to actually understand obscure Bible references...)

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yeah yeah, there are also manners and lots of other considerations. I think they're all part of a continuum really. Narrow self-interest --> manners --> morals --> political ideology The circle of consideration growing wider and wider.

Well, that in & of itself would be a problem for Kant, but moreover it's certainly debatable whether that is really a continuum or more of a series of issues that all have varying affect on each other.

At it's core I really think the best interpretation of morals I can offer is that they're very deeply connected to self interest, perhaps more so than any other aspects of motivation and personality, and that in general most people prioritize Self Interest > Morality.

But that's just my $0.02.

Yeah, that's why I specified "narrow self-interest," i.e. someone whose pleasure isn't deterred by whether he hurts other people. I think that one could say everybody is "self-interested" in some sense, but not all people are self-interested in the "narrow" sense.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT ... . ... I swear to you that I've heard dumb girls say things so incredibly close to that it would make you vomit with hilarious rage just knowing they exist. AND THE FUCKING SAINTS JUST KEEP FUCKING SUCKING IT UP! DREW BREES IS A COCKSUCKER!

Wow, I am actually watching football, too.

Well, not so much watching it...I am bored at work and the tv is displaying the big game (I think that's what all you well-adjusted heterosexuals refer to it as...?). I don't know who Drew Brees is, but I bet he disappoints his parents and his peers on a very regular occurrence! I bet his fashion sense is months behind, too. What a heathen.

And all this Kant business is well and good, but what is the morality behind football? What is the morality behind any sport that has become a pseudoreligion in the eyes of millions of adoring fans who gather around shiny lttle boxes for the gospel and who idolize the appearance of athletic prowess?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Yeah yeah, there are also manners and lots of other considerations. I think they're all part of a continuum really. Narrow self-interest --> manners --> morals --> political ideology The circle of consideration growing wider and wider.

You'd be surprised how circumstantial considerations such as time, emotional state, stress and other such variables play a bigger part in peoples behaviour towards other people in contrast with those you have posted. Except for self interest I would say.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Wow, I am actually watching football, too. Well, not so much watching it...I am bored at work and the tv is displaying the big game (I think that's what all you well-adjusted heterosexuals refer to it as...?). I don't know who Drew Brees is, but I bet he disappoints his parents and his peers on a very regular occurrence! I bet his fashion sense is months behind, too. What a heathen. And all this Kant business is well and good, but what is the morality behind football? What is the morality behind any sport that has become a pseudoreligion in the eyes of millions of adoring fans who gather around shiny lttle boxes for the gospel and who idolize the appearance of athletic prowess?

The morality is that Drew Brees is a fucking asshole who can't hold onto the fucking ball.

Fuck I hate the Colts. Every time Peyton Manning wins a football game, God murders a crack baby who'd just been adopted by nice folks.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Every time Peyton Manning wins a football game, God murders a crack baby who'd just been adopted by nice folks.

ahhhhhhhhhhhahahaha

Kant's tough to read, but at least he ends up making some kind of sense the majority of the time.

Can't say the same for Heidegger.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced

I'll take your bunneh and raise you a:

how well are the packers gonna go this year? favre is the greatest geriatric to ever play the game

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Can't say the same for Heidegger.

Really? I love Heidegger's work (even though I must admit I haven't read "Being and Time" thoroughly yet). His "What is Metaphysics?" summarises my world-view quite well...

I just couldn't help myself...

The problem with "Thus spoke Zarathustra" is that the things Nietzsche says are interesting, but I find his style rather annoying.

By the time I read the 10th "Lo!", I felt like I was reading a novel by Weebl

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The more I think about this the more I have to agree with Nietzsche... morality is just the heard instinct in the individual. Morality cannot be true and is something that is imposed upon us by those who's will to command us is stronger then our will to command ourselves.

And that reminds me of an interview I read with Frans de Waal - ever heard of him?

He mentions that our sense of morality is not much different from that of other primates, reason why he opposes the belief that morality and religion are tied together.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen I just couldn't help myself...

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree So, would you argue that there is no such thing as absolute good, if all morality derives from some sort of concept of good?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah moral hazard, surely if there was a divine creator there would be such concepts as absolute good/evil wrong/right etc?

I cannot believe in an absolute good being something that is understandable by humans. This is not to say that absolute good does not exist, rather that we cannot understand it. How could we as humans ever hope to understand anything that is absolute being as we have no frame of referrence for such a thing? Everything in human existance is finite and subjective; the absolute, eternal, objective, it is all beyond us. The best we could ever actually hope for is to come to some sort of peace with these concepts. Morality and moral codes are derivatives of what we perceive to be absolute good... perception is not reality.

PKC, your assertion that absolute good/evil/right/wrong must exist if there is a divine creator is contingent on that divine creator being absolute good/evil/right/wrong. Even if one accepts that there is a god I don't think one can confidently state that god is any of those things. Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, those are ideas that humans have created based on our understanding of existance... if there is a god it would not be limited in it's understanding of existance thus these ideas would not apply.

The reason questions of morality, right, wrong, good, evil, have been examined, re-examined, debated, studied for the whole of human existance with no firm resolution is because such a resolution is simply beyond us. This is why I will hold to the position that morality simply cannot exist in man as an objective code... it has to be individual and subjective... which is not morality at all. All the moral codes that have developed and are held out as standards, as truth, are really just attempts to temper the individual, to control others. Believe me, it actually pains me to hold this believe as it is at odds with my religious convictions, however, using reason I can come to no other conclusions.

Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and Religion)

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Check out the description of my first graduate level seminar class: So - my question to Craig (and anyone else who wants to discuss it - I'm looking at you Alon, Halcyon, Jiveboguy, etc.), does the notion that a religious foundation for ethics and duty can be derived entirely from reason and without divine revelation seem at all plausible to you?

absolutely. just me personally, i don't have any religious beliefs to speak of. i think for the most part that when you die that's it, you're just dead. with that in mind, i believe it necessary to embrace life, as it is the only chance i believe you get to experience happiness, love, contentment, etc. where a foundation for ethics comes into play for me is the harm principle. it is of the upmost importance to enjoy all you can with your time on earth without infringing upon the happiness or security of others. therefore, just because my personal beliefs provide an example, i would argue against kant in this situation.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FAO: Moral Hazard (& Anyone else interested in Kant and R

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm going to ignore your diatribe on the 3rd commandment as it is a religious law rather then a moral and muddies the water with regard to the orginal question posed. So you're position is that morals are a natural consequence of social order, correct? I reject this position because if it were true then morality would have to be dependent on the society from which it was developed. Again, this would means that morality is situational and not universal, therefore it is not absolute and by definition the rules of conduct you see as morality is really just ethics.

The religious stuff wasn't meant to muddy it was meant to illustrate a parallel construct. I'll use a different parallel construct to illustrate


Bob the hunter kills a bear. This is an extremely rare occurrence in the clan so everyone talks about it a lot around the campfire. Some years later a new generation is now around the campfire, and Bob's exploits are told again.

This time the storyteller changes the bear into "The Beast" in order to entertain the children. They hide behind their mothers arms as The Storyteller tromps around the fire pretending to be The Beast. Not surprisingly not a single person interrupts the story to say, "Santa Claus doesn't exist, the Beast is really just a Bear".

A few generations go by, and no one is alive who remembers that The Beast was ever a Bear. The Beast is now fact in the lore of the clan.


Is the following evolution of a story reasonable? Well I know 2 things about bears. The first is that they hibernate. The second is that Mother bears are infamous in the animal world for protecting their young. I also know that the thing that is scarier than Grendel... is Grendel's mother. I could spin you up a pantheon using this process with ease.

Or in its simplest incarnation. The Behaviour of 'goblins' and 'pixies' in a house, sound identical to The Behaviour of a raccoon at a campsite. They can't get into houses physically, but their story makes the transition easily.


To bring that back to your distinction between Ethics and Morality, all I am doing is arguing for the same transformation. The question of vegetarianism is an ethical debate today. In a thousand years it could easily be a question of morality if the ethical debate has become static against eating meat. In the same way, as the bear to beast transformation forgets its roots, I'm arguing that Morality is just a collection of ethical questions which were solved in the past.

And I'd add that since they are often attributed as being linked to some 'divine' truth that this attribution's basis could be reasonably traced to the desire to cement them as being static. Since they have been uploaded into the realm of the divine there is no reason to question their validity, hence they are cemented.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I cannot believe in an absolute good being something that is understandable by humans. This is not to say that absolute good does not exist, rather that we cannot understand it. How could we as humans ever hope to understand anything that is absolute being as we have no frame of referrence for such a thing? Everything in human existance is finite and subjective; the absolute, eternal, objective, it is all beyond us. The best we could ever actually hope for is to come to some sort of peace with these concepts. Morality and moral codes are derivatives of what we perceive to be absolute good... perception is not reality. PKC, your assertion that absolute good/evil/right/wrong must exist if there is a divine creator is contingent on that divine creator being absolute good/evil/right/wrong. Even if one accepts that there is a god I don't think one can confidently state that god is any of those things. Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, those are ideas that humans have created based on our understanding of existance... if there is a god it would not be limited in it's understanding of existance thus these ideas would not apply. The reason questions of morality, right, wrong, good, evil, have been examined, re-examined, debated, studied for the whole of human existance with no firm resolution is because such a resolution is simply beyond us. This is why I will hold to the position that morality simply cannot exist in man as an objective code... it has to be individual and subjective... which is not morality at all. All the moral codes that have developed and are held out as standards, as truth, are really just attempts to temper the individual, to control others. Believe me, it actually pains me to hold this believe as it is at odds with my religious convictions, however, using reason I can come to no other conclusions.

But there has to be some sort of corelation between human understanding of good and absolute good? Even if human has to infer some sort of understanding of absolute good from human experiences of good?

Even when you say that humans have no idea what an absolute good is, you make it sound like absolute good is very much alien from human concept of good such as helping an injured man.

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree But there has to be some sort of corelation between human understanding of good and absolute good? Even if human has to infer some sort of understanding of absolute good from human experiences of good? Even when you say that humans have no idea what an absolute good is, you make it sound like absolute good is very much alien from human concept of good such as helping an injured man.

We presume there is a corolation, we cannot know. It could be that if there is an absolute good our idea of what that is may be dead on, however, it's unlikely. We are limited creatures, we can only understand things within our limits. Anything absolute is outside of our comprehension, thinking that it is not is the height of arrogance. The long and short of it is as follows.... human morality cannot be true as it professes to be absolute and objective whereas we are incapable of understanding that which is absolute and objective.

BTW, is it good to help an injured man if doing so only prologs suffering? If your assistance will allow the man 5 minutes of additional life consumed by incomperable pain... was your assistance a moral act... was it good... was it virtuous even?

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