The Flanderization of Light & Dark?

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

How much of a role does context play in this?

None in an objective moral framework.

One example I've used to examine this personally is the fact that in the very camps members of my family died in, people discovered medical knowledge through the torture of prisoners.

What they did was evil. That evil doesn't suddenly become something else because it had results that are good and that save lives.

But then, this is largely a byproduct of not confusing the ends with the means or the tool with the deed as it were.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

None in an objective moral framework.

One example I've used to examine this personally is the fact that in the very camps members of my family died in, people discovered medical knowledge through the torture of prisoners.

What they did was evil. That evil doesn't suddenly become something else because it had results that are good and that save lives.

But then, this is largely a byproduct of not confusing the ends with the means or the tool with the deed as it were.

I meant more...
does an action take on a Good or Evil trait based on the context it is done in?
Eating is not evil.
Is it evil to eat in front of those who are starving?
Is ti evil to eat if the food is not yours?  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

I meant more...
does an action take on a Good or Evil trait based on the context it is done in?
Eating is not evil.
Is it evil to eat in front of those who are starving?
Is ti evil to eat if the food is not yours?

It's objective. The context doesn't change it's nature. The examples you gave- eating food that is not yours- that's a function of theft, not eating.

Eating in front of those who are starving isn't an evil. The lack of compassion may be reprehensible based on a value structure, but that doesn't change the basic action's nature.  

[Tres_Huevos]

Something I've never been clear on is how one should go about determining what is actually good or evil. Which system of morality should be used for determining what is morally reprehensible, and what exactly sets it above the others?  

[Yanueh]

Good - Actions which are considered conducive to the survival of the species and/or promote a healthy (physically and emotionally) society.

Evil - Actions which are considered to threaten the survival of the species and/or are damaging to a healthy society.

Some actions are pretty obvious, like murder or arson. Others are a bit more fuzzy, like how many people it's proper to have sex with. (That stems from the desire to find a mate and keep it. If your woman has sex with another man, there's a risk that she's not spreading your genetics.)  

[Bastemhet]

Yanueh

Good - Actions which are considered conducive to the survival of the species and/or promote a healthy (physically and emotionally) society.

Evil - Actions which are considered to threaten the survival of the species and/or are damaging to a healthy society.

Some actions are pretty obvious, like murder or arson. Others are a bit more fuzzy, like how many people it's proper to have sex with. (That stems from the desire to find a mate and keep it. If your woman has sex with another man, there's a risk that she's not spreading your genetics.)

How would you describe a "healthy society"?  

[TeaDidikai]

Tres_Huevos

Which system of morality should be used for determining what is morally reprehensible, and what exactly sets it above the others?

The objective one. Because it's objective. wink

Part of the problem is that our perspective is limited. We aren't able to comment on a codified objective moral system because there isn't an established one and we're trained to view morality in the terms of culture.

Yanueh

Good - Actions which are considered conducive to the survival of the species and/or promote a healthy (physically and emotionally) society.

Evil - Actions which are considered to threaten the survival of the species and/or are damaging to a healthy society.

Wow... That sounds like a breeding ground for Ableism if I saw one- especially since there are no qualifiers.

Quote:

That stems from the desire to find a mate and keep it. If your woman has sex with another man, there's a risk that she's not spreading your genetics.

Wait... are you saying morality is merely culture's way of reacting to instinct?  

[Bastemhet]

TeaDidikai

Yanueh

Good - Actions which are considered conducive to the survival of the species and/or promote a healthy (physically and emotionally) society.

Evil - Actions which are considered to threaten the survival of the species and/or are damaging to a healthy society.

Wow... That sounds like a breeding ground for Ableism if I saw one- especially since there are no qualifiers.

Quote:

That stems from the desire to find a mate and keep it. If your woman has sex with another man, there's a risk that she's not spreading your genetics.

Wait... are you saying morality is merely culture's way of reacting to instinct?

Made me think Gattaca. Not a good association.  

[TeaDidikai]

Bastemhet

Made me think Gattaca. Not a good association.

Yeah. Not a fan of Eugenics myself.  

[Yanueh]

Eugenics is controlled breeding within society for the purpose of disallowing the continuation of harmful genes. Gattaca was about manually editing the genetic code to produce 'perfect' children. Similar, but not the same.

Also, my statements on good and evil were anthropological observations.

TeaDidikai

Wow... That sounds like a breeding ground for Ableism if I saw one- especially since there are no qualifiers.

I'm speaking of the anthropological source of peoples' morals. It has lead to ableism in some cultures (which in some cases were needed for survival of the group), but others felt it was better to protect the disabled for one reason or another. In a more primitive society, Stephen Hawking would have become a liability that would have threatened the survival of the whole group in short order, but in today's world, he's an asset.

TeaDidikai

Wait... are you saying morality is merely culture's way of reacting to instinct?

Instinct drives morality in one form or another. No exceptions.  

[Tres_Huevos]

TeaDidikai

Tres_Huevos

Which system of morality should be used for determining what is morally reprehensible, and what exactly sets it above the others?

The objective one. Because it's objective. wink

Part of the problem is that our perspective is limited. We aren't able to comment on a codified objective moral system because there isn't an established one and we're trained to view morality in the terms of culture.

That's what I was afraid of. gonk
So, lacking a codified, objective moral system, I don't see how we are supposed to act as if we know anything is good, evil, right, or wrong.  

[TeaDidikai]

Yanueh

Eugenics is controlled breeding within society for the purpose of disallowing the continuation of harmful genes.

Woot! Apparently my culture is a harmful gene!
Who knew?

Quote:

Also, my statements on good and evil were anthropological observations.

Because of course anthropologists are never bigots.

Oh... wait.

Quote:

I'm speaking of the anthropological source of peoples' morals. It has lead to ableism in some cultures (which in some cases were needed for survival of the group), but others felt it was better to protect the disabled for one reason or another. In a more primitive society, Stephen Hawking would have become a liability that would have threatened the survival of the whole group in short order, but in today's world, he's an asset.

Wow... gotta love the blanket assertions about thousands of years of historical behaviors from around the world summed up in a single view point- one which actually ignores the positions of individuals who have physical disabilities that were preserved historically in their cultures by the assertion that they were people touched by the divine and the like.

I mean s**t- why have to think and examine anthropological documentation on people with non-functional limbs in India who are thought to be the incarnation of gods when we can just make s**t up.

Quote:

Instinct drives morality in one form or another. No exceptions.

I'm going to wait for you to prove this. I'm looking forward to you justifying numerous members of my family being executed for daring to live in German occupied lands.

Tres_Huevos

So, lacking a codified, objective moral system, I don't see how we are supposed to act as if we know anything is good, evil, right, or wrong.

Sorry, my wording was confusing.
There is an objective moral system. It just isn't penned because historical documentation of morality was contextualized by the people who wrote it- with the possible exception of the Noahide Laws, but even those fall short because they confuse the culture of the early Semetic People and the struggle between the Jews and those sects which maintained adherence to the older pantheon.

They got pretty close though.  

[Yanueh]

Tea, does the subject of eugenics make you uncomfortable because of the Nazis? If so, I'd like to point out that eugenics, in and of themselves, do not necessitate killing individuals to prevent them from passing their genetics on.

Also, your reaction reminds me of this video. razz

TeaDidikai

Because of course anthropologists are never bigots.

Oh... wait.

These are observations of human behavior in general, not just cultures some would consider primitive. And it's also partially my own observation.

Quote:

I'm going to wait for you to prove this. I'm looking forward to you justifying numerous members of my family being executed for daring to live in German occupied lands.

As in, how did instinct make the Germans kill thousand of Jews? Easy-peasy. Hitler felt the Jews were a threat to Germany, so in order to preserve the us-group, the Germans, he convinced the people that the them-group, the Jews, were out to get them.

For the Germans, it was simple self-preservation against the Jesus-killers and Christian-haters, the Jews.  

[TeaDidikai]

Yanueh

Tea, does the subject of eugenics make you uncomfortable because of the Nazis? If so, I'd like to point out that eugenics, in and of themselves, do not necessitate killing individuals to prevent them from passing their genetics on.

Actually most of my personal problems with the general field of Eugenics stems from the fact that while my aunt was drugged, they forced her to sign a slip of paper that enabled her doctors to pull her womb out of her body to "prevent the birth of more undesirables".

Silly me, I know.

Quote:

As in, how did instinct make the Germans kill thousand of Jews? Easy-peasy. Hitler felt the Jews were a threat to Germany, so in order to preserve the us-group, the Germans, he convinced the people that the them-group, the Jews, were out to get them.

For the Germans, it was simple self-preservation against the Jesus-killers and Christian-haters, the Jews.

Woot! I'm Jewish now. Ain't that just the s**t.

Love how bigotry becomes a morality under Subjective Morality.