The Flanderization of Light & Dark?

[TeaDidikai]

Yanueh

I was trying to demonstrate how simple instinct can influence peoples' morals and actions, for better or for worse. Simple psychology/anthropology.

Problem, you're confusing value for morality.  

[TeaDidikai]

Yanueh

It was considered a moral thing to do because they perceived themselves as the bastion of all that was right and good in the world, and that it was their sacred duty to wipe out all that was vile and nasty - which was very nearly everyone else.

But when you get down to it, it was nothing more than the us vs. them mentality gone out of control.

You are aware that people saying something is so, doesn't make it so, ya?  

[Tres_Huevos]

TeaDidikai

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.

I'm confused, then. What is this objective moral system, and what makes it right? Or where could I do some reading to find out some more about this?  

[TeaDidikai]

Tres_Huevos

I'm confused, then. What is this objective moral system, and what makes it right?

Objective morality is the moral system that is about "Right Behavior" independent of context, such as personal opinion, cultural tradition etc.

The reason it doesn't exist as a written moral code is because humanity tends to address morality in terms of cultural and personal views. There are a handful of moral structures that historically attempted to overcome this- and were to successful to differing degrees.

Some forms of Buddhist commentary on Morality, the Noahide Laws and the like are examples, but as I pointed out earlier, even these fall short at times because they confuse value with morality in some instances- such as the prohibition against Idolatry in the Noahide Laws.  

[Yanueh]

What's the difference between morals and values?  

[Ashley the Bee]

TeaDidikai

Of course, this really only works if the assumption is that humans aren't capable of rational examination of the situation.

Hence why applying it to morality is flawed.
Also, it completely fails to address the issues raised in regards to Morality, the abuse of power, the numerous forms of bigotry and applied Eugenics.

This is again one of those topics that just has me going round and round in my head about language.

Morality or morals is used as a word to describe what people find is ethical behavior. Ethics are judged from their context.

I'm not saying that this is the proper way to think of morals, or that this definition isn't flawed, as Collowrath and others have already pointed out in the other thread, I'm just saying, based on the English language, this definition fits, I believe.

The other thing is, yes, humans are capable of rational thought, but humans are also capable of following along like sheep. There was the shock study, right? Simply asking someone to shock someone else in a way that would electrocute that person was enough to get everyone(?) to go along with it. Just random people...

So, I suppose you'll forgive me if I don't place a great deal of confidence in many people's ability to rationalize true morality when someone else says to them, "This is wrong", or "No, it's okay."

And yes, I agree, these systems are prone to abuse for the exact reasons I said above. I'm so disheartened when people parrot racist, sexist, etc-ist statements without even thinking.

But, again, my main argument is that English doesn't seem, in my mind, to have a clear and separate division between moral and value.  

[Tres_Huevos]

TeaDidikai

Tres_Huevos

I'm confused, then. What is this objective moral system, and what makes it right?

Objective morality is the moral system that is about "Right Behavior" independent of context, such as personal opinion, cultural tradition etc.

The reason it doesn't exist as a written moral code is because humanity tends to address morality in terms of cultural and personal views. There are a handful of moral structures that historically attempted to overcome this- and were to successful to differing degrees.

Some forms of Buddhist commentary on Morality, the Noahide Laws and the like are examples, but as I pointed out earlier, even these fall short at times because they confuse value with morality in some instances- such as the prohibition against Idolatry in the Noahide Laws.

Alright.
I think what I'm really trying to get at, though, is, not only what is it (I suppose I should do some reading on the Noahide Laws and perhaps some Buddhist commentaries on Morality), but also what makes this "Right Behavior" "right", moreso than considerations of right behaviour based on personal opinions or cultural traditions. If it's not derived from personal or cultural values, where does this objective morality come from?  

[TeaDidikai]

Yanueh

What's the difference between morals and values?

Morals are "right" behavior. Values are favored behavior.

Ashley the Bee

Morality or morals is used as a word to describe what people find is ethical behavior. Ethics are judged from their context.

The problem with this construct is that it can be proven that context-based evaluation in favor of objective-based evaluation is demonstrably internally inconsistent and flawed.

Quote:

I'm not saying that this is the proper way to think of morals, or that this definition isn't flawed, as Collowrath and others have already pointed out in the other thread, I'm just saying, based on the English language, this definition fits, I believe.

It looks to me that you're confusing situation ethics with Ethics.

Quote:

The other thing is, yes, humans are capable of rational thought, but humans are also capable of following along like sheep. There was the shock study, right? Simply asking someone to shock someone else in a way that would electrocute that person was enough to get everyone(?) to go along with it. Just random people...

Ashely, could you explain how you think that the Milgram Experiment is related to your claim.

Quote:

So, I suppose you'll forgive me if I don't place a great deal of confidence in many people's ability to rationalize true morality when someone else says to them, "This is wrong", or "No, it's okay."

Wait... you're suggesting that the Milgram Experiment negates critical thinking? Did you read the results of the experiment? It's application and how it demonstrated that the vast majority, did not mindlessly agree with the faux procedure?  

[TeaDidikai]

Tres_Huevos

Alright.
I think what I'm really trying to get at, though, is, not only what is it (I suppose I should do some reading on the Noahide Laws and perhaps some Buddhist commentaries on Morality), but also what makes this "Right Behavior" "right", moreso than considerations of right behaviour based on personal opinions or cultural traditions. If it's not derived from personal or cultural values, where does this objective morality come from?

Objective morality stems from the nature of objective reality.

Look at it this way- the best tools we have for examining Objective Morality at the moment is to take cultural and personal understandings of morality and strip away personal or cultural values within it.

What is it that transcends value statements.
I like using the Noahide Laws as an example, since it was a clear attempt at establishing a moral structure outside of the cultural perspective.

The cultural perspective the Noahide Laws were born in had 613 Laws by which the culture was expected to follow.

The laws that were to be applied outside of the culture reduced these to seven laws- making a clear example of a people who acknowledge that their Laws are not universal and that there are universal laws in play.  

[Ashley the Bee]

TeaDidikai

Ashley the Bee

Morality or morals is used as a word to describe what people find is ethical behavior. Ethics are judged from their context.

The problem with this construct is that it can be proven that context-based evaluation in favor of objective-based evaluation is demonstrably internally inconsistent and flawed.

Yes. But both exist under the label "morals".

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I'm not saying that this is the proper way to think of morals, or that this definition isn't flawed, as Collowrath and others have already pointed out in the other thread, I'm just saying, based on the English language, this definition fits, I believe.

It looks to me that you're confusing situation ethics with Ethics.

I don't know how to respond.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

The other thing is, yes, humans are capable of rational thought, but humans are also capable of following along like sheep. There was the shock study, right? Simply asking someone to shock someone else in a way that would electrocute that person was enough to get everyone(?) to go along with it. Just random people...

Ashely, could you explain how you think that the Milgram Experiment is related to your claim.

People can be talked out of their morals by someone in an authority role?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

So, I suppose you'll forgive me if I don't place a great deal of confidence in many people's ability to rationalize true morality when someone else says to them, "This is wrong", or "No, it's okay."

Wait... you're suggesting that the Milgram Experiment negates critical thinking? Did you read the results of the experiment? It's application and how it demonstrated that the vast majority, did not mindlessly agree with the faux procedure?

I honestly can't remember if I read the results at the time I was introduced to the study in college. I seem to recall that everyone followed along with the administrator's directions, and that a majority even administered the final shock.

In any case, this is a complete aside to my actual response, which was just that systems of moral relativity and objective morals are still both moral systems, even if one is demonstrably flawed.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ashley the Bee

Yes. But both exist under the label "morals".

Not in an accurate linguistic application. A common one perhaps, but that doesn't make it correct.

Quote:

I don't know how to respond.

Ethics as a synonym for Morals is not also a synonym for the branch of philosophy which deals with "Situation Ethics".

Quote:

People can be talked out of their morals by someone in an authority role?

But that isn't what the study demonstrated. If anything, it demonstrated the opposite, that individuals aren't removed from their morals, but instead act in ways which they know are immoral.

Hence why only 65% continued to the highest voltage, and why the documentation shows that the participant's anxiety levels spiked.

Quote:

In any case, this is a complete aside to my actual response, which was just that systems of moral relativity and objective morals are still both moral systems, even if one is demonstrably flawed.

And I would argue that by adding a qualifier in an attempt to justify a false position by latching onto a title when dealing with an objective system is a direct and intentional perpetuation of said falsehood.  

[Ashley the Bee]

TeaDidikai

Ashley the Bee

Yes. But both exist under the label "morals".

Not in an accurate linguistic application. A common one perhaps, but that doesn't make it correct.

I apologize. I know of limited places to find word definitions.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I don't know how to respond.

Ethics as a synonym for Morals is not also a synonym for the branch of philosophy which deals with "Situation Ethics".

I will again point to my use of m-w.com to define words. I looked up "moral" which they defined as "ethical", and so I looked up "ethic".

TeaDidikai

Quote:

People can be talked out of their morals by someone in an authority role?

But that isn't what the study demonstrated. If anything, it demonstrated the opposite, that individuals aren't removed from their morals, but instead act in ways which they know are immoral.

Hence why only 65% continued to the highest voltage, and why the documentation shows that the participant's anxiety levels spiked.

I see.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

In any case, this is a complete aside to my actual response, which was just that systems of moral relativity and objective morals are still both moral systems, even if one is demonstrably flawed.

And I would argue that by adding a qualifier in an attempt to justify a false position by latching onto a title when dealing with an objective system is a direct and intentional perpetuation of said falsehood.

I cannot respond.  

[TeaDidikai]

Ashley the Bee

I apologize. I know of limited places to find word definitions.

No worries.

Quote:

I will again point to my use of m-w.com to define words. I looked up "moral" which they defined as "ethical", and so I looked up "ethic".

Did you see the sublisting of Situational Ethic independent of Ethic? I actually give them props for not confusing the two.

Quote:

I see.

It is a fascinating study, don't get me wrong. It just doesn't show what was claimed, and I can understand why it would be confusing.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

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.

Wait a second...
Theft is Evil, but deliberate cruelty isn't?  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Wait a second...
Theft is Evil, but deliberate cruelty isn't?

Never said that.
You didn't specify that the person eating in front of the individuals who was starving was doing so to be deliberately cruel. You merely said they were eating in front of them.