How Do You Define Morality?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. Can someone please help?

[*quote]I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post[/quote]
Then take out the *

But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?

I can not define best but there are common sense choices. Usually that is a mix of freedom and the voice of the people for big choices. I don't have the time to get into my personal choices and hypocriticalness right now but I can later if you want.

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

According to my personal morals and my society's morals, what Hitler did was bad. You can not be all accepting with morals, if there is direct confrontation with morals, you have to fight for one or the other, I have chosen my side. That also brings up another problem...I love subjective topics.

What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us. Its gets a lot more complicated but most situations work out that way. I can go into my own personal theories when I have the time.

[orthodoc]

I can not define best but there are common sense choices.

My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

I'm pretty sure that in the grander sense, the universe doesn't give a sh*t if you are a hitler. However, your mother cares, your descendants may care, and therefore you may care if only by extension. It's all tied to time, place & circumstance.
The question of why one race might consider itself to be superior is merely an extension of why our species considers itself to be the culmination of creation -- IMHO, it ain't. There is no absolute.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Whats the point of saying this anyways?

Is it because DanaC's philosophy crosses the line from personal to active imposition of her beliefs on others?

[Pie]

"Mirror neurons" (aka empathy) are what allow us to "know" what someone else wants/needs. If you can't make an educated guess at what is going on in someone else's head, you're probably autistic or have some other such disorder.

[queequeger]

Oh and for the record, Dana, fuck yeah!

[Flint]

The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.

...you haven't informed yourself...

I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Flint

The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.
I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...

I agree, the question was 'How Do You Define Morality'; not 'How Do You Think People of Religions Not Your Own Define Morality'. I'd have been interested to hear your thoughts on what defines morality for you, Flint.

As for the short, 'public' summary, you are the one who made a statement on behalf of two religious faiths. It was inaccurate and insulting. Your statement "They define morality as what is written in a book" doesn't even make sense. (I could assume that you're saying they take their moral principles from their sacred writings, and you still wouldn't have the entire concept, and that's not the point anyway.) My question is, why do this? Why attempt to state what someone else, whose beliefs you don't hold, believes, when the question is how do you define morality?


Finally, I didn't say it was self-evident that you are not informed; I said it was self-evident that you're not in a position to speak authoritatively on behalf of either Muslims or Christians ... given that you're not one (that was the self-evident part). I said that either you haven't informed yourself about these faiths, or you're choosing to be insulting.

[Flint]

Yeah, I'm being insulting. You are, I assume, "speaking from a position of authority" . . . ha ha ha

[DanaC]

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

Nope.

[DanaC]

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us.

I like that.

[Flint]

Also, though, if you disagree with an aspect of that society, sometimes you have to swim upstream.

[DanaC]

That's very true Flint.

I want to come back to this one:

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

I've been thinking about this response, and I find it quite an interesting one. I said that the sentiment "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" underpins both my political philosophy and my personal moral code. I am not sure how that gives the impression that I am the one who decides what each person's needs and abilities are. I am not a revolutionary, I am a socialist who believes in the democratic process.

In a democratic system, citizens vote politicians in and out of power, they hold the final and most powerful card in the pack. Those politicians enact laws and control the tax system. If an individual or party believes in flat taxes they campaign for flat taxes, if they believe in prgressive taxation they campaign for progressive taxation and the electorate decide which of those individuals or parties they will vote for.

I personally believe in socialist values therefore I, along with many of my ilk, campaign for redistributive taxation. I say again, I am not in favour of revolution; it's about winning people to your point of view, persuading them of the benefits of the system you believe in and if you succeed with enough people, in that argument, it finds its expression in the ballot box.

Just as your country has come to certain shared conclusions so has ours. If a democratic country elects its politicians and agrees a set of codes on which to run their country (such as taxation levels and styles) there will be some individuals for whom that decision will not sit easily. Unless you remove government entirely and remove taxation entirely then someone, somewhere is making decisions about what other individuals can and should pay in tax, and about what they can and cannot do in law. That is no different to a country electing a government which believes in socialist values. If you don't like it, then get involved and campaign and make sure you cast your vote carefully.

[orthodoc]

Thanks, Dana, your post is very helpful. I misunderstood your earlier, shorter post; because it stated the Marxist view without comment I thought it implied that you are in favor of a communist system, not a democratic one. While I may not agree with your particular political views, I definitely agree on the importance of becoming active and informed within a democracy, and of working to further the values you hold.

I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.

[DanaC]

orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.

It's also important to understand that Marx wasn't working towards a revolution, he was predicting the conditions that in his view would lead to one. Given the proximity of his writing to the 1840s revolutions and the earlier French Revolution, that wasn't entirely off base. Also, given the extremes that existed within the emerging industrial nations it was something that many people were talking about.

We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.

I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.

And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".

The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.