The Limits of Morality

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:11 am

Charm wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:45 am
The goal of philosophy is not to learn the form of philosophy as it is taught, but to learn what all forms have in common, and what each can teach us..
How do you envision what the form of philosophy is as it is taught? I daresay that's an unconventional way of looking at the subject matter.

Whatever it is, that form-thing, how can you learn what all forms have in common, when you abandon learning them? And if the point is not to learn what is taught, why teach philosophy in the first place?

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:00 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:35 am
Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:06 pm
Judaka wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 2:06 pm
If this wasn't a philosophy forum I would be sure I was getting trolled but I've met enough people here who have such insane ideas that I believe you actually think you're in the right here.

I've had enough.

Good day.
Yep, lots of trolls about and not enough goats!
I don't know if I necessarily agree with your statement entirely, judaka seems like a good sacrificial goat to me.
Who takes even a single step in the wrong direction? Everyone actually thinks they are in the right.. People tell their truth, that they are true, and will conceal inconsistencies.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:07 am

-1- wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:11 am
Charm wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:45 am
The goal of philosophy is not to learn the form of philosophy as it is taught, but to learn what all forms have in common, and what each can teach us..
How do you envision what the form of philosophy is as it is taught? I daresay that's an unconventional way of looking at the subject matter.

Whatever it is, that form-thing, how can you learn what all forms have in common, when you abandon learning them? And if the point is not to learn what is taught, why teach philosophy in the first place?
I don't know why philosophy is taught since when it is taught it is taught to those who already have some sub conscious understanding of it already.. Math, for example as pure abstract reasoning cannot be grasped without the understanding of Identity.. This is a common element of all knowledge.. I was at an advanced age before I made conscious this understanding of Identity/conservation simply by explaining it to myself.. In fact, there are many adults especially in politics who have no fixed meaning for the words they use, and no moral consideration beyond expedience.. My point is that Philosophy is wasted on the older student, that morality cannot be taught at all.. If it could make a difference it would not be taught at all.. Okay.. Say I am prejudiced because I have little formal education.. What every branch of knowledge teaches is the form, but those who teach have their own form of relationship, and to be an official philosopher one must know the form as it is taught, and teach the form as it is learned; and I would ask: What is the point.. Knowledge, concepts are conserved.. Conservatism is also a common human quality.. Can a revolutionary philosophy be taught when those who teach are conservative?? What do these add to our understanding, or to the prospect of our existence.. I came to philosophy through the back door with certain questions, some of which have been with me all of my life.. I learned far more than I set out to learn.. Because I have no formal education in philosophy I call myself what I am without benefit of an education.. I am a moralist..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:50 am

Charm wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:35 am
Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:06 pm


Yep, lots of trolls about and not enough goats!
I don't know if I necessarily agree with your statement entirely, judaka seems like a good sacrificial goat to me.
Who takes even a single step in the wrong direction? Everyone actually thinks they are in the right.. People tell their truth, that they are true, and will conceal inconsistencies.
All moral pathes have simulatenous good and bad elements. Bad, or evil, is strictly a deficiency in good; hence in certain respects all paths are good but the question is one of fullness.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:38 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:50 am
Charm wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:00 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:35 am


I don't know if I necessarily agree with your statement entirely, judaka seems like a good sacrificial goat to me.
Who takes even a single step in the wrong direction? Everyone actually thinks they are in the right.. People tell their truth, that they are true, and will conceal inconsistencies.
All moral pathes have simulatenous good and bad elements. Bad, or evil, is strictly a deficiency in good; hence in certain respects all paths are good but the question is one of fullness.
Correct.. Every choice is a moral choice, but I expect that for most of us, those choices have been made long before they are tested.. If your morals are tested every day, what does that say about your society ?.. I did something very moral once that nearly killed me.. There was no thought at that point besides my vacilation.. When I acted it was not because of what I thought, but because of who I am.. I am not the sort of man who watches people die without trying to help them.. I don't think a moral form can be defined with certainty, and yet obviously, morality is community.. You need to be moral to live in society as a full member.. It doesn't matter where anyone stands because if they do not accept the morality of society, they are already beyond the pale..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:37 pm

Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:50 am
Charm wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:00 pm


Who takes even a single step in the wrong direction? Everyone actually thinks they are in the right.. People tell their truth, that they are true, and will conceal inconsistencies.
All moral pathes have simulatenous good and bad elements. Bad, or evil, is strictly a deficiency in good; hence in certain respects all paths are good but the question is one of fullness.
Correct.. Every choice is a moral choice, but I expect that for most of us, those choices have been made long before they are tested.. If your morals are tested every day, what does that say about your society ?.. I did something very moral once that nearly killed me.. There was no thought at that point besides my vacilation.. When I acted it was not because of what I thought, but because of who I am.. I am not the sort of man who watches people die without trying to help them.. I don't think a moral form can be defined with certainty, and yet obviously, morality is community.. You need to be moral to live in society as a full member.. It doesn't matter where anyone stands because if they do not accept the morality of society, they are already beyond the pale..
You are right. The problem of acting virtuous, is that if it is recognized and honored that means there is a simultaneous evil element in society and that society is fundamentally split.

Ideally virtue should not have to be talked about, vice as well (obviously).

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:19 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:37 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:38 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:50 am


All moral pathes have simulatenous good and bad elements. Bad, or evil, is strictly a deficiency in good; hence in certain respects all paths are good but the question is one of fullness.
Correct.. Every choice is a moral choice, but I expect that for most of us, those choices have been made long before they are tested.. If your morals are tested every day, what does that say about your society ?.. I did something very moral once that nearly killed me.. There was no thought at that point besides my vacilation.. When I acted it was not because of what I thought, but because of who I am.. I am not the sort of man who watches people die without trying to help them.. I don't think a moral form can be defined with certainty, and yet obviously, morality is community.. You need to be moral to live in society as a full member.. It doesn't matter where anyone stands because if they do not accept the morality of society, they are already beyond the pale..
You are right. The problem of acting virtuous, is that if it is recognized and honored that means there is a simultaneous evil element in society and that society is fundamentally split.

Ideally virtue should not have to be talked about, vice as well (obviously).
I am not disagreeing with you.. What happens in nature, floods, hurricanes, calamity can hardly be classed as evil because it is mindless.. Rather, it is human activity, also often mindless enough that is classed as evil.. What Oedipus gave as his apology was: I did what I did not knowing what I did.. No philosopher should offer this excuse because as Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.. If this is true it is because we think first and do after with some certainty that what we are doing is right.. We have a society that values action over thought, and it is inevitable that many do evil having no conception of the consequences of their actions..

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:28 pm

Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:37 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:38 pm
Correct.. Every choice is a moral choice, but I expect that for most of us, those choices have been made long before they are tested.. If your morals are tested every day, what does that say about your society ?.. I did something very moral once that nearly killed me.. There was no thought at that point besides my vacilation.. When I acted it was not because of what I thought, but because of who I am.. I am not the sort of man who watches people die without trying to help them.. I don't think a moral form can be defined with certainty, and yet obviously, morality is community.. You need to be moral to live in society as a full member.. It doesn't matter where anyone stands because if they do not accept the morality of society, they are already beyond the pale..
You are right. The problem of acting virtuous, is that if it is recognized and honored that means there is a simultaneous evil element in society and that society is fundamentally split.

Ideally virtue should not have to be talked about, vice as well (obviously).
I am not disagreeing with you.. What happens in nature, floods, hurricanes, calamity can hardly be classed as evil because it is mindless.. Rather, it is human activity, also often mindless enough that is classed as evil.. What Oedipus gave as his apology was: I did what I did not knowing what I did.. No philosopher should offer this excuse because as Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.. If this is true it is because we think first and do after with some certainty that what we are doing is right.. We have a society that values action over thought, and it is inevitable that many do evil having no conception of the consequences of their actions..
Thought is pure action, we live in a society of little action equivocally similar to a form of "stagnation" or "desolation" as a moral code where we are not permitted, without severe punishment, to act freely.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:49 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:28 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:19 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:37 pm

You are right. The problem of acting virtuous, is that if it is recognized and honored that means there is a simultaneous evil element in society and that society is fundamentally split.

Ideally virtue should not have to be talked about, vice as well (obviously).
I am not disagreeing with you.. What happens in nature, floods, hurricanes, calamity can hardly be classed as evil because it is mindless.. Rather, it is human activity, also often mindless enough that is classed as evil.. What Oedipus gave as his apology was: I did what I did not knowing what I did.. No philosopher should offer this excuse because as Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.. If this is true it is because we think first and do after with some certainty that what we are doing is right.. We have a society that values action over thought, and it is inevitable that many do evil having no conception of the consequences of their actions..
Thought is pure action, we live in a society of little action equivocally similar to a form of "stagnation" or "desolation" as a moral code where we are not permitted, without severe punishment, to act freely.
Thought is potential.. It is not action.. It takes energy, but it save energy..

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:27 pm

Charm wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:49 pm
Thought is potential.. It is not action.. It takes energy, but it save energy..
Any saving is a return on investment.

You get out what you put in...

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3520
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:21 am

Charm wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:49 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:28 pm
Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:19 pm


I am not disagreeing with you.. What happens in nature, floods, hurricanes, calamity can hardly be classed as evil because it is mindless.. Rather, it is human activity, also often mindless enough that is classed as evil.. What Oedipus gave as his apology was: I did what I did not knowing what I did.. No philosopher should offer this excuse because as Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.. If this is true it is because we think first and do after with some certainty that what we are doing is right.. We have a society that values action over thought, and it is inevitable that many do evil having no conception of the consequences of their actions..
Thought is pure action, we live in a society of little action equivocally similar to a form of "stagnation" or "desolation" as a moral code where we are not permitted, without severe punishment, to act freely.
Thought is potential.. It is not action.. It takes energy, but it save energy..
Action is potential thought as well. Hence you are left with a problem of beginning point in measurement if you wish to justify your stance. Thought as both actual and potential energy, is still thought as actual energy.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:12 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:21 am
Charm wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:49 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:28 pm


Thought is pure action, we live in a society of little action equivocally similar to a form of "stagnation" or "desolation" as a moral code where we are not permitted, without severe punishment, to act freely.
Thought is potential.. It is not action.. It takes energy, but it save energy..
Action is potential thought as well. Hence you are left with a problem of beginning point in measurement if you wish to justify your stance. Thought as both actual and potential energy, is still thought as actual energy.
Thought does take energy and so it is hard to say it isn't action.. Same with feelings, the emotions that drive us, or perhaps- motivate us, because the anticipation of a certain emotional state gives us pleasure or happiness to contemplate..

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by 11011 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:43 pm

morality can also be freeing, to the extent that members of a society are bonded to their social group and seek to protect both it and its members

through this protection, individual members experience the freedom to experience the full breadth of human emotions, including love, empathy, deep connection, etc, which require trust.

when no effort is made to socialize members into wanting to protect and cherish one another, individuals feel alone in the world, and like it is them against the world (everyone else), everyone for themselves. one becomes preoccupied with simply protecting themselves and their basic interests, and the luxury of the full breadth of human experience is lost, like being only able to see a few colors of the spectrum

and of course what is morality? and what is immorality?

people have a tendency to define particular group and their beliefs/ideologies as good or evil, but i think the essence of morality is, respectively, having and cherishing bonds with ones membership group vs betraying those bonds and any others one might have to other humans. it is in this latter state that people become immoral, in their thoughts, feelings, and/behaviour.

although merely being a private person who keeps their distance from others does not make one immoral, as such a person still cherishing the thought of being part of a social group and seeks to protect this, even if only just this thought as they abstain from any worldly action, because of the freeing psychological effect it provides them. it soothes their soul.

indeed, i believe this to be the essence of morality, for i have seen even islamic extremists exchange deep affections with their members, even after blowing off a prisoners head. in fact, it is these shared activities underlied by a common belief - which can change over time (what's important is that they are shared) - that appear to strengthen their bonds to the organization; were they to betray the organization and thus those bonds they would be considered immoral by their former group, now on the 'wrong path'. on the other hand enemy groups might consider them 'right', this is where the relativity of morality arises.

but what is universal is the condition that one cherish and protect membership bonds vs destroying them, regardless of the particulars of membership group ideologies, beliefs, values, etc.

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by 11011 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 3:59 pm

moreover, while discarding morality may make you comfortable in doing things you otherwise wouldn't feel comfortable doing, and thus apparently opening up opportunity, insodoing you limit the potential impact those experiences can have on you, because you've also discarded the psychological conditions necessary for those experiences to be meaningful.

discard morality -> discard bonds/connection with other humans -> discard empathy -> discard ability to view other people's experiences with pleasure, or pain, or sorrow, etc.

(btw, discarding morality in this sense is not to be confused with merely changing morality, for example, the transition from religious to secular morals in 'developed' countries)

but i guess this all depends on what you consider the purpose of life, or just your life. some people view experience as little more than notches on their belt, things by which people will give them respect, belonging, etc. they don't care how it 'impacts' them. they are a means to limited or narrow ends, thus curtailing the potential impact (enjoyability, inspiration, significance, etc) their experiences can have on them, seeing only a few colors, as it were.

what i am saying is that morality can be rational, it can maximize your self-interest insofar as you are interested in living a happy, meaningful life. it may or may not make you most fit to survive or be 'successful' in your current society/location in life, but consider that you will die eventually, and so survival as a sole end goal is rather irrational, and in fact the human race will assuredly die also at some point, as all species do, and so any accumulated wealth or accomplishments will cease to exist even as a memory in someone's mind, and you must think to yourself whether this fantasy of living for anything other than maximal happiness is worth it, whether on a personal level or humanity.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by -1- » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:47 am

Charm wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:19 pm
What Oedipus gave as his apology was: I did what I did not knowing what I did. No philosopher should offer this excuse because as Socrates said: Knowledge is Virtue.
This is very curious, since it is also attributed to Socrates that according to his own self-confession, the only thing he knew was that he did not know anything.

I think it helps to make self-contradictory statements by a philosopher, because then he doubles the number of times he is quoted in support of a theory, which promotes his name-recognition.

That he makes a complete fool of himself and an object of ridicule is not pointed out by society, because that would reduce the teaching or pedagogical effect when quoting him. We all need a hero; and heroes only exist because we idolize them, not because they exist in a state of heroism.

Heroes, legends, saints, gods, and other scum of the Earth are only part of the role playing that we force them into playing. None of them ever start out with the ideals or convictions we later attribute to them.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: henry quirk and 1 guest