|
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 |
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:56 am Post subject: re: |
 |
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| 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 totally agree with this!!!
I also think the idea of an absolutely objective concept of right and wrong (in terms of morality) is false. |
I agree with this for nearly every moral code. But there seems to me to be some morals which are beyond time and subjectivity. But the differences between me and those who are total moral relativists (I'm not using that as a bad word~) will always be metaphysical.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peemil
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Location: Koowoompa
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| In everything, honour given is honour gained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:06 am Post subject: Re: re: |
|
|
| seoulunitarian wrote: |
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 |
I don't think there are any objective and timeless morals.
h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delirium's Brother
Joined: 08 May 2006
Location: Out in that field with Rumi, waiting for you to join us!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Divorced parents + catholic elementary school + U2 + atheist friends + BA anthro + more atheist friends + dostoyovski + gogol + camus + the gospel of john + (heavy postmodernism in graduate school x epistemological crisis) + kierkegaard + tolstoy + sufi poetry + simone weil + even more atheist friends = the morality of Delirium's Brother
Last edited by Delirium's Brother on Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:28 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Delirium's Brother wrote: |
| Parents + catholic elementary school + U2 + atheist friends + BA anthro + more atheist friends + dostoyovski + gogol + camus + the gospel of john + heavy postmodernism in graduate school + kierkegaard + tolstoy + sufi poetry + simone weil + even more atheist friends = the morality of Delirium's Brother |
So, is it fixed now?
Or are you +ing and +ing and +ing as you go through life?
I'm especially interested in hearing how Korea -- and specifically how working for Korean employers in the ESL industry -- has affected/altered/kicked-in-the-ass the moral code of Dave's Teacher Members. Gosh, I'm interested. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delirium's Brother
Joined: 08 May 2006
Location: Out in that field with Rumi, waiting for you to join us!
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JongnoGuru wrote: |
| So, is it fixed now? |
Not likely, till the bitter end.
| JongnoGuru wrote: |
| Or are you +ing and +ing and +ing as you go through life? |
If I'd had the proper fonts, I would have expressed it as a multivariable calculus equation 
| JongnoGuru wrote: |
| I'm especially interested in hearing how Korea -- and specifically how working for Korean employers in the ESL industry -- has affected/altered/kicked-in-the-ass the moral code of Dave's Teacher Members. Gosh, I'm interested. |
I'll let you know; Monday is my first day.
peace,
p.s. I've resubmitted your nomination for apotheosis. You could never really be dead to me, JongnoGuru  We'll need some money to build your temple, though |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JongnoGuru wrote: |
| Delirium's Brother wrote: |
| Parents + catholic elementary school + U2 + atheist friends + BA anthro + more atheist friends + dostoyovski + gogol + camus + the gospel of john + heavy postmodernism in graduate school + kierkegaard + tolstoy + sufi poetry + simone weil + even more atheist friends = the morality of Delirium's Brother |
So, is it fixed now?
Or are you +ing and +ing and +ing as you go through life?
I'm especially interested in hearing how Korea -- and specifically how working for Korean employers in the ESL industry -- has affected/altered/kicked-in-the-ass the moral code of Dave's Teacher Members. Gosh, I'm interested. |
Must you be such a smug, condescending oaf?
Anyway, to answer your question, my view on this hasn't changed since 2002 - when I read some serious hardcore shyt - when I never thought living and working in Seoul was even likely.
My view on morality is exactly the same as my view on all the big questions: humans tend to believe that characteristics of our language are also the characteristics of an immeasurably huge, uncaring cosmos. For a species claiming intelligence, it's a most curious thesis in my opinion.
Mind you, who cares? The thread asked where one gets one's moral code from. Mine is myself. Many others appear to agree, which is excellent. You are born your own boss.
Religious folks tickle me, when it's obvious that individuals of religious significance ought to have been shot at birth. Jesus was great - but I'm sure that if he could see into the future and see what horrors his short life would inflict on humanity, he would've selected abortion if he was truly divine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
This does not come as a shock to anyone who has read more than 2 or 3 of your posts.
I COULD be wrong, but from my observations of people, moral codes are the rationalizations/justifications people come up with after the fact to explain to themselves if they are bored and to other people when called on their sh**. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I COULD be wrong, but from my observations of people, moral codes are the rationalizations/justifications people come up with after the fact to explain to themselves if they are bored and to other people when called on their sh**. |
This is quite a statement. I thought I was the official "speciestraitor" on the boards, but you've outdone me this time. Are you talking about people in general here, or just the ones you don't like? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JongnoGuru
Joined: 25 May 2004
Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Must you be such a smug, condescending oaf? |
Maybe. I find it hard not to be a useless prat at times. But I honestly didn't imagine Delirium's Brother, or anybody else, would take me too seriously or personally. Sorry.
Though I am genuinely half-curious about the impact of life in Korean, and as an employee here in particular, on people's moral code. Or moral compass. I think it has effected mine a bit, it's more 'Asian' today. That part of my post was more or less serious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| humans tend to believe that characteristics of our language are also the characteristics of an immeasurably huge, uncaring cosmos |
Can you explain what this means. 
Ya-ta Boy
| Quote: |
I COULD be wrong, but from my observations of people, moral codes are the rationalizations/justifications people come up with after the fact to explain to themselves if they are bored and to other people when called on their sh**. |
This is probably true in some cases.
I also think it's linked to the idea of self respect and self image. There are times I know there is a certain type of person I don't want to be and to ensure I don't become that person I have to adhere to a certain moral code.
I'm sure there are many other reasons people feel the need for a moral code as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
SPINOZA
| Quote: |
| humans tend to believe that characteristics of our language are also the characteristics of an immeasurably huge, uncaring cosmos |
Can you explain what this means.
|
Items of language like 'right and wrong', 'good way to live', 'best way to organize society', are prescriptive. They not only refer (like a noun refers to an object in the world, or a concept, or like a verb refers to some action or state of being) they tell us what we should do, what there should be, not merely what there is. They prescribe behaviour. Psychologically, they are not strange at all since humans have an abstract consciousness, but if assumed to be also non-human, objective in significance, it's very hard to incorporate them into a modern scientific view of the world.*
Also, because these items of language are of emotional significance and say it's wrong, it's right, you SHOULD, they appear quite powerful, so powerful that they may appear to be not merely of the psychological to some observers.
Amongst many other items of mind and language, humans suppose them to be not only items of human communication and thought, but also characteristics of objective reality. One doesn't even have to be religious to believe this. Consequently, some folks believe in 'absolute truths' of morality, said to exist like an absolute truth of reason, or an observable fact.
* Generally, proponents of absolute truths of morality - truths of right and wrong that would exist somehow regardless of the existence of human beings - advocate an absolutely crackpot metaphysics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
* Generally, proponents of absolute truths of morality - truths of right and wrong that would exist somehow regardless of the existence of human beings - advocate an absolutely crackpot metaphysics.
|
I'm still not clear on the distinction between Spinoza's view of morality and the one he's criticizing. How does a moral anti-realist approach the following situation (which fortunately I'm not facing right now), for example?
"My boss should pay me on time."
"It's better for bosses to pay their employees on time than two months late."
"Bosses who consistently pay their employees late aren't doing the right thing. They deserve to experience some negative consequences."
"In the absence of any extenuating circumstances, we are right to think ill of bosses who don't pay in full and on time."
If humans didn't exist, there could be no bosses or employers anywhere on this planet. Obviously, the above statements would be nonsensical -- I don't know anyone who would disagree.
Does that mean they aren't true? I think I've picked a pretty noncontroversial example. Are you saying people shouldn't use everyday, ordinary language when talking about situations involving morality? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That�s a reasonable objection, RD, and the fact that it�s you making it and not one of the relgious barmpots, so dogmatic in their committal to crackpot frameworks, who can�t even handle an enquiry into the ontology of moral terms, says much, I feel. Possibly, you have entered my good books on my beloved Daves.
To business. Bosses who fail to pay their employees on time appeal to our emotions negatively, and because we sympathize with the victim and dislike selfish behaviour, and because these actions negatively affect others� convenience and happiness, �bosses should pay folks on time� carries the appearance of truth. And no � I certainly don�t advocate we avoid everyday language to discuss morality. My analysis of �should� in this context reveals our disgust towards the behabiour of bosses of this ilk increasing inconvenience and unhappiness, perpetrating misery.
The referent of the infinitive �to have to� (ought/should/must) is the consciousness of decency and goodness to others that humans have. You may not feel that because we use moral terms they must refer to an object called justice, but most moral realists do. That justice is solely human in significance and that the cosmos doesn't give a damn what crap we get up to is a harsh reality for many people. We MUST have absolute truths of right and wrong, otherwise we're f***ed! To this, I say BOLLOCKS! Justice is our creation. Why must the universe be just?
Do I wanna do away with morality? Certainly not. But I do object to the humanization of the cosmos, of which moral realism is a big sinner. A more useful, less barmy enquiry would be �how do we use moral statements? What is their function? To what do moral terms refer?�. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mnhnhyouh
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Location: The Middle Kingdom
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Quote: |
* Generally, proponents of absolute truths of morality - truths of right and wrong that would exist somehow regardless of the existence of human beings - advocate an absolutely crackpot metaphysics.
|
I'm still not clear on the distinction between Spinoza's view of morality and the one he's criticizing. How does a moral anti-realist approach the following situation (which fortunately I'm not facing right now), for example?
"My boss should pay me on time."
"It's better for bosses to pay their employees on time than two months late."
"Bosses who consistently pay their employees late aren't doing the right thing. They deserve to experience some negative consequences."
"In the absence of any extenuating circumstances, we are right to think ill of bosses who don't pay in full and on time."
If humans didn't exist, there could be no bosses or employers anywhere on this planet. Obviously, the above statements would be nonsensical -- I don't know anyone who would disagree.
Does that mean they aren't true? I think I've picked a pretty noncontroversial example. Are you saying people shouldn't use everyday, ordinary language when talking about situations involving morality? |
I would say that many Bosses would say that paying an employee late is acceptable under more circumstances than an employee would.
h |
|
| 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
