Ways of being immoral

[Lev Muishkin]

As to the question of why I included gullibility in the list of ways to be immoral, see the discussion on this topic, and on the opposite of gullibility, namely skepticism, on pages 34-37 here:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf

Also, recall, in the thread here What is Morality?, at the outset it argues for the position that morality may be towards oneself as well as toward others. As explained in my Ethical Explorations paper, when one aims to be moral one is best-advised to develop a skeptical attitude, to value highly an evidence-based claim rather than one for which any evidence cannot be shown.

Your thoughts?

.

My thoughts: your thoughts border on the ridiculous.
I think you completely misunderstand morality.

From the text, which mentions the Milgram experiment, the moral infraction is not by the gullible but by those who exploited another person's gullibility.
The issue with those that participated in the experiment to the apparent detriment of the "victim" was a lack of personal responsibility, not their credulity.

[prof]

As to the question of why I included gullibility in the list of ways to be immoral, see the discussion on this topic, and on the opposite of gullibility, namely skepticism, on pages 34-37 here:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf

Also, recall, in the thread here What is Morality?, at the outset it argues for the position that morality may be towards oneself as well as toward others. As explained in my Ethical Explorations paper, when one aims to be moral one is best-advised to develop a skeptical attitude, to value highly an evidence-based claim rather than one for which any evidence cannot be shown.

Your thoughts?

.

My thoughts: your thoughts border on the ridiculous.
I think you completely misunderstand morality.

Aside from the immorality (exhibited above) of rudeness, the lack of respect, and the (would-be) squelching of creativity, thus subtracting value instead of adding it, it is quite obvious that my friend, Lev, and I, each have distinctly different meanings of the word "morality" in mind.

The logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, is once again on display in the previous post.

Also note how a gap in human relations is initiated, often, by a phrase such as: "you completely misunderstand...". The use of such language is the opposite of being ethical. It tends to drive a wedge between people instead of uniting them in harmonious cooperation.

[Lev Muishkin]

As to the question of why I included gullibility in the list of ways to be immoral, see the discussion on this topic, and on the opposite of gullibility, namely skepticism, on pages 34-37 here:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ONS%20.pdf

Also, recall, in the thread here What is Morality?, at the outset it argues for the position that morality may be towards oneself as well as toward others. As explained in my Ethical Explorations paper, when one aims to be moral one is best-advised to develop a skeptical attitude, to value highly an evidence-based claim rather than one for which any evidence cannot be shown.

Your thoughts?

.

My thoughts: your thoughts border on the ridiculous.
I think you completely misunderstand morality.

Aside from the immorality (exhibited above) of rudeness, the lack of respect, and the (would-be) squelching of creativity, thus subtracting value instead of adding it, it is quite obvious that my friend, Lev, and I, each have distinctly different meanings of the word "morality" in mind.

The logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem, is once again on display in the previous post.

Also note how a gap in human relations is initiated, often, by a phrase such as: "you completely misunderstand...". The use of such language is the opposite of being ethical. It tends to drive a wedge between people instead of uniting them in harmonious cooperation.

Not only do you have a peculiar understanding of "morality", but of "ad hominem" too.

Let me take you through it.
An ad hom fallacy is the argument that a person is wrong because of some fact about the person.
For example "you are wrong about psychology, because you are a mechanic"; or "You can't understand morality, because you are not a priest".
Above, I have merely reflected upon the fact that you do not understand "morality", I've said nothing about you, as I know nothing about you.

But you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with idiotic statements such as saying a person misunderstands a thing is unethical". That would mean all teachers are unethical.
There was no "wedge" intended. But an opportunity raised to unpack the meaning of morality.

[HexHammer]

..sigh! ..wiggie still discussing with the assumed stroke victim!

[CJHunsinger]

There are no constants and that would include any explanation of ethics or morality. The best that can be said for both is that they are transient positions of conduct in a given and changing culture.
For one to be classified as immoral is to function in some way that is outside of the accepted norm.
Perhaps, it was immoral for one to practice homosexuality. That now is changing and becoming normal and morally acceptable. "When the abnormal becomes normal the normal becomes abnormal." That said, at some point, in accordance with this changing morality, heterosexual monogamous relationships or marriage my be immoral for the good of society.
All things, regardless of conduct, can be justified as moral, immoral or amoral depending on the given culture, at a given period in tie.

[prof]

.

I just thought of three other ways of being immoral, namely being:

snobbish

racist

dogmatic, rigid, absolutistic.

...The good news is that I have adapted the logical definition of "morality" that was proposed in earlier years so that it makes more sense; by applying the Axiom of Ethics {which you know by now, at least in its imperative form} to the concept of morality, we arrive, by deduction, at this: Make things better! when applied to morality becomes Make yourself better! which, in turn, implies Keep growing morally throughout life. It implies the 'continuous self-improvement' to which the o.p. of that thread "What is Morality?" was alluding. It all seems to fit together nicely.

...Comments? Improvements?

It's not immoral to be any of those things as long as they don't hurt others. You might as well say it's 'immoral' to be shy, or extrovert, or bad-tempered.

Hi, Veggie

We agree that to hurt someone is immoral. [That of course is why rudeness and face-to-face anger are on the original list.]

I would argue that being bad-tempered, or snobbish, or racist, or rigid is immoral, not only because immorality may be toward oneself, as well as toward others, but also because one is rather likely eventually to hurt someone by possessing those attitudes and behavioral tendencies. Sooner or later in their social encounters, or by their votes in elections for someone with similar characteristics as their own - someone who now would have power, they will thus result in hurting someone or some group of people.

I explained how morality is in part toward yourself in the o.p. of that thread What is Morality? q.v.

[Daniel Lezcano]

Your thoughts?

.

My thoughts: your thoughts border on the ridiculous.
I think you completely misunderstand morality.

From the text, which mentions the Milgram experiment, the moral infraction is not by the gullible but by those who exploited another person's gullibility.
The issue with those that participated in the experiment to the apparent detriment of the "victim" was a lack of personal responsibility, not their credulity.

Lev Muishkin you say the text said: “The moral infraction is not by the gullible but by those who exploited another person's gullibility,” do you actually agree with that?

Forgive me; I have not examined every post in this thread as it is some 60+ posts. Furthermore, I may be missing some context that would render more of the quote sensible. However, while it is fair to say that the immoral action involves the “exploitation of the gullible,” this is not to say the gullible have not committed an immoral act is it? Moreover, the presupposition that the “exploited” were simply “gullible,” is I believe, false. It may be a possible grounds, but “gullibility,” is far too simple minded or superficial.

I did not take those upon which the experiment was carried out to be simple minded; rather, I took them as failing to adhere to their own conviction. Thus, they would be guilty of: inauthenticity – which is to say dishonesty by way of failing to remain true to one’s own conviction; of lacking integrity – as evidence by their action when in an environment that is free of judgment, and in fact encouraging the immorality; hypocrisy – for it is without doubt that they would say they wish to be honest, integrous and authentic, but then discover they have not behaved as such; cowardly – again as defined by the inability to experience the courage of their own conviction.

In conclusion, I do not take the Milligram experiment to be an indication of the power of influence, or as an example of immoral exploitation; rather, I see it as evidence of the fallible nature of man – that what we humans say, and what we do is often incongruent.

I hope I’m not too far out in left field here; I feel suspect because it would take more time then I am willing to devote to truly be sure of all the contexts leading up to this section of the thread – guilty of being lazy am I? lol

[HexHammer]

In conclusion, I do not take the Milligram experiment to be an indication of the power of influence, or as an example of immoral exploitation; rather, I see it as evidence of the fallible nature of man – that what we humans say, and what we do is often incongruent.

Then you don't understand the nature of the Milgram Experiment.

[Daniel Lezcano]

In conclusion, I do not take the Milligram experiment to be an indication of the power of influence, or as an example of immoral exploitation; rather, I see it as evidence of the fallible nature of man – that what we humans say, and what we do is often incongruent.

Then you don't understand the nature of the Milgram Experiment.

Enlighten me ... But before you do, know that I take no issue with pointing out the power of influence; as one might do when examining the experiment. ----that should have been evident in my posts context right from the beginning. If it was not, then I failed to properly express myself.

However, the result shows that some people will, regardless of feeling the conviction of their own moral obligation, suffer denying them by conforming to authority. Within that sentence, are both realities; the power of influence, and the fallibility (cowardice, hypocrisy, inauthenticity, etc. etc.) of man.

[HexHammer]

Enlighten me ... But before you do, know that I take no issue with pointing out the power of influence; as one might do when examining the experiment. ----that should have been evident in my posts context right from the beginning. If it was not, then I failed to properly express myself.

However, the result shows that some people will, regardless of feeling the conviction of their own moral obligation, suffer denying them by conforming to authority. Within that sentence, are both realities; the power of influence, and the fallibility (cowardice, hypocrisy, inauthenticity, etc. etc.) of man.

I see you correctly can tell all aspects of the described experiment, but as most doesn't understand the unwritten parts where it comes Down to compulsion and other psychological aspects.

[Arising_uk]

Then you don't understand the nature of the Milgram Experiment.

And yet the latest peer-review appear to point to different conclusions than you assume?

[HexHammer]

Then you don't understand the nature of the Milgram Experiment.

And yet the latest peer-review appear to point to different conclusions than you assume?

Link please!

[prof]

R. Ringel, reviewing on an earlier manuscript I wrote, said - and it seems relevant here in this thread which is on the topic of lapses in morality - this, and I quote:

"This is a good approach to introducing value science. It is certainly the best I have read. It's loaded with interesting material. Since you bring up in your paper the topic of moral inconsistency, I would suggest that from a scientific and mathematical point of view, the Theory of Chaos would make good sense, since there are hidden chaotic patterns within moral inconsistency." (emphasis added).

These Comments were by Richard Ringel, a Complexity Theory scientist, Director of a Computing Laboratory. He now has founded his own start-up, in Virginia, U.S.A.

[Lev Muishkin]

Your thoughts?

.

My thoughts: your thoughts border on the ridiculous.
I think you completely misunderstand morality.

From the text, which mentions the Milgram experiment, the moral infraction is not by the gullible but by those who exploited another person's gullibility.
The issue with those that participated in the experiment to the apparent detriment of the "victim" was a lack of personal responsibility, not their credulity.

Lev Muishkin you say the text said: “The moral infraction is not by the gullible but by those who exploited another person's gullibility,” do you actually agree with that?

Forgive me; I have not examined every post in this thread as it is some 60+ posts. Furthermore, I may be missing some context that would render more of the quote sensible. However, while it is fair to say that the immoral action involves the “exploitation of the gullible,” this is not to say the gullible have not committed an immoral act is it? Moreover, the presupposition that the “exploited” were simply “gullible,” is I believe, false. It may be a possible grounds, but “gullibility,” is far too simple minded or superficial.

I did not take those upon which the experiment was carried out to be simple minded; rather, I took them as failing to adhere to their own conviction. Thus, they would be guilty of: inauthenticity – which is to say dishonesty by way of failing to remain true to one’s own conviction; of lacking integrity – as evidence by their action when in an environment that is free of judgment, and in fact encouraging the immorality; hypocrisy – for it is without doubt that they would say they wish to be honest, integrous and authentic, but then discover they have not behaved as such; cowardly – again as defined by the inability to experience the courage of their own conviction.

In conclusion, I do not take the Milligram experiment to be an indication of the power of influence, or as an example of immoral exploitation; rather, I see it as evidence of the fallible nature of man – that what we humans say, and what we do is often incongruent.

I hope I’m not too far out in left field here; I feel suspect because it would take more time then I am willing to devote to truly be sure of all the contexts leading up to this section of the thread – guilty of being lazy am I? lol

The participants were under pressure in an environment that they had no control in.

The experiment was a reflexion of society. A society that managed to send millions of young men to their deaths - or to kill other young men from foreign land. The pressure that generation were under was the pressure that comes from their peers, the moral indignation of being labelled a "coward", and the legal pressure which damned the "conscientious objectors" as illegal.

Whilst I would have the aspiration that the guards at Auswitz should feel they had the power to say "no"; or that other members of the German nation could freely rebel against German expansionism on one hand. I cannot damn the whole population of Germany for crimes that are best levelled at the leadership.

There is an important lesson here for psychology; and a warning for us all. But is being gullible immoral? If that is the case then we have to damn all our children - whatever age they are.

[prof]

Thank you, Lev, for a fine contribution !!

And we agree on so many policy issues, such as, for example, climate change reforms.