The justification of moral judgment

Oli said:
Okay, at what point do you stop putting your happiness/ well being above that of others?
When you're comfortable, when you're rich, when all the competition/ possible discomfort is eliminated?
Click to expand...
Never. Even if I decide I have all I need and start helping others, I'm still doing it for my own reasons.

For instance, suppose you're sitting in a field with your wife and children when a live grenade is thrown right into your midst. No one else sees it. You can either jump on it and save your family, or jump away from it to safety and condemn them to death. Either decision is done for your own reasons.

Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I didnt try to save my wife/kids. I'd either jump on the grenade or at least try to grab it and throw it away while placing my body between my family and the grenade.

Does this mean I'm not looking out for my own interests? Of course not. It just means I value some things more than my own life.
 
greenberg said:
Good point.

Whether the moral judgment is
1. made public,
2. reported to authorities,
3. stated to the other person,
4. kept private to oneself and those one holds in trust.
Click to expand...
5) enforced somehow - via stoning, war, imprisonment, shunning and so on.

But for most of us, the other two scenarios are more relevant in everyday life: whether to say anything to the person we have made a moral judgment about, and whether to make a moral judgment privately at all.

In the West, there seems to be the trend in rising to withold making moral judgments even in one's privacy. "You should not think of anyone as bad. You should not think there are people whom you do not wish to be friends with." I think many of us have been brought up to believe that disagreeing with someone and rejecting someone is disrespectful and makes you a bad and unworthy person. But the fact is that if we don't make moral judgments, we will end up in all sorts of bad situations. Witholding moral judgment does not protect you from getting into trouble.
Click to expand...

I also think it is very hard to do. One can have the intention, but I think it generally happens after the fact. One makes the judgment and then judges one's own act of judgment. This latter can take the form of pointing out potential hypocrisies, making excuses for the other person or being a rule centered guilt that is more abstract.

I think it is fair to ask why this part of one thinks it has the right to just the whole person or other parts of that person. Why does the self get a negative priviledge? Or why does this part get one?
 
Oli said:
Okay, at what point do you stop putting your happiness/ well being above that of others?
When you're comfortable, when you're rich, when all the competition/ possible discomfort is eliminated?
Click to expand...

Seems to me there is a difference between focusing on it and putting it above others'. You are in the best position to take care of your own needs and desires, so it is practically best for you to focus on your own happiness. But I am not sure this means one must put it above others.

I can walk down the sunny side of the street because I like the sun without pushing anyone into the shadows. A large part of day to day life is not a zero sum game. Once one person's happiness is in direct conflict with another's, I admit, it does get tricky. But can't one view this as a negotiation between equals?
 
Simon Anders said:
But can't one view this as a negotiation between equals?
Click to expand...
That's a point, but for some reason it doesn't ring true to me.
And I can't put my finger on why.
I'll give it some thought and get back back to you.
 
Oli said:
That's a point, but for some reason it doesn't ring true to me.
And I can't put my finger on why.
I'll give it some thought and get back back to you.
Click to expand...
I don't think one needs to come to the table prepared to compromise. One can start from a 'I will get my needs and desires' attitude. But we also desire the happiness of others, especially loved ones. We also have fears and concerns about what happens if we step on toes. We are not monads that come to the table, we are already enmeshed and like that (and hate it). Those who think they are monads have tended to walk all over the others, but that is another issue.
 
I'm actually getting the suspicion I'm an "anti-monad". :)
But you (and Greenberg) have given me some material for deep consideration.
Thanks.
 
Oli said:
I'm actually getting the suspicion I'm an "anti-monad". :)
But you (and Greenberg) have given me some material for deep consideration.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
yes, I am anti-monad. But then I was so far the other way, that I had to learn how to be a potential monad, otherwise I came to the table as already half the other person, half myself. You can imagine how it ended up AFTER negotiations.
 
No I meant AN "anti-monad" as in the opposite of a monad.
I don't think I even manage to be half me.
 
Oli said:
No I meant AN "anti-monad" as in the opposite of a monad.
I don't think I even manage to be half me.
Click to expand...
Got it. Well, I suggest you go wild on the internet. Don't be understanding at all. Do not try to bridge your opinions with those of others. Don't budge or acknowledge a damn thing.

Then you can up the ante and try it in person - with small things - with either people you know or strangers, whichever is easier.

One easy first step is to think your opinions and needs and desires very loudly in your head while in the presence of others. This is safe and and not as easy as it sounds.

Then work your way up.

As a half to a not even half, there's hope.
 
No it was a joke.
But for effect I left the smiley to the following post.
I have a quirky sense of humour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top