The Beatitudes

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The Natural Moral Law in action.

And if viewed statistically—recognizing that there will always be exceptions on the tails of the distribution (whatever the shape of that distribution)—maybe all that needs to be said.

I have always had the same problem with moral theories that Nordlys describes. Maybe why mine seems such a patchwork affair...

I suspect that we develop moral theories (when done in “good conscience” ) to (1) test whether our own viewpoints make any sense, and (2) to try to get other people to behave the way we think they ought to. Maybe, too, to try to get a handle on the “gray areas,” or the complex situations that have arguments on both sides. But I also suspect that (within the middle range of the distribution), people are seldom able to “kill their conscience with theories.”

The really tough arguments are when both sides are speaking “in good conscience”—which I have seen many times on here...

Originally posted by vistesd
And if viewed statistically—recognizing that there will always be exceptions on the tails of the distribution (whatever the shape of that distribution)—maybe all that needs to be said.

I have always had the same problem with moral theories that Nordlys describes. Maybe why mine seems such a patchwork affair...

I suspect that we develop moral theori ...[text shortened]... re when both sides are speaking “in good conscience”—which I have seen many times on here...

Vistesd: "... 2) to try to get other people to behave the way we think they ought to. ... "

Isn't developing ethical theories more basically a case of trying to find out what I myself ought to do ?

Maybe I should refrase the question as follows:

Shouldn't developing ethical theories in the first place be an attempt of trying to find out what I myself ought to do ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Vistesd: "... 2) to try to get other people to behave the way we think they ought to. ... "

Isn't developing ethical theories more basically a case of trying to find out what I myself ought to do ?

Maybe I should refrase the question as follows:

Shouldn't developing ethical theories in the first place be an attempt of trying to find out what I myself ought to do ?[/b]

I don’t know... Personally—which is the only way I can speak here—I have never been able to submit myself to a moral theory, or principle, if it just didn’t feel right... Which won’t win me any debates... 🙂

I’ve tried to analyze my own moral viewpoint—which is much different now than it was, say 15 years ago. I look at myself, with all my fears, desires, searching, etc.—and I look at another human being, and say: “It must be similar for them.” I call that “recognition.” Out of that comes a sort of sympathy—compassion, if you will.

Until I was about 40, I lived my life trying to adhere to certain “deontological” principles. My “programming” from a pretty young age, seems, in retrospect, to have gone something like this:

(1) My existence must be somehow justified.

(2) Justification is found in fulfilling my obligations—not just as they arise, but in the continual active seeking out of those obligations, or moral duties.

(3) Ultimately, I will fail—at least some of the time. (In my experience, much of the time—especially when there seemed to be a real conflict between moral choices.)

(4) When I fail, there is the hope of “justification by faith through grace.” (That was the Christian/Lutheran part; I think the Lutheranism I imbibed was tinged by a bit of Puritanism.)

I adhered to that schema faithfully for, oh, about 25 years. When I was around the age of 40, give or take, all that began to fall apart during what I call “the slow catastrophe” part of my life. I now reject (1) completely--by which I mean that I reject the whole notion that my existence can be, or needs to be, justified: I reject justifcation as any kind of existential category (which is not to say that I reject the word, as in providing reasons for particular actions); my existence I simply take as a brute fact.

Bbarr once suggested that I read Kant’s Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morality. Now, although I often agree with bbarr’s moral view (and think Kant had some good points), I could not read that book. I had a strong emotional (nonrational/irrational) reaction to the seemingly constant use of the word “duty.” I actually threw the book down. I have the same reaction to Divine Command Theories.

Now, I’m not saying that I threw out Christianity and “supernatural theism” on account of that—that is for other reasons. I’m pretty dedicated to analyzing my own thoughts, feelings, etc. I doubtless will never cease....

This is all pretty convoluted, but maybe it offers some insight to my own thinking... 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
BTW, my wife, who is a musician, just made a reference to jazz and improvisation...

I had to think of improvisation as well. Some improvisations are quite structured, but if you don't have a given structure, you don't know at all where the journey will lead you. If you are playing together with others, you may plan an ending, but your playing partner may have different plans which cause your own plans to fail. It is very satisfying when you suddenly feel that you are working together and have a common destination. The ability to let the music lead somewhere and to finish an improvisation is something I often work on with my clients (currently kindergarten children with special needs) as a music therapist. The unability to have a direction in music often reflects the same unability in other areas of life. Music without a direction can easily become like aimlessly wandering around, rather than an explorative journey.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know... Personally—which is the only way I can speak here—I have never been able to submit myself to a moral theory, or principle, if it just didn’t feel right... Which won’t win me any debates... 🙂

I’ve tried to analyze my own moral viewpoint—which is much different now than it was, say 15 years ago. I look at myself, with all my fear ...[text shortened]... ...

This is all pretty convoluted, but maybe it offers some insight to my own thinking... 🙂

I'll think about your post. It has to "sink in" ....

I'm trying to get some sleep now in this heat ..... Dang, it doesn't cool off anymore at night. It's 5.30 in the morning, the doors and windows are all open, the fan is doing its work in the highest "gear" .... and I'm still sweating ....

Tomorrow awaits us a tropical surprise in the form of yet again a very hot day ...... 🙂

I never cared much for The Beatles.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I had to think of improvisation as well. Some improvisations are quite structured, but if you don't have a given structure, you don't know at all where the journey will lead you. If you are playing together with others, you may plan an ending, but your playing partner may have different plans which cause your own plans to fail. It is very satisfying when you ...[text shortened]... rection can easily become like aimlessly wandering around, rather than an explorative journey.

Hi, Nordlys!

I’m having trouble with the word “destination” here. If the goal of playing a musical piece—or life—is to play well, however we might define that, then I have no disagreement.

However, the musical composition is ended immediately upon the playing of the final note—there is no further “destination.” My living ends with death (in my view). At that point, the composition is forever ended. I will not even recall how well I played... That is the basis for the analogy, in response to Hal.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. With this proviso: I would sing my own song alone, if need be. Fortunately, if you search enough, and perhaps if you’re lucky enough, you can find someone with whom the “structure” is in harmony—and yes, that is more than satisfying...

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, Nordlys!

I’m having trouble with the word “destination” here. If the goal of playing a musical piece—or life—is to play well, however we might define that, then I have no disagreement.

However, the musical composition is ended immediately upon the playing of the final note—there is no further “destination.” My living ends with death (in my view). ...[text shortened]... an find someone with whom the “structure” is in harmony—and yes, that is more than satisfying...

I didn't mean "destination" as something you have as your final goal throughout the whole improvisation, but rather that you recognize that you are coming to the final stage, and instead of having an abrupt and unexpected ending, you prepare for it and have a musically meaningful ending. It could end with a huge celebrating finale, or it could end calmly and pensively, but the players will all be able to recognize that it's going to end. If I take an improvisation as a metaphor for life and the ending as death, I would prefer to be able to prepare for death, rather than abruptly being taken out of life. I could also see an improvisation as a metaphor for a smaller part of my life, be it a stage of my life or just a day or even a smaller amount of time I spend with one activity, and the same applies here - for me, being able to prepare for changes or endings (which means that you have to see the destination before you get there) makes life easier to handle and more meaningful and beautiful.

My life improvisation is to a large degree my own solo song, but at times others join the song, and at times I join other people's song. And I wouldn't want to finish it in a big group improvisation in which everybody finishes together...

I hope this makes sense. While it's not hot here, it's just as late as in the Netherlands (past 6 am), so I'd better go to bed now...

Originally posted by Palynka
The interesting thing is that even a symphony has an order, a direction. And it is important, since the sequence of sounds/notes (to put it simple) is what defines the symphony.

Note to self: ditch symphony metaphor; play free jazz instead.

Originally posted by vistesd
By the way, I found it much more satisfactory to believe in personal immortality of some kind, than not to. I have no desire for this personal ego-somebody-self, this experiential point of (self-reflective) awareness, to simply terminate. Nevertheless, I am convinced that it will.

That change in belief has not affected my behavior much, except that I ap ...[text shortened]... urbed mind, anxiety, etc.). Like all such freedoms, that one also requires continual vigilance.

Could you say a little about how you learned this and how "continual vigilence" works for you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Note to self: ditch symphony metaphor; play free jazz instead.

I prefer a little more order, with some improvisation around a main line. This main line, this direction, it is important to deny absolute relativism, in my opinion.

If we come back to the topic, the struggle to find a common base of morality among the vast majority of humans is commendable. An interesting base has been set with the definition of Human Rights and me, and that is my raw symphony for the moment, if you will.

And that still leaves many blanks to fill with as much improvisation as I'd like.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hi, Nordlys!

I’m having trouble with the word “destination” here. If the goal of playing a musical piece—or life—is to play well, however we might define that, then I have no disagreement.

However, the musical composition is ended immediately upon the playing of the final note—there is no further “destination.” My living ends with death (in my view). ...[text shortened]... an find someone with whom the “structure” is in harmony—and yes, that is more than satisfying...

I agree wholeheartedly. Death is fundamental in giving meaning to life.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I believe it is against human nature to do something evil and truly believe that there was nothing wrong with what you did. You can't kill your conscience with theories.

Of course this is not the only flaw of that theory. If you could kill your conscience, it might work as long as you are the only one who lives by that theory. If everybody else had ...[text shortened]... dn't have a conscience, because it would be in their own interest and help their own survival.

Do you really think morality arises from selfish behaviour (appeasing one's conscience)?

I'm not that sure. And does this conscience arise from our ability to reason or, as you said, from human nature? My point being, for example, the question whether an intelligent life form (with apperception) can be devoid of morality.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Could you say a little about how you learned this and how "continual vigilence" works for you?

Sure, my friend... But forgive me if I take awhile, because I can't come out and play with you guys as much as I did before, so it'll be a few days...

🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you really think morality arises from selfish behaviour (appeasing one's conscience)?

I'm not that sure. And does this conscience arise from our ability to reason or, as you said, from human nature? My point being, for example, the question whether an intelligent life form (with apperception) can be devoid of morality.

Ultimately, I think morality probably arises from selfish behaviour, yes. Because of our ability to empathize, it makes us feel bad if someone else feels bad, and it makes us feel good if we can make xym feel better. So to care for others has a positive effect on ourselves. If it didn't have this effect on ourselves, I think we would probably come approximately to the same conclusions regarding right and wrong by reasoning, as I have explained in my other post. But this would again be ultimately for selfish reasons.

I believe that conscience is a combination of a natural disposition (which has developed because it helps humanity to survive) and reasoning. I don't think an intelligent life form could be devoid of morality, but it could be devoid of conscience and rather develop morality purely by reasoning. However, unless a life form would start out as intelligent, I think this is unlikely to happen, because I don't think they would get to the point that they would become intelligent and able to build their morals on reasoning if they didn't have some kind of conscience before. It might be the next evolutionary step, though - once the reasoning abilities would guarantee moral behaviour, conscience might become redundant and disappear.