|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Where did you get your moral code? |
| Religion |
|
14% |
[ 10 ] |
| Society |
|
4% |
[ 3 ] |
| Parent/Authority figure |
|
24% |
[ 17 ] |
| Role model/Personal hero |
|
2% |
[ 2 ] |
| Devised my own |
|
35% |
[ 25 ] |
| Other |
|
18% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 70 |
|
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:25 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Generally speaking, the notion that items of our language like right and wrong, should do this, should do that can refer to independently-existing metaphysical states of affairs is a dubious theory that should be rejected. |
This is just too metaphysical for me. |
It was an anti-metaphysics argument. That morality is crammed full of dodgy metaphysics is why I don't buy it.
I shall attempt to simplify the paragraph you quoted.
Morality is a theory of language. It argues that features of our language - words like right, wrong, ought, ought not - refer to and are justified by non-physical, non-psychological, non-human even, states of affairs that guarantee the truth of moral statements (such as "x is wrong", "y is a better way to live than x"). To be quite frank, it's metaphysical bunkum of the highest order, but many folks buy it, in the mistaken belief that human psychological states are also characteristics of wider reality.
That sounded much more complicated than my original statement, but I hope it helped. |
It sounds as if you really don't believe people should be concerned about morality at all or strive to live moral lives. Is that about right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I selected "devised my own" because I am my own master. |
No offense Spinoza, but what does this mean exactly? Whenever I hear people say this it reminds of people saying, "I'm in complete control. I can quit whenver I want." |
I'm sorry, I dunno what else to say about it.
I am my own boss? That's my moral code. Mind you, a lot of my moral code is a hangover from my upbringing by a staunchly socialist and atheist mother. Sometimes I'm perhaps rebelling against it; but it's very influential.
I have a history of doing things that I wanted to do, regardless of legality and indeed ragardless of what most people deem decent....deliciously dark pleasures that doth delight mine soul. I did them because they seemed right to me.
The good news is my personal, self-devised moral code contains many things you see in others: be nice to people, have impeccable manners, don't hurt animals unless you intend to kill it and eat it, I have no right to kill someone unless in self-defence, violence is generally bad, genetic heritage does not affect ability or behaviour..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| red dog wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
Generally speaking, the notion that items of our language like right and wrong, should do this, should do that can refer to independently-existing metaphysical states of affairs is a dubious theory that should be rejected. |
This is just too metaphysical for me. |
It was an anti-metaphysics argument. That morality is crammed full of dodgy metaphysics is why I don't buy it.
I shall attempt to simplify the paragraph you quoted.
Morality is a theory of language. It argues that features of our language - words like right, wrong, ought, ought not - refer to and are justified by non-physical, non-psychological, non-human even, states of affairs that guarantee the truth of moral statements (such as "x is wrong", "y is a better way to live than x"). To be quite frank, it's metaphysical bunkum of the highest order, but many folks buy it, in the mistaken belief that human psychological states are also characteristics of wider reality.
That sounded much more complicated than my original statement, but I hope it helped. |
It sounds as if you really don't believe people should be concerned about morality at all or strive to live moral lives. Is that about right? |
Not really, RD. You mustn't mistake moral anti-realism for nihilism. Just because I don't believe in metaphysical moral realism doesn't mean I don't think folks should be nice to one another. You're thinking about morality wrongly. To be devoid of morality is to be devoid of emotion and compassion and conscience, natural psychological states whose origin is complex biochemical phenomena in the brain, which I'm not.
However, I do propose that moral 'truths' are psychological and linguistic phenomena only. Moral statements govern human behaviour. They don't have any other cosmic purpose. Thus they are observer-dependent states of affairs and are not capable of absolute truth. The justification for 2 plus 2 equalling 4 is not psychology or emotion, yet think up any moral statement and you'll find that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I got mine from the Goodwill store. It was cheap, had never been used and it fit perfectly.
Seriously, though, I got mine from Mighty Mouse and Speedy Gonzales. Try to make the world a more just place, using your own strengths and the idiocy and greed of others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zoobot
Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really? I ordered mine from the back of Archie comics...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Mithridates I think this is a flaw in his argument.
| Quote: |
If no set of moral ideas
were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring
civilised morality to savage morality, |
It is possible to prefer one thing to another with out necessarily believing it to be better.
As for his objective standard of morality...well take the following example.
In the US capital punishment is allowed. In the EU it is banned.
Some parts of America believe that capital punishment is morally alright. The EU believes it isn't. Who can objectively say which of the two is right? |
This doesn't seem to be a flaw - both systems we're looking at have their own reasons for punishing criminals to the extent they feel they need but on the whole the rest of the moral code is probably mostly the same. Kind of like arguing Lexus vs. BMW, where both have their pros and cons but nobody would say that either is a real lemon. If we bring in a third country where all criminals no matter what are punished by being made to walk across a greased log placed over a field of burning coals (the rusty El Camino system of punishing offenders) we'd have a pretty good idea which one was better.
In the first two systems we still have the common themes of innocent before proven guilty, no torturing prisoners, etc. and they are not all that different compared to the barbaric systems of 'justice' we've had throughout history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mithridates
| Quote: |
This doesn't seem to be a flaw - both systems we're looking at have their own reasons for punishing criminals to the extent they feel they need but on the whole the rest of the moral code is probably mostly the same. |
But it's the extent of the punishment that constitutes the difference in moral values.
The EU considers capital punishment to be immoral (it violates the EU charter of human rights) and EU states will not extradite to countries that may impose the death penalty.
Look at it this way.
Father A has a son who steals money from him to buy cigarettes so he punishes him by grounding him for a week.
Father B has a son who steals money from him to buy cigarettes so he punishes him by stabbing him to death.
Both fathers agree that the son needs to be punished. There is no difference in the morality of their actions, the only difference between them is the extent of the punishment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Woland thanks for the link, it looks interesting.
Any idea how long the show is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ody
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: over here
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Woland thanks for the link, it looks interesting.
Any idea how long the show is? |
| Ody wrote: |
| Woland wrote: |
Observing. Reading. Interacting. Thinking.
|
...i heard recently that children begin forming a moral code at the age of three.
O.P.: when you have time, check out this Radio Lab installment:
Morality
Show #203 |
i'm not sure if Woland posted a link in this thread, but if you are you talking about the link above, you're welcome. 
if my memory serves me, the broadcasts are nearly an hour long. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ooops sorry! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Great Toad
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a Logos Of Universal Law that is Universal Law
Everything is ether Black or White to The Romantic Knight Errant Crusader
There is no Gray
The Knight Of The Lion and Sad Face - Don Quixote is the Hero Of Renown whose Prowess in Battle is Matched By but One Peerless Arm
In Sooth There Can Be NO EPIK Hero Greater Now Or After
Tristan And Lancelot are bunglers and graceless impolite Churls before him
Uther is Weak in his Fervor when Compared to His Righteous Wraith On The Fields of War
Akhilleus The Maniac Fast Runner Killer is but a Squire in the Fight when Contrasted with His Might
Yes I am The Noble Perfect and Just
The Champion of Divine Right Of KIngs
The Great Toad
Recant your Heresy Or I will be Challenge you to a Kim Chee Eating Bohort
And I alone am the Lord Of Glut Even The Great Smaug quails Before my all consuming Gut. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Great Toad wrote: |
There is a Logos Of Universal Law that is Universal Law
Everything is ether Black or White to The Romantic Knight Errant Crusader
There is no Gray
The Knight Of The Lion and Sad Face - Don Quixote is the Hero Of Renown whose Prowess in Battle is Matched By but One Peerless Arm
In Sooth There Can Be NO EPIK Hero Greater Now Or After
Tristan And Lancelot are bunglers and graceless impolite Churls before him
Uther is Weak in his Fervor when Compared to His Righteous Wraith On The Fields of War
Akhilleus The Maniac Fast Runner Killer is but a Squire in the Fight when Contrasted with His Might
Yes I am The Noble Perfect and Just
The Champion of Divine Right Of KIngs
The Great Toad
Recant your Heresy Or I will be Challenge you to a Kim Chee Eating Bohort
And I alone am the Lord Of Glut Even The Great Smaug quails Before my all consuming Gut. |
Your Majesty (or other appropriately respectful and suitably sycophantic form of address),
By any chance, when you said 'Wraith' did you mean 'Wrath' and when you said 'quails' did you mean 'quakes' because according to the Queens English a 'quail' is a type of bird (but there again what does she know!). I'm not in any way suggesting that a personnage as mighty as yourself might be mistaken (in fact I'm quaking or quailing in my boots that you might think so). Far from it. In fact I'm sure you probably used those words as a sort of cipher, a test if you will, to see who was worthy to divine your true meaning.
Yours in all grovelling humbleness,
Grimalkin.
P.S. I know exactly what you mean about Tristan and Lancelot, a right pair of chancers, I wouldn't trust them further than I can throw them! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: |
To be devoid of morality is to be devoid of emotion and compassion and conscience, natural psychological states whose origin is complex biochemical phenomena in the brain, which I'm not.
|
Well, it's good to hear that ... from some of your other posts on these boards, I couldn't help wondering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
* Ethical conduct from The Noble Eightfold Path
| Quote: |
Right speech
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, abstaining from divisive speech, abstaining from abusive speech, abstaining from idle chatter: This, monks, is called right speech.
Walpola Rahula glosses this by stating that not engaging in such "forms of wrong and harmful speech" ultimately means that "one naturally has to speak the truth, has to use words that are friendly and benevolent, pleasant and gentle, meaningful and useful".
Right action
Right action (samyak-karmānta � sammā-kammanta) can also be translated as "right conduct" and, as the name implies, deals with the proper way in which a Buddhist practitioner would act in his or her daily life. In the Magga-vibhanga Sutta, this aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path is explained as follows:
And what, monks, is right action? Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity: This, monks, is called right action.
Together with the idea of ahiṁsā and right speech, right action constitutes the Five Precepts (Sanskrit: pa�caśīla, Pāli: pa�casīla), which form the fundamental ethical code undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism, and which are as follows:
1. To refrain from destroying living beings.
2. To refrain from stealing.
3. To refrain from sexual misconduct (adultery, rape, etc.).
4. To refrain from false speech (lying).
5. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.
Right livelihood
Right livelihood (samyag-ājīva � sammā-ājīva) is based around the concept of ahiṁsā, or harmlessness, and essentially states that Buddhist practitioners ought not to engage in trades or occupations which, either directly or indirectly, result in harm to other living beings. Such occupations include "trading in arms and lethal weapons, intoxicating drinks, poisons, killing animals, [and] cheating", among others. "[B]usiness in human beings"�such as slave trading and prostitution�is also forbidden, as are several other dishonest means of gaining wealth, such as "[s]cheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, [and] pursuing gain with gain". |
and The five precepts
| Quote: |
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking the life (killing) of living beings.
I undertake the precept to refrain from stealing.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct (adultery, rape, etc).
I undertake the precept to refrain from false speech (lying).
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicants which lead to heedlessness.
|
|
Some good things in there, but refraining from idle chatter is not one of them. Phatic communion has some very important social bonding functions that are not necessarily associated with the ( mundane ) topics being discussed.
I also have no problem with taking intoxicating things that might make me headless as long as I know ahead of time that they might make me headless and therefore put my self in a situation where the potential for harming myself of others is greatly reduced... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:52 am Post subject: re: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
I selected "devised my own" because I am my own master. Also, I frequently have done things against the will of my state and my parents that I thought were perfectly okay.
I also have wants and desires that most moral frameworks of note would discourage - yet I think they're okay and don't give a toss.
Other than parents (when you're a kid; not when you're an adult) and the state, which can punish me if it wants, I have never seen any evidence of a higher moral or rational authority than myself.
I'm a moral anti-realist. I do not believe that morals are objectively-existing properties.
Generally speaking, the notion that items of our language like right and wrong, should do this, should do that can refer to independently-existing metaphysical states of affairs is a dubious theory that should be rejected. |
I just want to be sure I understand you correctly (not judging): Are you saying that there is not one single moral which you believe to be objective and timeless?
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
