|
A world without tact. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| English Rachel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
Tact. Manners. Etiquette. Social conventions...hell, even morality. It's ALL learnt, taught or absorbed as a part of the human experience. None of it is innate. Human childern aren't born with the knowledege that pooping in public is wrong. Which is why they have to be potty trained. These are modifications we make / are forced to make to our behaviour because large segments of society deem it's 'the right way to behave'. Having tact doesn't really make us 'better' or 'more good' because these words are relative concepts used to judge another person, and the person(s) judging are relying on a singular perspective. One, which seeks to standardize, temper and regulate our behavior.
Personally, I believe in two fundamental models of morality as outlined by Nietzsche in "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Genealogy of Morals". Man created morality - Just like Man created the concept of God. It's all part of mankinds attempt to distance himself from the fact we are all animals.
Probably not the response / discussion the drunken threadstarter wanted, but there it is nonetheless. |
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. |
|
|
| capo tutti di |
| 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. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
*punches Yohan in the balls* |
stop punching my wooden balls!:whip: |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
 |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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 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? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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
;) |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
|
LOL!!!! Brotherly love LOL!!!! |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| 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. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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, ting and breathing are the only innate behaviours we have and that the rest is nurture..... ? |
|
|
|
|
