Tolerant / Intolerant

[Mr. Tweedy]

Yeah, I'm still reading.

[Mr. Tweedy]

There's some moral principle you serve when urinating and defecating?  When sleeping?  When taking an aspirin for a headache?  When putting on a jacket?  Showering?  Slamming on the brakes in order to not rear end someone who has suddenly stopped in front of you? 

In answer to a direct question: Yes.

When and where I urinate are descisions made according to principles of courtesy and hostpitality.  I do not urinate on the street because it would subject others to unsanitary and uncomfortable conditions, and because it would violate modesty.  Moral choice.

Sleeping when I'm supposed to be on guard or something violates the trust others have put in me.  Sleeping somewhere that is not my bed will make my wife worry.  Sleeping within a certain proximity to another person sends a message to them for whose content I am responsible.  Moral choices.

Taking asprin and putting on a jacket are actions to protect and maintain my body.  By doing them, I am valuing my person and my life, which is a moral principle.

There are days when I would rather not bother with a shower, but I do it out of courtesy to those who might be offended by my stink.

I slam on the brakes because I value the safety and property of myself and others.  I take action to protect that which I could as valuable.

So yeah, morality comes into play with all those things.  I don't have to stop and think every time I do each of them because once I've understood something, I don't have to pause and understand it again the next time: I go by habit, which saves a lot of time.

[SFEley]

I'm sure Steve can stand up for himself on this one, but I don't think he was offering his self-interest as anything quite so far-reaching and grandiose as a mode for restraining human evil, but as a mode for people to live together with a minimum of problems.  Near as I can tell, he was just offering it up as what works for him, right now.  In ten years he could change his mind.  He's probably changed his mind in the last ten years.

May I offer a big "Hell yes."  Even more amusing was where I was in my head 12 or 13 years ago, halfway through college.

Again, I think a lot of the disagreements here really do come down to semantics and to differences in how we choose to interpret ourselves.  When asked, Mr. Tweedy may justify brushing his teeth as a deliberate moral act in the context of universal imperative, with careful consideration of both deontological and consequential motivations.  Is he right?  No idea.  Did he really consider all that before somebody asked him?  Who knows?  I can't ask him; that would defeat the purpose.  >8->  Me, I might just say "Yeah, I hate the way my teeth feel in the morning when I don't brush them at night."  But that's not really why I started brushing either.  I started brushing because my parents told me to, long long ago.  And I kept doing it because, well, I just did.  When pressed, I can come up with all sorts of reasons for it, but those reasons aren't why.  I hardly ever think about them.  Any given night, I do it just because that's what I do.

Mr. Tweedy also invoked habit, so really I think we're more alike than different.  He describes his internalities differently than I describe mine, but I think those may be differences in the analyses rather than the specimens.  And we both brush our teeth, so really, how much does it matter?

In closing (yeah, I think I'm done here too), let me repeat once more that to me, the easiest way to live a balanced and good life is to be aware of philosophy but not to take it too seriously.  Thinking about the world should enable happier living in it; when it starts getting in the way, it's probably better to lay off the Kant and take a walk.

The world is full of people who never think, and the have the potential to do a lot of harm.  The world is also full of people who think too much, and they also have the potential to do a lot of harm.

All things in balance.  Know yourself, sure, but also like and trust yourself despite the gaps in your self-knowledge.

[Mr. Tweedy]

I did not start doing everything that I do for moral reasons: I started brushing because my parents said to.

But as I mature, I ask questions.  I ask myself why I do things and if those things are really right or not.  Sometimes the "why" is obvious and sometimes it's a riddle so tricky I have to put it on hold and come back to it later.  As I ask, analyze, study, and consider instruction, my views and understandings change.

If I accepted subjective morality, I would have no incentive to do this.  If I could make up whatever standard I wanted, then the answer to "why" would always be "because I said so" and I would be bogged down in my own hubris with no motivation to ever grow or change.  But, since I accept that there is an absolute Standard, I have something to measure myself against.  I grow and change as I seek to better know what the Standard is and how it applies to my life.  In the course of this process, a rule like "brush your teeth" ceases to be an arbitrary impossition from my parents as I recognize its significance and the reasons why it is necessary.

No, I had never before thought of putting on a jacket in terms of moral significance; the question spurred the thought for the first time.  Now that I've considered it, my understand and my knowledge as just a hare bigger and better than they were before.  I've grown a little bit.  It's a growth, not just an arbitrary change.

[SFEley]

If I accepted subjective morality, I would have no incentive to do this.  If I could make up whatever standard I wanted, then the answer to "why" would always be "because I said so" and I would be bogged down in my own hubris with no motivation to ever grow or change.

Counterpoint: I accept subjective morality.  Do I strike you as someone who answers "Because I said so" to every question of "Why?"

I will readily admit to some hubris, but do you assess me as the sort of person who never grows, changes, or thinks about his actions?

Feel free to answer honestly.  I won't take it as an insult, and I won't argue with your answers; I'm inviting it.

No, I had never before thought of putting on a jacket in terms of moral significance; the question spurred the thought for the first time.  Now that I've considered it, my understand and my knowledge as just a hare bigger and better than they were before.  I've grown a little bit.  It's a growth, not just an arbitrary change.

Very cool.

[ClintMemo]

I did not start doing everything that I do for moral reasons: I started brushing because my parents said to.

But as I mature, I ask questions.  I ask myself why I do things and if those things are really right or not.  Sometimes the "why" is obvious and sometimes it's a riddle so tricky I have to put it on hold and come back to it later.  As I ask, analyze, study, and consider instruction, my views and understandings change.

much like I said has happened to me in the last ten years back a few pages ago.

[ClintMemo]

One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong.  Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder."   In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves.  They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term.  They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths. 

[Mr. Tweedy]

Counterpoint: I accept subjective morality.  Do I strike you as someone who answers "Because I said so" to every question of "Why?"

I will readily admit to some hubris, but do you assess me as the sort of person who never grows, changes, or thinks about his actions?

Feel free to answer honestly.  I won't take it as an insult, and I won't argue with your answers; I'm inviting it.

Like I've said numerous times here, I don't think you really do believe in subjective morality.  It think you're a hypocrite: You pay lip service to a standard that you don't actually live by.  So, no, you don't strike me as being those things.  He strike me as a person who hasn't thoroughly thought out the implications of their own philosophy.

[FNH]

I've read the phrase "do good" a few times here.  I was wondering what people consider the definition for that and perhaps its opposite.

[SFEley]

Like I've said numerous times here, I don't think you really do believe in subjective morality.  It think you're a hypocrite: You pay lip service to a standard that you don't actually live by.  So, no, you don't strike me as being those things.  He strike me as a person who hasn't thoroughly thought out the implications of their own philosophy.

Heh.  Well, I did ask.  I appreciate your insights into what I think, and you have my thanks for clarifying, one last time, that what I think is not what I think I think.  

...And I think I'm done here.  >8->  It's been fun and stimulating.  Last one out, please hit the lights.  You're all cool with me.

[Anarkey]

One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong.  Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder."   In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves.  They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term.  They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths. 

Would you consider that in the case of "reactive attachment disorder" the hardwiring has just been seriously messed with by long-term neglect?  That goes a little afield into nature vs. nurture but I do think its possible that even the most instinctive of reactions can be screwed up and messed with by repeat environmental trauma.

And again, just to be clear, I was talking about the possibility of universal social taboos being about species survival, not about morals.  I think there may be cases where individual survival wiring supercedes species survival wiring.

I'm interested in your foster care experiences (though I'm trying not to encourage topic drift).

[FNH]

One other thing I can add as yet another side note...
My (limited) experience as a foster parent has taught me that there is NOTHING hardwired in a human being that teaches people right from wrong.  Kids who suffer from severe neglect when they are very young can develop "reactive attachment disorder."   In severe cases, they have no regard for anyone but themselves.  They have no concept of cause and effect. They have no concept of there being consequences for their actions. Their only concern is for their own self-interest and generally only in the short term.  They are little sociopaths. They often grow up to be adult sociopaths. 

Firstly, major MAJOR admiration for you taking on those kids.

However I have to disagree about the hardwiring.  I think children can be and often are beasted.  They have the humanity driven out by the circumstances that they are in.

For instance a child who is not loved by thier parents may, despite the lack of role model, show great compassion for others.   In effect the hard-wiring can be overridden.

[Rachel Swirsky]

Speaking as an anthropologist who rejects cultural relativism in its more extreme forms, my view of subjective morality is pretty simple. One can adjust for psychological and cultural differences, but at heart, we're all still human. As humans, there are things that we can say are objectively true for humans -- although it all goes to pot if we discover sentient silicate rock crystals from Xygar. The sentient silicate rock crystals can have their own subjective and objective truths.

I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths, however. The conversation goes like this:

"Revealed truth."

"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."

"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."

"Well... okay, then."

Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?

[Rachel Swirsky]

universal social taboos being about species survival

Right. Basically what you'd need to prove for that is that those universal social taboos are carried by a large enough portion of the population for them to continue to be carried.

FWIW, anthropologists routinely say that the only cross-culturally accepted social taboo is against incest (which is defined differently in each locale), which they further use to indicate that incest is the only thing we're damn sure happens in all cultures (because otherwise why would everyone need the taboo?).

I would expect that people everywhere frown on in-group murder under normal circumstances, though I've never heard this argued, so it may be that there's some group somewhere that is or was chill with killin'...

[FNH]

I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths,

I dont think thats true, because ...

"Revealed truth."
"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."
"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."
"Well... okay, then."

.. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty.

"Revealed truth."
Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?

...because your religion/belief is logic?

[Rachel Swirsky]

Laws should be made on the basis of objective reality. Don't legislate your religion on my body.

[Rachel Swirsky]

".. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty."

I suppose it's objectively sweary, for containing a swear word. But nasty is always a subjective opinion, so no dice.

[slic]

I'm profoundly uninterested in talking about this stuff with anyone who has a morality from revealed truths,

I dont think thats true, because ...

"Revealed truth."
"Ah, but your revealed truths are bullshit, because of logic."
"Reassertion of revealed truths, which trump logic, being revealed."
"Well... okay, then."

.. which objectively seems a bit sweary, and a bit nasty.

I would add that there is no point - as I mentioned to Mr. Tweedy - I can't win an arguement with God.  Put another way - If someone truly believes that the Moon Landing was a hoax nothing I can say or show will convince them otherwise.

"Revealed truth."
Just don't make laws based on your revealed truths. This should be intuitive, yes?

...because your religion/belief is logic?

No, because, frankly, the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time.  Have any roosters crow into a glass and break it, lately?  How to deal with that specific case is covered in the Quran.  Worried about eating shellfish - check out Levitcus.  Pork bother you - try the Talmud.

[FNH]

No, because, frankly, the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time.  Have any roosters crow into a glass and break it, lately?  How to deal with that specific case is covered in the Quran.  Worried about eating shellfish - check out Levitcus.  Pork bother you - try the Talmud.

I dont "get" any of that.  Your terms of reference didn't come across to me I'm afraid.  I'm assuming your backing up the "guidances of religion" assertion.  I would disagree with that.

[Rachel Swirsky]

You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time? That is, you're arguing that the interpretation of religion's prohibitions remains static over time?

This is demonstrably untrue.

[FNH]

I suppose it's objectively sweary, for containing a swear word. But nasty is always a subjective opinion, so no dice.

Yet you used swear words to describe my religious belief.  You were nasty to me.  "Thems the dice".  On top of that you just suggested that my opinion of my own feelings dont count.  I consider that a "Nasty" hurtful statement.  Seriously I'm not sitting here crying over it, but I feel the "nasty bit applies.

[FNH]

You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time? That is, you're arguing that the interpretation of religion's prohibitions remains static over time?
This is demonstrably untrue.

No.  You originally said ...

the specific guidances of religion often lose their relevance over time

... and now your suggesting ...

You disagree that the specific provisions of what it is interpreted that religion prohibits change over time?

Which is differn't.

[Rachel Swirsky]

It's still not objective, by the definition of the word objective. Your feelings are, by definition, subjective.

The point I made stands, more or less by the terms slic said: I can't argue with God. If someone wants to pull out God as their rationale for anything, then one can't argue with that, by logic or otherwise. "God says so" sets terms for the argument which are concerned with revealed truth, not objective reality.

"Bullshit" is a relatively mild word in my lexicon. I apologize for offending you, but since I stand by the statement, I don't know if you'll accept that as appropriate, which is reasonable.

[Rachel Swirsky]

You're arguing with two different people, FNH. Don't condense us.

They aren't different. Slic suggests that there are some religious prohibitions which are no longer followed (because of relevance). I suggest the same thing, but add the word 'interpretation,' which, if anything, includes what Slic said and adds some.

I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. (Someone can correct me on actual biblical data.) No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.

[FNH]

You're arguing with two different people, FNH. Don't condense us.

Sorry. I should pay more attention!

I believe, for instance, that Christians are admonished in Leviticus never to wear mixed fabrics. (Someone can correct me on actual biblical data.) No one follows this prohibition any longer. It has both lost relevance, and also been interpreted to no longer be important.

Christians ( well this one at least ) are all about New Testament, Leviticus is Old Testament.   Incidentally I dont know the reference to which you refer, any pointers anyone?  I've searched my digital Bible but I might be using the wrong search terms.