Ethics and Morality, Huh?

[Baron Max]

Millions of people in fact agree on many ethical principles.

How many millions agree, James? And what percentage does it represent?

And what of the millions who don't agree? You just disregard their feelings and thoughts on the matter? ...and then y'all try to force those others to conform to your ethics and morality?

How does that work, James? Like from the muzzle of a gun?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

We've already been through this, Max. If you didn't get it the first time, repeating myself would be wasting my breath.

 

[swarm]

Millions of people in fact agree on many ethical principles.

Billions of people disagree.

Also those who agree usually only agree on a gross level about general points. People who completely agree are so rare I can only count 2 that I know personally and they are one of those weird blissfully happy couples madly in love with each other.

Ethical agreement is basically an oxymoron.

 

[swarm]

In extreme circumstances, sometimes even war is morally justifiable.

See? I disagree.

War and violence in general may be unavoidable at times, like when you or another are directly attacked, but that doesn't mean it is morally justified.

I have no problem admitting not every necessary action has to be morally justified.

 

[Gustav]

I have no problem admitting not every necessary action has to be morally justified.

sweet
we are down to "necessary"
such as your demise
my kung fu is strong
your protestations
weak

ciao

 

[Gustav]

And what of the millions who don't agree?

they get to try the next time around
may the best man win

 

[swarm]

sweet
we are down to "necessary"
such as your demise
my kung fu is strong
your protestations
weak

ciao

I see you have big talk, little mind, no skill.

 

[Baron Max]

See? I disagree.

War and violence in general may be unavoidable at times, like when you or another are directly attacked, but that doesn't mean it is morally justified.

I have no problem admitting not every necessary action has to be morally justified.

Yes!!! Now we're getting somewhere in this damned circular argument. And that's what I've been seeking all along ....that we set our ethics and morality based on ..whatever, but then we willingly and knowingly violate those same ethics and morality whenever it's "justified".

And now the kicker .....just who the fuck gets to determine whether some acts are "justified" or not? If "we" say that murder is immoral, that almost automatically excludes murderers from having any say in the determination! And somehow, that strikes me as ..well, not very "equal".

Which all leads me back to the basic idea of this whole thing of ethics and morality .....why even talk about them, why even have them, if we can and do violate them every fuckin' time we, or someone else, wants to?

It just seems to me that "we" are saying .....we're the good guys, and anyone who doesn't agree with us are the bad guys. Then, of course, we've created our own little group of elitists.

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

It just seems to me that "we" are saying .....we're the good guys, and anyone who doesn't agree with us are the bad guys. Then, of course, we've created our own little group of elitists.
Baron Max

It seems like you, Max, are saying that when people do this they are being bad, you elitist.

I say this half in play half seriously.

I think you are raising an interesting issue, but somehow, it seems to me, you need to role model another way of dealing with things. As far as I can tell you are still functioning in the same way those you are critical of are.

 

[Baron Max]

It seems like you, Max, are saying that when people do this they are being bad, you elitist.

I'm not really sure what you're saying. But in effect, I think playing the ethics and morality game is nothing more than saying "We wear white hats, so we're the good guys. Y'all wear black hats, so you're the bad guys!"

We seem to want to be able to twist our own ethics to whatever we want at the time, yet rant and rave when someone else does the same thing by doing something that we call "un-ethical".

I say this half in play half seriously.

As far as I can tell you are still functioning in the same way those you are critical of are.

Hmm, yes, I am, but I've readily admitted it. Others seem to be trying to hide behind something that they call "ethics" when in reality they're changing their ethics whenever they want .....even as they condemn anyone else of doing the same thing!

And remember, I wear a white hat, so I'm right!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

swarm:

Ethical agreement is basically an oxymoron.

No.

Let's take a simple example: stealing your wallet. I think that's morally wrong. Do you? And do you think billions of people would say it's just fine?

In extreme circumstances, sometimes even war is morally justifiable.

See? I disagree.

War and violence in general may be unavoidable at times, like when you or another are directly attacked, but that doesn't mean it is morally justified.

If it isn't morally justified, then a nation should never go to war.

How can you justify it if not morally?

 

[Baron Max]

Let's take a simple example: stealing your wallet. I think that's morally wrong. Do you? And do you think billions of people would say it's just fine?

So now you're saying that ethics is determined by popular vote?

If it isn't morally justified, then a nation should never go to war.

But the nation that DOES go to war might well feel that it's justified. Or is this, also done by popular vote? ...and then you don't take into account the very one to whom it means the most - the nation that justified it in the first place.

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

I'm not really sure what you're saying. But in effect, I think playing the ethics and morality game is nothing more than saying "We wear white hats, so we're the good guys. Y'all wear black hats, so you're the bad guys!"

I smell Nietzsche on his way:

There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.
Friedrich Nietzsche

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche

The following is not a quote but a Wiki summary

Morality

In Daybreak Nietzsche begins his "Campaign against Morality".[37] He calls himself an "immoralist" and harshly criticizes the prominent moral schemes of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. However, Nietzsche did not want to destroy morality, but rather to initiate a re-evaluation of the values of the Judeo-Christian world. He indicates his desire to bring about a new, more naturalistic source of value in the vital impulses of life itself.

In both these projects, Nietzsche's genealogical account of the development of master-slave morality occupies a central place. Nietzsche presents master-morality as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. Here, value arises as a contrast between good and bad: wealth, strength, health, and power (the sort of traits found in an Homeric hero) count as good; while bad is associated with the poor, weak, sick, and pathetic (the sort of traits conventionally associated with slaves in ancient times).

Slave-morality, in contrast, can only come about as a reaction to master-morality. Nietzsche associates slave-morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good associated with charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and subservience; evil seen in the cruel, selfish, wealthy, indulgent, and aggressive. Nietzsche sees slave-morality as an ingenious ploy among the slaves and the weak (such as the Jews and Christians dominated by Rome) to overturn the values of their masters and to gain power for themselves: justifying their situation, and at the same time fixing the broader society into a slave-like life.

Nietzsche sees the slave-morality as a social illness that has overtaken Europe — a derivative and resentful value which can only work by condemning others as evil. In Nietzsche's eyes, Christianity exists in a hypocritical state wherein people preach love and kindness but find their joy in condemning and punishing others for pursuing that which morality does not allow them to act upon publicly. Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their own power, health, and vitality upon the world.[38]

We seem to want to be able to twist our own ethics to whatever we want at the time, yet rant and rave when someone else does the same thing by doing something that we call "un-ethical".

This certainly happens. But some people try to follow their own moralities and get upset when others don't follow their own.

Hmm, yes, I am, but I've readily admitted it. Others seem to be trying to hide behind something that they call "ethics" when in reality they're changing their ethics whenever they want .....even as they condemn anyone else of doing the same thing!

I think the only way to really discuss ethics with someone you are judging or disagreeing with is to try to reach them via their own ethics or reactions. If they think rape is OK, simply telling them rape is bad will get you nowhere. However if you point out that they dislike having their freedom taken from them, even for short periods of time, then maybe you can define rape as a temporary taking away of someone's freedom. Perhaps they will suddenly have sympathy - yeah right - or perhaps they will at least be faced with a contradiction in their own system or between their system and their own reactions.

 

[James R]

So now you're saying that ethics is determined by popular vote?

No. I covered that point earlier.

But the nation that DOES go to war might well feel that it's justified.

Yes, and they might be mistaken.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: "But the nation that DOES go to war might well feel that it's justified."

Yes, and they might be mistaken.

Which brings us right back to ...just who is to make that determination? The good guys who wear the white hats, or the guys in black hats?

James, it's obvious that you, and many here, follow the same principles of ethics and morality ....which is ... "What I say is right, anyone who disagrees is simply wrong."

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Which brings us right back to ...just who is to make that determination?

All people with a well-developed moral sense and capable of rational and logical thinking about moral issues.

 

[swarm]

that we set our ethics and morality based on ..whatever, but then we willingly and knowingly violate those same ethics and morality whenever it's "justified".

That is not what I said at all. I'm not trying to "justify" said actions as moral just because I found them necessary nor am I excusing them.

Not every necessary action has to be morally justified.

who the fuck gets to determine whether some acts are "justified" or not?

Each person in particular and then those social groups you interact with.

If "we" say that murder is immoral, that almost automatically excludes murderers from having any say in the determination!

Only if we purposefully exclude them (once their sentence ends and after a certain period of time ex cons usually get their right to vote back). Also most murderers agree that murder is unethical. The ones that can't sometimes can't be tried because they aren't competant to stand trial. You have to be able to determin right from wrong.

why even talk about them

Because we want to.

why even have them

being able to determin right from wrong and choosing right is both satisfying and a felicitous way to live.

if we can and do violate them every fuckin' time we, or someone else, wants to?

Most people don't violate their core values.

Usually those core values aren't entirely what society would like though.

 

[draqon]

c. How can a society of high moral and ethical standards keep and support a defensive force (military or police) without giving up some of those standards of morality and ethics?

Because ultimately ethics and morality is a tool of manipulation by society of its members who follow this practice. The higher the hierarchy the less vague morality and ethics (which are a stem of an individual) become.

 

[Baron Max]

All people with a well-developed moral sense and capable of rational and logical thinking about moral issues.

So you choose only the "good guys" to make the determination of good and bad, right n' wrong, etc?

What about all the world's ... Murderers? Rapists? Pedophiles? Brutal dictators? Sadists? Muslim extremists? Terrorists? Hitler? Stalin? The rebels in the Congo? Pol Pot? Al-Queda?

My guess is that all those above thought that, they, too, had a well-developed moral sense and were capable of rational and logical thinking.

I just can't get over the sense that you're just one more of "those" people that puff up their chests, and yell to the heavens "I'm right, and you're wrong!"

From all I know about ethics and morality, I just have to agree with Dragon when he said above: "Because ultimately ethics and morality is a tool of manipulation by society of its members who follow this practice."

And if that's really true, then it appears, James, that you and others have been thoroughly brainwashed by your society!

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

All people with a well-developed moral sense and capable of rational and logical thinking about moral issues.

So you choose only the "good guys" to make the determination of good and bad, right n' wrong, etc?

Of course. That's what being good means - you do the right thing. You act morally. You know what morals are.

What about all the world's ... Murderers? Rapists? Pedophiles? Brutal dictators? Sadists? Muslim extremists? Terrorists? Hitler? Stalin? The rebels in the Congo? Pol Pot? Al-Queda?

Self-interested egoists? What about them?

My guess is that all those above thought that, they, too, had a well-developed moral sense and were capable of rational and logical thinking.

No. Some of them really didn't know right from wrong, or didn't care.

From all I know about ethics and morality, I just have to agree with Dragon when he said above: "Because ultimately ethics and morality is a tool of manipulation by society of its members who follow this practice."

Then you'll probably agree with this:

[enc]Hobbesian contractarianism[/enc]