|
A world without tact. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Moral Hazard |
| 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, ting 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. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Who can argue with Craig's logic?
*spits in Craig's hair* |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Who can argue with Craig's logic?
*spits in Craig's hair* |
awwwww, thanks. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| 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. |
|
|
| Ania_xox |
| 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 :toocool:
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. |
|
|
| Porky |
| quote: | Originally posted by jennypie
Who can argue with Craig's logic?
|
not i.
very intereseting reading.. thank you sir craig. |
|
|
| Porky |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kytracid
"Genealogy of Morals". |
a dangerous book... |
|
|
| Tb. |
| we're all s, some just hide it better than others |
|
|
| evil_cookie |
| 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. |
|
|
| English Rachel |
| 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. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| 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 |
|
|
| jchung52 |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
