|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 2:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Well, no argument there. Things will likely get worse before they get better. But that's a matter of circumstance rather than principle. |
I suspect that the prevailing circumstances are only an indication that it is indeed a matter of principle.
When divorce became fashionable, the legitimacy of marriage was doomed.
While there is little doubt that there are those who can still benefit from marriage, the general populace is in dire need of a better system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I see it, the prevailing circumstance are a decay of sound principles. Think about it metaphorically. A man spends years fit and healthy, and then in his daily distraction he begins to stop exercising, starts eating more and more carelessly, and before he knows it, he's out of shape and obese. Is there some fundamental defect in him? No, as is evinced by his healthy past. Rather, he's adopted bad habits, and he will remain ill until his habits are reformed.
If it were clear marriage was being phased out and replaced by something grander, more meaningful, and more healthy, I'd be more sanguine about all of this. But instead, it's being replaced by the frustrations of serial dating, raising children in broken families (if at all), the petty materialism of acquisition, and perhaps worst of all, Facebook narcissism. You suggest a better system is needed. Well, when I see this hypothetical "better system," perhaps I can judge it on its merits, and perhaps I'll be impressed and forced to assent to its wisdom, but to date no such system has manifested, at least at large, and given the prevailing values at work in our culture, if one were to emerge, I've got a bad feeling it would be far too reminiscent of Brave, New World. I suppose I'll reserve my island in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| As I see it, the prevailing circumstance are a decay of sound principles. Think about it metaphorically. A man spends years fit and healthy, and then in his daily distraction he begins to stop exercising, starts eating more and more carelessly, and before he knows it, he's out of shape and obese. Is there some fundamental defect in him? No, as is evinced by his healthy past. Rather, he's adopted bad habits, and he will remain ill until his habits are reformed. |
Let's change it a bit to see it from anther basically flawed principle.
A man spends years fit and healthy, but in his daily routine he smokes. After numerous years he gets lung cancer. Is there some fundamental defect in him?
The flaw is not in him. It is the smoking...yes?
Or perhaps no. Some smoke and never get cancer. Though many do.
| Quote: |
| You suggest a better system is needed. Well, when I see this hypothetical "better system," perhaps I can judge it on its merits, and perhaps I'll be impressed and forced to assent to its wisdom |
Yes...it would be nice to have a system ready to go. Unfortunately, there isn't one, yet.
But your sentiment sounds akin to the smoker that is waiting for a cure for cancer... reluctant to give up smoking. And please note, smoking does have health benefits for some...a non-trivial issue for a great many people.
If we let science work on this a bit more, we will discover soon enough that humans are not, by fundamental nature, monogamous till death do them part. And so long as that is a defining characteristic of 'marriage', the flaw is fundamental.
Of course there are many more flaws...and if you are so inclined, we could banter this around for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
Let's change it a bit to see it from anther basically flawed principle.
A man spends years fit and healthy, but in his daily routine he smokes. After numerous years he gets lung cancer. Is there some fundamental defect in him?
The flaw is not in him. It is the smoking...yes?
Or perhaps no. Some smoke and never get cancer. Though many do. |
Well, I don't want to grip a metaphor too firmly here, but the problems with our society's marital relations seemed to manifest when it changed its behavior, not when it continued it. You might not much like marriage, but family life has perpetuated society -- every society, everywhere -- for thousands of years. To liken it to smoking seems to me to be in error.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
If we let science work on this a bit more, we will discover soon enough that humans are not, by fundamental nature, monogamous till death do them part. |
I've no doubt that an intensive scientific exploration of a human purely and only as an individual could find some grounds upon which to strong-arm an endorsement of that conclusion. It could also conclude using a similar methodology that man is, by fundamental nature, an addict, a liar, a thief, even a rapist or a murderer, and any number of other less than admirable things. It's when we explore not man purely and only in himself, but man in relation to man, man in relation to child, man in relation to the world itself, that we begin to see the broad patterns that justify conclusions of how things ought to be; of which norms are healthy and which are dysfunctional.
We could exchange rhetorical jabs endlessly I suppose, but instead let me ask you a question which I think cuts to the quick of this issue: do you think there is any standard of conduct which is superior to that of personal happiness, such that conduct can be correct and worthy despite not making one happy as an individual? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Well, I don't want to grip a metaphor too firmly here, but the problems with our society's marital relations seemed to manifest when it changed its behavior, not when it continued it. You might not much like marriage, but family life has perpetuated society -- every society, everywhere -- for thousands of years. To liken it to smoking seems to me to be in error. |
Of course, I concede the original metaphor was faulty. I used it only to demonstrate how easily a person can reach a faulty conclusion.
| Fox wrote: |
I've no doubt that an intensive scientific exploration of a human purely and only as an individual could find some grounds upon which to strong-arm an endorsement of that conclusion. It could also conclude using a similar methodology that man is, by fundamental nature, an addict, a liar, a thief, even a rapist or a murderer, and any number of other less than admirable things. It's when we explore not man purely and only in himself, but man in relation to man, man in relation to child, man in relation to the world itself, that we begin to see the broad patterns that justify conclusions of how things ought to be; of which norms are healthy and which are dysfunctional. |
cough cough...using terms like addict, liar, thief, and murderer seems a tad hyperbolic...and a bit disingenuous.
I am simply pointing out a biological fundamental...it isn't dysfunctional. The fact that someone as educated and refined as yourself would classify it as such only lends to the argument that few people have the opportunity to live a life without oppressive morals being thrown on them...and for no other reason than...because we have always done it that way...when in fact we haven't...and obviously won't.
It is precisely the terms...ought to be...in which I am interested in discussing with you. How 'marriage' ought to be defined given present day knowledge of human nature and societal concerns.
| Fox wrote: |
We could exchange rhetorical jabs endlessly I suppose, but instead let me ask you a question which I think cuts to the quick of this issue: do you think there is any standard of conduct which is superior to that of personal happiness, such that conduct can be correct and worthy despite not making one happy as an individual? |
Well...without presupposing a rhetorical trap, of course there are numerous standards of conduct that are far superior than the pursuit of individual happiness.
Please don't confuse my stance on outdated concepts with cynical narcissism.
Sharing, compassion, cooperation...etc are also biological entities that draw us closer to the way things 'ought' to be.
We could continue this discussion along these lines as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
cough cough...using terms like addict, liar, thief, and murderer seems a tad hyperbolic...and a bit disingenuous.
I am simply pointing out a biological fundamental...it isn't dysfunctional. |
Perhaps the point I was trying to make wasn't sufficiently clear. I'm certainly not intending to liken the single man to thieves and murderers. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that a methodology which predicates itself too heavily on what you call the "biological fundamentals" can't help but spiral out towards such problematic conclusions. Clearly I was clumsy in trying to make that point.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| a life without oppressive morals being thrown on them |
I'd appreciate some clarification here regarding this term "oppressive morals." It implies to me one of two things:
1) That all morals are oppressive in a pejorative sense, which in turn implies amorality is the only way "oppression" can be absent.
2) That some morals are oppressive while others are not.
Do you mean the former, or the latter, and if the latter, what is the difference between an oppressive moral principle and a non-oppressive one?
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
Well...without presupposing a rhetorical trap, of course there are numerous standards of conduct that are far superior than the pursuit of individual happiness.
Please don't confuse my stance on outdated concepts with cynical narcissism.
Sharing, compassion, cooperation...etc are also biological entities that draw us closer to the way things 'ought' to be.
We could continue this discussion along these lines as well. |
Another question then: if sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness can draw us closer to the way things ought to be, and we can understand sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness to be at least to some extent as a kind of self-sacrifice, then do we agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| a life without oppressive morals being thrown on them |
I'd appreciate some clarification here regarding this term "oppressive morals." It implies to me one of two things:
1) That all morals are oppressive in a pejorative sense, which in turn implies amorality is the only way "oppression" can be absent.
2) That some morals are oppressive while others are not.
Do you mean the former, or the latter, and if the latter, what is the difference between an oppressive moral principle and a non-oppressive one?
|
An example of non-oppressive - murder, theft,
An example of oppressive - pre-marital sex, masturbation...etc
A good many sexual activities are 'morally offensive' to a great many for any number of reasons...often religiously so.
| Fox wrote: |
Another question then: if sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness can draw us closer to the way things ought to be, and we can understand sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness to be at least to some extent as a kind of self-sacrifice, then do we agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct? |
hmm... your conclusion is sound without the conditional attachment to the conditionals and quantifiers in your premise...and the premise still has me a bit confused.
However, we do indeed agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct.
In fact, sacrifice, and specifically self-sacrifice, is often one of the greatest catalysts for future happiness...no?
While this often leads to the argument that all behavior regarding sacrifice is inherently selfish, it requires a certain blind logic to accept it without specific context.
And thank you for taking the time to clarify your previous statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| a life without oppressive morals being thrown on them |
I'd appreciate some clarification here regarding this term "oppressive morals." It implies to me one of two things:
1) That all morals are oppressive in a pejorative sense, which in turn implies amorality is the only way "oppression" can be absent.
2) That some morals are oppressive while others are not.
Do you mean the former, or the latter, and if the latter, what is the difference between an oppressive moral principle and a non-oppressive one?
|
An example of non-oppressive - murder, theft,
An example of oppressive - pre-marital sex, masturbation...etc
A good many sexual activities are 'morally offensive' to a great many for any number of reasons...often religiously so.
| Fox wrote: |
Another question then: if sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness can draw us closer to the way things ought to be, and we can understand sharing, compassion, and cooperation absent accompanying personal happiness to be at least to some extent as a kind of self-sacrifice, then do we agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct? |
hmm... your conclusion is sound without the conditional attachment to the conditionals and quantifiers in your premise...and the premise still has me a bit confused.
However, we do indeed agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct.
In fact, sacrifice, and specifically self-sacrifice, is often one of the greatest catalysts for future happiness...no?
While this often leads to the argument that all behavior regarding sacrifice is inherently selfish, it requires a certain blind logic to accept it without specific context.
And thank you for taking the time to clarify your previous statements. |
It requires blind faith and a leap into the absurd, which means anything that isn't logical. Absurdity is a great place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
An example of non-oppressive - murder, theft,
An example of oppressive - pre-marital sex, masturbation...etc
A good many sexual activities are 'morally offensive' to a great many for any number of reasons...often religiously so. |
I think I'm seeing a pattern here. Given we're both non-religious individuals who don't necessarily have a positive view of religion as a phenomenon, let's keep religion out of it. Let me ask for a few more examples to make sure. Are the following hypothetical moral principles oppressive or non-oppressive on a case-by-case basis:
1) A prohibition on suicide.
2) A prohibition on informed, consensual sexual interaction with a 16 year old.
3) A prohibition on lying.
4) A mandate to repay one's debts and obligations.
5) A mandate to provide assistance to those in need.
6) A mandate to keep one's oaths.
7) A prohibition on harming children.
 A mandate to put the good of broader society before one's own personal good.
| Fox wrote: |
However, we do indeed agree that self-sacrifice has a role to play in human conduct.
In fact, sacrifice, and specifically self-sacrifice, is often one of the greatest catalysts for future happiness...no? |
Well, I certainly think so, but the important thing for now is that we agree it can be right and proper behavior even if no future happiness will be forthcoming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stain wrote: |
| It requires blind faith and a leap into the absurd, which means anything that isn't logical. Absurdity is a great place. |
Perhaps, we could all get islands, like Fox. And you could name yours 'Absurdity'.
I'm sure it will be a great place to visit...if you allow us.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Let me ask for a few more examples to make sure. Are the following hypothetical moral principles oppressive or non-oppressive on a case-by-case basis:
1) A prohibition on suicide.
2) A prohibition on informed, consensual sexual interaction with a 16 year old.
3) A prohibition on lying.
4) A mandate to repay one's debts and obligations.
5) A mandate to provide assistance to those in need.
6) A mandate to keep one's oaths.
7) A prohibition on harming children.
A mandate to put the good of broader society before one's own personal good.
|
Not sure I can help you with all those... even as you define them...they are far too broad to condone or condemn them as moral 'guidelines'. No matter my answer, you can use it to create a logical argument that was unintended by my answer.
Just as an example.
1) - as a 'general guideline' non-oppressive...on individual cases....oppressive.
2) - lol...really? Please define 'sexual interaction'.
As it is written - oppressive
Again, I think you can see the pattern. You and I are both relatively clever with words and rhetoric...enough so to want to avoid making an ass of ourselves over a misinterpretation of what is otherwise an honest inquiry.
I suspect I would have to concede that most all morals have the potential to be oppressive if followed by the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law.
And this is a particularly slippery slope...yes?
Might I ask...do you think there is a difference between oppressive and non-oppressive morality? And if so, please answer the list so that I might understand how best to respond to you.
| Fox wrote: |
Well, I certainly think so, but the important thing for now is that we agree it can be right and proper behavior even if no future happiness will be forthcoming. |
Will be forthcoming for whom?
I think you can see that at least one implication of self-sacrifice is that at least someone/thing will benefit...yes? The greater good...yes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Again, I think you can see the pattern. You and I are both relatively clever with words and rhetoric...enough so to want to avoid making an ass of ourselves over a misinterpretation of what is otherwise an honest inquiry. |
Although I understand why you might be hesitant to believe it, I'm really not trying to trick you here. I like principles, and I like discoursing in terms of principles. It's to that end that I'm asking you those questions, not to make a fool of you; what you seem to interpret (based upon that "lol... really?") as ridiculous questions is really just an attempt to highlight whatever principles are at work. Besides, it's not as if I'm going to gain any kind of respect or esteem in our little community by defending a relatively unpopular position.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Might I ask...do you think there is a difference between oppressive and non-oppressive morality? And if so, please answer the list so that I might understand how best to respond to you. |
I would say there can only be true ethical principles and false ethical principles. A true ethical principle can never be oppressive, since it leads towards what's right and proper, that which cannot be advantageously traded for anything else. A false ethical principle can never be other than oppressive, since it binds conduct in an illegitimate fashion and will direct at least partially away from the same ends towards which a true ethical principle directs.
As far as the list goes, are any of the points listed either true first principles of ethics or unequivocally entailed by true first principles of ethics in their entirety? I'd say no (although some hint at the truth much more closely than others), and thus, if we want to speak in terms of "oppressiveness," to fundamentally accept any of them would be to exist in a state of oppression. But I don't think we're using "oppressiveness" in the exact same way here, either, which is what compelled me to ask these questions in the first place.
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Well, I certainly think so, but the important thing for now is that we agree it can be right and proper behavior even if no future happiness will be forthcoming. |
Will be forthcoming for whom?
I think you can see that at least one implication of self-sacrifice is that at least someone/thing will benefit...yes? The greater good...yes? |
"Something will benefit," and, "Someone will be happy," are two very different propositions though. Of course I'd agree that proper ethical conduct can't help but be beneficial, because I see human advantage and disadvantage in entirely ethical terms, so I'd merely be admitting to what I see as a tautology. But, I don't think an interplay of ethical behavior will necessarily make everyone happy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is part of the decline phase of a society; the breakdown of male/female relations.
If you walk around Seoul the streets are filled with men/women holding hands enjoying the day together. In KR men and women still like each other!! Now fly to a major city in the USA and look at the difference. Very few couples out together, and even those look tense/forced, like they aren't having fun.
It's really quite fascinating to watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stain
Joined: 08 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Stain wrote: |
| It requires blind faith and a leap into the absurd, which means anything that isn't logical. Absurdity is a great place. |
Perhaps, we could all get islands, like Fox. And you could name yours 'Absurdity'.
I'm sure it will be a great place to visit...if you allow us.
|
But, of course. What shall we do? What didst thou in thy mind have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stan Rogers wrote: |
| EZE wrote: |
| I'm a 38 year old American. I've had a few wives, but I've never been married. I've seen too many other men get financially ruined by it. |
Had wives but never married? Were they like one of those cyber wives? Sounds like you're 38 years old and never kissed a girl.  |
They were wives and I had 'em. They had their engagement rings, wedding rings, and stories about their husbands and kids. It's a big reason among a lot of big and small reasons that I prefer to be single. I know I'd be paying the mortgage, the electric bill, and many other expenses while some 25 year old is dicking my wife for free or for pennies on the dollar at most while I'm busting my ass at work. |
|
| 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
