- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by bbarrthis is pretty close to how microeconomics touches on this issue. Obviously economics has no notions of moral, ethical, nor fair outcomes. But an optimal efficient market outcome is one where it is impossible to make a change in the allocation of resourses without making someone else worse off, this is a parallel to your outlined arguments above.
I'm actually very partial to that characterization, as long as you modify it to preclude unintentionally caused needless suffering. So, a morally reprehensible act is one that is intended to cause needless suffering. No counter-examples spring immediately to mind.
A economic argument could be that an inefficent market could be termed morally reprehensible if it is assumed to be a condition where one or more groups in a market are made worse off by a reallocation of resourses.
My own personal argument would be that morality is a human construct, and as so reflects the society in which we live. Morals are the stucture by which we live our daily lives. I would argue that an act is morally reprehensible if an individual or society see that act as a direct threat to their way of functioning. It is not the act itself that is morally reprehensible but the interpretation it recieves in any given society.
Hope that kind of makes sense!
Andrew🙄
Ok bbarr, give me a second to get out of my hard headed theological mindset........all set. Here's my thoughts.
An individuals perception of moralality is greatly defined by what they have experienced in life. I call this the difference between knowing and understanding. A person my have a thought either on their own or through communication with another and may accept it to be true. This is knowledge (i.e. the Earth revolves around the Sun). On the other hand, there are insances that are understood by personal experience (by having a child, you understand what it is to be a parent). By the difference in these two intellects I believe much of what is moral becomes obscure and debateable.
As an example. let us say I had decided to my self that if I ever saw a person about to be killed and I had the opportunity to stop it I would not, because it was not my concern (i.e. that which is unhelpful to yourself). Now, let us say I later on had the opportunity to actually save someones life and did not. Later on I felt horribly guilty for not taking action. My change in mindset from knowledge to understanding gave me a new perspective upon what is moral.
In short, I would say that morality can be defined for an individual by experience (or lack or) combined with the emotional effect of (or lack of) that experience.
As an example in the "lack of" area, let us pretend for a moment that by some odd chance I had grown up my whole life never coming in contact with another human being. If I did eventually meet another human being, how would I know it is immoral to kill them?
(whew! See guys? I went a whole post without preaching!) 🙂
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by OmnislashYou have highlighted something I wanted to add in my original post but missed out - the importance of highlighting that there is a clear distinction between what a society sees as morally acceptable and the interpretation of this morality by the individuals that make up that society.
Ok bbarr, give me a second to get out of my hard headed theological mindset........all set. Here's my thoughts.
An individuals perception of moralality is greatly defined by what they have experienced in life. I call this the difference between knowing and understanding. A person my have a thought either on their own or through communication with a ...[text shortened]... know it is immoral to kill them?
(whew! See guys? I went a whole post without preaching!) 🙂
Andrew
Originally posted by OmnislashAnd here I thought you were goingto advocate the Divine Command Thoery 😀.
Ok bbarr, give me a second to get out of my hard headed theological mindset........all set. Here's my thoughts.
An individuals perception of moralality is greatly defined by what they have experienced in life. I call this the difference between knowing and understanding. A person my have a thought either on their own or through communication with a ...[text shortened]... know it is immoral to kill them?
(whew! See guys? I went a whole post without preaching!) 🙂
You said in your post "that morality can be defined for an individual by experience (or lack or) combined with the emotional effect of (or lack of) that experience." While this may be what leads a person to classify an act as immoral, or it may be indicative of immoral acts, it doesn't address the question I asked, namely, what makes immoral acts immoral? Or are you claiming that an act is immoral if and only if one believes that it is immoral in virtue of having some type of experience?
Originally posted by latex bishopAre you claiming that if some society believes that it is moral to torture innocents purely for fun, then it actually IS moral for them to torture innocents purely for fun?
this is pretty close to how microeconomics touches on this issue. Obviously economics has no notions of moral, ethical, nor fair outcomes. But an optimal efficient market outcome is one where it is impossible to make a change in the allocation of resourses without making someone else worse off, this is a parallel to your outlined arguments above.
A e ...[text shortened]... e interpretation it recieves in any given society.
Hope that kind of makes sense!
Andrew🙄
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by bbarrArrrr the site just ate my reply to this so I will never put it as well again. but the point I was going to make was YES given the theortical construct of my argument, it is a question of perpesctive of the given society, and based on the fact that morality can not transend different societies unless other socio economic belief structures do so first.
Are you claiming that if some society believes that it is moral to torture innocents purely for fun, then it actually IS moral for them to torture innocents purely for fun?
i.e in country A it is acceptable to kill a family member if they brining disgrace to the family. 90% of individuals within that society A agree that this is a morally acceptable act, thus this behaviour continues to sustain the moral views of the society in general to this issue.
in country B the 100% of people argue that society A is morally reprehensible as are all the members of that society that support such a belief structure.
On this stand alone case who is morally reprehenible, I would argue that it would depend on whether you came from society A or B. Should it matter in society A or B has more citizens, the act would remain the same? What of the views of society C, D or E. DO they impact upon the interaction of Society A and B if they are both brought into a greater society?
Andrew
(living in society B😉 )
Originally posted by latex bishopSo if my culture thinks it's morally right to invade another culture to stop that culture from engaging in acts my culture finds morally reprehensible, then my culture's aggression is morally justified?
Arrrr the site just ate my reply to this so I will never put it as well again. but the point I was going to make was YES, it is a question of perpesctive of the given society, and based on the fact that morality can not transend different societies unless other socio economic belief structures do so first.
i.e in country A it is acceptable to kill a ...[text shortened]... that would depend on whether you came from society A or B.
Andrew
(living in society B😉 )
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by bbarrBennett,
So if my culture thinks it's morally right to invade another culture to stop that culture from engaging in acts my culture finds morally reprehensible, then my culture's aggression is morally justified?
I am sorry I do not have the time to discuss this more fully with you as you have gone directly in the direction I has hoping the argument would take, but alas I have to goto the Rugby to watch England play Scotland and be morally reprehensible myself.😲
But briefly I would argue that if the majority of individuals within a society agree that it is morally acceptable for their society to engage in agressive acts it is moral to do so while that act is sustained by the moral acceptability of its citizens. On the other hand if a society commits an agressive act which is against the moral acceptability of its citizens then this highlights a failure of the power mechanisms within that society for it to act upon the wishes of its members.
So to agree with where this is all going - no the war on Iraq can not be morally justified if the individuals of our societies do not agree with the morality as argued by the government. That would make the act of the government morally reprehensible since it is failing in its major construct - to serve the will of the individuals that make up its society.
Andrew
Yes, my statement should be interpreted that the moral basis of an individual (or society) lies solely with what that person(s) hold to be true. It would be a complete interpretation on the individuals part. Just as you made an example of in the post regarding the return of unearned money, so would that very thread emphasize it. If an individual thought the action was moral, then (for them) it is so. Thusly, all morality lies within the person(s) and is subject to interpretation. What makes any issue immoral is the interpretaion of the individual/society from their own experiences and subsequent reactions.
I don't want to confuse you, so let me clarify. I, personally, think along the theological lines we debated in the previous thread. I don't believe in the majority of what I have written. Nonetheless, I think even a hard ace bible thumper like me can speculate for the sake of argument. 😉😀
Originally posted by OmnislashSo if I honestly believe that it is moral to torture innocents purely for fun, then if I go and do it I have done something moral? Under that interpretation, nobody could ever act immorally, as long as they thought what they were doing was right. Have I understood your position correctly?
Yes, my statement should be interpreted that the moral basis of an individual (or society) lies solely with what that person(s) hold to be true. It would be a complete interpretation on the individuals part. Just as you made an example of in the post regarding the return of unearned money, so would that very thread emphasize it. If an individual thought th ...[text shortened]... less, I think even a hard ace bible thumper like me can speculate for the sake of argument. 😉😀