You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Doctrine of No Words
- Thread starter URI
- Start date
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
If we know without having to think about it, then why do cultures differ in thier practices?
Why is it normal and accepted to marry a cousin in one culture, when it is morrally abhorent in another? Why is it ok to kill a man in one culture, when it is morally abhorent in another? Why do people with disassociative disorders lack empathy for other beings, and tend to have no remorse, and therefor no regulation other than threat of detention, for violent action against others - something considered morally abhorent to our culture?
The statement that we all know what's right and wrong without being taught those rules does not seem to play out in the world.
Why is it normal and accepted to marry a cousin in one culture, when it is morrally abhorent in another? Why is it ok to kill a man in one culture, when it is morally abhorent in another? Why do people with disassociative disorders lack empathy for other beings, and tend to have no remorse, and therefor no regulation other than threat of detention, for violent action against others - something considered morally abhorent to our culture?
The statement that we all know what's right and wrong without being taught those rules does not seem to play out in the world.
Last edited:
Sounds like you're actually saying there is no right and wrong.
To paraphrase Buddha: it's bad to feel guilty about what one shouldn't feel guitly about. It's bad not to feel guilty about what one should feel guilty about.
Some cultures say what isn't inherently wrong is wrong. Some cultures say what is inherently wrong isn't. Some people lack conscience. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as conscience which is independent of culture.
To paraphrase Buddha: it's bad to feel guilty about what one shouldn't feel guitly about. It's bad not to feel guilty about what one should feel guilty about.
Some cultures say what isn't inherently wrong is wrong. Some cultures say what is inherently wrong isn't. Some people lack conscience. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as conscience which is independent of culture.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
But it also doesn't mean that there is a universal conscience independent of culture.
There does seem to be a number of general basic actions which cause people to be unhappy. I might be willing to agree to this small set of items as a 'universal' morality. However, the root and result of that set - the meaning of it, especially in light of people who are born without that built in system - seems to be up in the air.
There does seem to be a number of general basic actions which cause people to be unhappy. I might be willing to agree to this small set of items as a 'universal' morality. However, the root and result of that set - the meaning of it, especially in light of people who are born without that built in system - seems to be up in the air.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
I'd say it's all relative. Even the most horrible acts can be positive in the right (extreme) situation.
Much of what people in my culture would classify under conscience/bad is only there because they were taught that it was bad. How many children hit, tease, steal, etc? How many do not show remorse for those actions prior to being taught otherwise?
Much of what people in my culture would classify under conscience/bad is only there because they were taught that it was bad. How many children hit, tease, steal, etc? How many do not show remorse for those actions prior to being taught otherwise?
Last edited:
Well, if their being taught "remorse" it seems like they are being taught to empathise and recognize that they shouldn't make someone feel a way they wouldn't want to feel. In other words the child automatically recognizes the "golden rule" otherwise they wouldn't actually be feeling remorse, they'd just be avoiding pain.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
We're basically discussing nature vs nurture here; being taught to empathize suggests that they don't feel remorse innately. They feel pain and sadness and 'bad' innately; most have to be taught to apply those feelings to other people in order to understand why they don't want to create 'bad' in someone else.
Disassociative disorders are a perfect killer of any "universal morality" for me - it seems that people with these conditions cannot even be taught empathy. Morality is not universal as long as there is a genetic (read: innate, and largely inescapable) component to their inability to feel empathy. Looking at the disorder in adoption cases with prior biological family history (in other words, genetics is much more likely a cause than the parenting of the adoptive family) suggests that genetics plays a significant role. And if a person cannot feel empathy for hereditary reasons, then 'universal' is a dead adjective of morality.
Disassociative disorders are a perfect killer of any "universal morality" for me - it seems that people with these conditions cannot even be taught empathy. Morality is not universal as long as there is a genetic (read: innate, and largely inescapable) component to their inability to feel empathy. Looking at the disorder in adoption cases with prior biological family history (in other words, genetics is much more likely a cause than the parenting of the adoptive family) suggests that genetics plays a significant role. And if a person cannot feel empathy for hereditary reasons, then 'universal' is a dead adjective of morality.
What I was saying is that for a child to act morally 2 things have to happen.
1) They must be able to empathise with the other person (recognise how the other person is feeling)
2) Not wish to make that person feel bad by recognising that they would not want to be treated bad (the golden rule).
So it is the recognition of the golden rule as a universal which is at the basis of morality. People with disassociative disorders lack an ability to empathise with others or to care about anyone but themselves. This means they don't have morality not that there isn't a universal morality. In toher words just because some people can't recognise right from wrong doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. Or am I wrong?
1) They must be able to empathise with the other person (recognise how the other person is feeling)
2) Not wish to make that person feel bad by recognising that they would not want to be treated bad (the golden rule).
So it is the recognition of the golden rule as a universal which is at the basis of morality. People with disassociative disorders lack an ability to empathise with others or to care about anyone but themselves. This means they don't have morality not that there isn't a universal morality. In toher words just because some people can't recognise right from wrong doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. Or am I wrong?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Buddha said:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire."
That looks like stoicism to me.
Stoicism is more a grit your teeth and bear it in the face of problems type of thing. One can desire as long as one is still good at gritting one's teeth when problems arise. Buddhism seeks to go toward what it thinks is the problem by eliminating desire itself.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Disassociative disorders are a perfect killer of any "universal morality" for me - it seems that people with these conditions cannot even be taught empathy. .
I don't think you are using dissociative disorders correctly here. Many people with DDs can empathize. I think you are talking about sociopaths.
Buddha said:
"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire."
That looks like stoicism to me.
So Grantywanty, you don't think this quote by Buddha also applies to stoicism?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
That is possible. The term is a bit of a blanket name for any case in which a normal part of the system is cut off from the rest of the psyche. The cases in which I'm referring are specifically dealing with Emotional Detachment and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Namely, those cases in which grover's step #2 simply doesn't work, and it causes great functional problems in life. Much higher risk of criminal behavior (in particular in violent ways), increased chance of addiction, self-involvment to the detriment of personal relationships, etc, etc.
Then what about the two common alternates to that question: "Swap the baby for an overwieght, middle-aged man" and "The train is heading towards the baby, but you are on a bridge overlooking the scene; standing next to the large middle-aged man. In order to save the baby, you have to push the man off the bridge into the path of the train - his wieght will stop it, but the impact will kill him and possibly some people on the trian."
Studies show that people tend to apt for saving the baby in version 1, letting the middle-aged guy die in version 2, and letting the baby die in version 3.
What does that say about a universal morality?
Namely, those cases in which grover's step #2 simply doesn't work, and it causes great functional problems in life. Much higher risk of criminal behavior (in particular in violent ways), increased chance of addiction, self-involvment to the detriment of personal relationships, etc, etc.
But if they don't have it, then it isn't Universal, is it? I'd accept "very common", though.This means they don't have morality not that there isn't a universal morality.
What about the common morality quizes? "You see a train full of 25 elderly people heading toward a baby sitting on the tracks. There is a switch in front of you that will divert the train away from the baby, but right into a brick wall. Not switching the tracks will certainly cause the baby to be killed, but switching them will certainly kill everyone on-board the train."In toher words just because some people can't recognise right from wrong doesn't mean there is no right and wrong. Or am I wrong?
Then what about the two common alternates to that question: "Swap the baby for an overwieght, middle-aged man" and "The train is heading towards the baby, but you are on a bridge overlooking the scene; standing next to the large middle-aged man. In order to save the baby, you have to push the man off the bridge into the path of the train - his wieght will stop it, but the impact will kill him and possibly some people on the trian."
Studies show that people tend to apt for saving the baby in version 1, letting the middle-aged guy die in version 2, and letting the baby die in version 3.
What does that say about a universal morality?
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
If there was a universal moratlity, but no people around to follow it, would it still exist, then?
I was considering this over the weekend, and could only come to one conclusion. If a morality existed outside of the people that followed it, (as a sort of field, let's say) but a single person existed that could not tap into that field and access this morality, then could the field still be considered universal?
Even though the field exists in and around him, he is not able to use it, no matter how much he might want to. Effectively, it is just as useful to him as if it didn't exist at all.
If a person was born that didn't have the ability to be effected by gravity, then could gravity still be considered a universal force?
I was considering this over the weekend, and could only come to one conclusion. If a morality existed outside of the people that followed it, (as a sort of field, let's say) but a single person existed that could not tap into that field and access this morality, then could the field still be considered universal?
Even though the field exists in and around him, he is not able to use it, no matter how much he might want to. Effectively, it is just as useful to him as if it didn't exist at all.
If a person was born that didn't have the ability to be effected by gravity, then could gravity still be considered a universal force?
Last edited:
Wrong "analogy". A tree is a material object and by falling creates physical sound waves that affect the surroundings.
Morality is a concept of psyche, i.e., it's a biochemical and electrical process.
If there are no brains, there is no morality.
Morality is a concept of psyche, i.e., it's a biochemical and electrical process.
If there are no brains, there is no morality.
Such philosophycal questions are quite useless, because you can not go around natural laws.If a person was born that didn't have the ability to be effected by gravity, then could gravity still be considered a universal force?
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
So Grantywanty, you don't think this quote by Buddha also applies to stoicism?
No. Stoicism to me is a system of not reacting emotionally, or getting caught up in emotions that comes with those reactions. That part shares something with Buddhism. But desire, which is forward looking/seeking is not a problem for a stoic. If what you desire does not come to you, then the Stoic and the Buddhist are fairly aligned, but the Buddhist goes further as in that quote, but trying to root out desires. I could imagine some Stoics seeing this as cowardly. A true Stoic can keep his or her desires AND STILL keep cool when disappointed or thwarted.
(I find both philosophies demand one be split against yourself, so they are not appealing to me personally, but for slightly different reasons.)
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
Such philosophycal questions are quite useless, because you can not go around natural laws.
So then it's a perfect example! If you cannot go around natural laws, but people with the disorders I'm talking about are "going around" this suggested universal morality, then clearly it is not a "natural law".
So then it's a perfect example! If you cannot go around natural laws, but people with the disorders I'm talking about are "going around" this suggested universal morality, then clearly it is not a "natural law".
These people may only appear to be "going around" these natural laws.