Moderator: Only_Humean
thinkdr wrote:.
The best defense is to run away from the potential danger.
Was it Only_Humean who taught me that? I think so; but I may be wrong
Running in the opposite direction from the threat beats even Brazilian Wrestling skill, and Judo, and Aikido, as a defense.
.
I could start another thread if I want to talk about my morality. It seems to me you are trying to see if my morality might have some of the same potential problems yours does. Even if it does, that does not take away from the criticisms I aim at yours. We could both be confused, wrong, partially correct. It is a separate issue.thinkdr wrote:In the post of Aug. 25, 2018 at 3:04 p.m. I asked this question about your alternative theory to my synthesis of theories, and you never did respond, Karpel.
I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality. So I ask you again: How do you define the term "morality"? What is your Ethical Theory? How do you justify it?
Well, that's a big if. And you just did judged that slave who murdered his slaveholder. You judged labeled his action immoral. Whatever your motivation for NOT judging him, might lead you consider the action NOT immoral.Yes, it is immoral for a slave to murder his slaveholder although I would not judge him if he did. More moral would be for that slave to escape and join the "Underground Railway" if he or she possibly could find a way to do so.
Why not say that ethics are affected by the context? IOW that the situation affects what is ethical.I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended;
I didn't put myself in the situation of a woman being raped. I chose, I think obviously, a situation that would probe your ethics, and a situation that would be tougher for you. I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.
It was nice of you, Karpel, to put yourself in the situation of a woman being raped.
I think I raised the issue in relation to the mall and the NA burial grounds. It seemed to me that you came rapidly to a solution - make a respectful burial ground within the grounds of the mall. Phyllo and I pointed out various issues there, but I wanted to challenge, I think, the simplicity of the application of your ethics. Perhaps the very system that puts so much power in the few with money - especially with current capitalism in much of the West again - is fundamentally immoral. Capitalism allows for the undermining of democracy by giving more political power to the rich and to corporations in any of a number of ways, now to levels where we are an oligarchy in the states. That could be considered immoral. Capitalism also allows one to earn money not through labor. That also could be considered immoral. I won't even mention the whole banks can give themselves money out of nothing thing.Define for us, please, exactly what you mean when you say "Capitalism," and by "immoral." Then we can discuss it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:5) if the people who listen to you all start running away, what does that do in general to society?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:thinkdr wrote:In the post of Aug. 25, 2018 at 3:04 p.m. I asked this question about your alternative theory to my synthesis of theories, and you never did respond, Karpel.
I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality. So I ask you again: How do you define the term "morality"? What is your Ethical Theory? How do you justify it?Karpel Tunnel wrote:... if I want to talk about my morality. It seems to me you are trying to see if my morality might have some of the same potential problems yours does. ... We could both be ... partially correct.
That is NOT what I'm "trying to see"!!! I hold that to be Ethical is to be a virtue-finder rather than a fault-finder. One is to avoid telling others of their shortcomings, and avoid picking holes in their writing attempts. Instead one is to build on what goodness they can find in someone-else's output, be cooperative, strive to upgrade and improve what they find in another person's theories.
As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest![]()
![]()
And yes, we are both partially correct! You got that right! My Ethical Theory is highly tentative and subject to revision when better ideas come along.Karpel Tunnel wrote:Why not say... that the situation affects what is ethical.
I DID say that on virtually the first line of the first page of text (p. 3) of the short essay titled "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" which I offered to people at this Forum early in this thread as a reference worth reading. Instead of checking it out - as good students would do - I was charged with being a promoter!![]()
![]()
Click on this link to get the evidence: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf
I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended
Earlier I also wrote:survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.Karpel Tunnel wrote: I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.
To be moral is to be true to yourself. If, as a result of a policy you choose, you bring injury upon yourself, then you in retrospect were not as moral as you could have been had you chosen more wisely. Getting raped for sure is 'an emergency situation' when, as I said, survival is your highest priority, so that you will later be in a position to be helpful to others, to be kind, generous, noble, caring, responsible, etc. If you get a genuine rapist mad enough he may kill you; for he is a woman-hater after all.
[Many times a girl will mistakenly believe she is about to get raped when all the guy wants is a little intimacy, wants to come close to her.]Karpel Tunnel wrote:I'd be glad to discuss your queston, "What if Capitalism itself is immoral?"
The system that puts so much power in the few with money - especially with current capitalism in much of the West again - is fundamentally immoral. Capitalism allows for the undermining of democracy by giving more political power to the rich and to corporations in any of a number of ways, now to levels where we are an oligarchy in the states. That could be considered immoral. Capitalism also allows one to earn money not through labor. That also could be considered immoral. I won't even mention the whole banks can give themselves money out of nothing thing.
That's obviously false since all sorts of things that people want to do are labelled as immoral and suppressed. To be moral, one has to be untrue to oneself to some degree - adjusting your behavior "as appropriate".To be moral is to be true to yourself.
phyllo wrote:That's obviously false since all sorts of things that people want to do are labelled as immoral and suppressed. To be moral, one has to be untrue to oneself to some degree - adjusting your behavior "as appropriate".To be moral is to be true to yourself.
I think it is also a mistake to define morality in terms of 'self'.The definition given in those writings is dynamic in two respects"
Morality = Increasing correspondence with an ever-improving self-ideal. To be moral is to keep growing ethically. Your Self-concept concerns three factors: your observable conduct [the self], your self-image [the Self], and whether there is a match between the two. {Many folks have multiple Selves; and many who don't have split-personalities are confused.} Your self-image [or self-definition], if you want to be moral, is to keep improving throughout your lifetime.
OK, that's consistant, but I still think that it would make the thread very complicated to bring in my ideas of what is ethical,IN GENERAL!, while we are also dealing with your ideas.thinkdr wrote:That is NOT what I'm "trying to see"!!! I hold that to be Ethical is to be a virtue-finder rather than a fault-finder. One is to avoid telling others of their shortcomings, and avoid picking holes in their writing attempts. Instead one is to build on what goodness they can find in someone-else's output, be cooperative, strive to upgrade and improve what they find in another person's theories.
I understand that you think if I agree with you I will be doing positive things. Most people think this when they argue for what they think is good.As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest![]()
![]()
I DID say that on virtually the first line of the first page of text (p. 3) of the short essay titled "The Beautiful Simplicity of Ethical Concepts" which I offered to people at this Forum early in this thread as a reference worth reading. Instead of checking it out - as good students would do - I was charged with being a promoter!![]()
![]()
Click on this link to get the evidence: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 ... ncepts.pdf
Fine, then you contradicted yourself.I wrote in an early post that in emergency situations ethics is suspended
survival is utmost. Of course poking the eye of one raping you is highly moral if it is wise to do so. If it only brings on more violence toward yourself it is not a wise course of action, and thus is less moral.
Karpel Tunnel wrote: I put you in the situation where you would either judge her immoral or allow for violence.
Well, sure. A woman could certainly overreact. I think however we can all imagine where the goal would be clear.Getting raped for sure is 'an emergency situation' when, as I said, survival is your highest priority, so that you will later be in a position to be helpful to others, to be kind, generous, noble, caring, responsible, etc. If you get a genuine rapist mad enough he may kill you; for he is a woman-hater after all.
[Many times a girl will mistakenly believe she is about to get raped when all the guy wants is a little intimacy, wants to come close to her.]
I think that it's a mistake to include 'prudence' in morality. That makes evaluations much more difficult and produces all sorts of bizarre results ...
- doing any 'good' which results in personal injury gets labelled as immoral.
- you don't know if something is moral or immoral before doing it because you don't know if you will be injured.
- altruistic acts become immoral.
concrete examples ...
A woman who resists a rapist and gets hurt is labelled immoral while a woman who lays back and does not resist a rapist is labelled moral.
A person who resists a weak tyrant, and suffers no harm, is moral while a person who resists a strong tyrant, and is tortured or killed in the process, is immoral.
I use the word in the sense of "regard for one's own interests".You mean in *judging what is moral*? Why would you say that? The definition of prudence is
pru·dence
ˈpro͞odns/Submit
noun
the quality of being prudent; cautiousness.
"we need to exercise prudence in such important matters"
synonyms: wisdom, judgment, good judgment, common sense, sense, sagacity, shrewdness,
It seems to me that by trying to be *prudent* and exercise good judgment, et cetera, when it comes to discerning what is moral and ethical under different circumstances is a good tool and can only be practical in getting at the truth.
Okay. I stated briefly what I meant when using the word.I use the term "prudence" in the sense of "being in balance." It connotes "the middle way" or "The Golden Mean." It means, to me, neither over-doing nor under-doing. It further means neither overvaluing nor undervaluing; neither being obsessed [or infatuated] nor missing opportunity; avoiding rigidity and dogmatism.
We disagree on what morality is.Also, in the Unified Theory of Ethics "morality" is a personal trait.
That's pretty limiting, isn't it?Phyllo: When is the last time you were on a desert island? People here on this Forum bring up such exceptional cases! True, every exception tests a rule; but let's be practical and relevant to daily life. Where I live, I have neighbors, and a wife; so I have people around me. I find myself with others in the elevator of my condo, of which I am the President of the Condo Association. Sooner or later I bump into other people. ...but this is not about me. It's about building a superior Ethical Theory.
Well, that's what it means to you. I think that a serial killer is authentic when he is killing ... but a society can't function with that much authenticity. People have to make concessions. In exchange, society offers some goodies.Just as "value" in general involves a correspondence between two sets,
"moral value" does also. Morality and moral value mean the same. The two sets for morality are the set of one's behaviors and the set of one's evolving ideals. To me, morality means "walking the walk, not just talking the talk." It means avoiding hypocrisy and corruption; it means authenticity: being real (rather than a pretender or a phony.)
thinkdr wrote:And Karpel: Yes, I do like people to agree with me. Don't you?
I understand that you think if I agree with you I will be doing positive things. Most people think this when they argue for what they think is good.
As you could easily have learned if only you read over my brief paper, being Ethical is creating value in your encounters with another individual - creating a win/win outcome. You would do this if you care; and you will care if you perceive that individual as highly-valuable - which you will do by the very definition of "Ethics" itself ..assuming you have made a commitment to be ethical and moral. You will do that because you are aware of the reality: that is what is in your true self-interest![]()
As you could easily have learned
Note the assumption in this. The assumption is that if I do not agree with you then I do not care. Or, I am not trying for win/win situations. You do realize that what you did in this sentence is to frame it as 'agree with me or you do not care' or that I am unethical or both.. Whereas it is clear, I think, that my disagreements with you are based on caring for people. Perhaps you are right about how we must act and think, perhaps you are wrong, but here you are presuming that if I disagree with you and your system it shows a lack of care. You seem to think all situations allow for win/win. That does not fit my experience. I see, however, that criticism can be win win.You would do this if you care
Which of my criticisms was destructive?If your criticism is constructive, I very much welcome it, and want to learn from it. But if it is of a destructive sort -- who needs it?!
I have been pointing out what I think are problematic aspects of your system. If you can show me and yourself how these aspects are not problematic, that would be constructive, yes? If your can't, then you have learned something important, yes?In working to build a superior theory of Ethics I of course seek cooperation on this project. Hence I want critics to have a cooperative attitude. If they merely find fault or put me down, with derision, I would then prefer the company of others. Isn't that normal?
Fine, but part of philosophy is in fact seeking counterexamples and seeing if something actually holds up. I do not think you countered the arguments Phyllo and I made about the morality of violence. It seems to me you changed your wordings, contradicted yourself, restated your opinion without argument and sometimes simply moved past objections. We all do these sorts of things and not necessarily with intention, but it will lead to continued criticism. It seems like you think I am not being a good student when I do not read your papers, which in fact is an expectation only on your part for how people should behave in an online discussion forum. I pointed out above how some of your statements come off and morally judgmental and not on good grouns.When you bring up decentralization I agree with it; when you bring up waging violent war I disagree, but do it civilly. We can disagree agreeably. Ethics allows for that. It is a mistake to conclude that I always demand total agreement. No, what I seek is consensus. Let's find common ground. Let's "Build not burn."
thinkdr wrote:I am trying to figure out why my morality is different from your morality.
thinkdr wrote:.
The best defense is to run away from the potential danger.
Was it Only_Humean who taught me that? I think so; but I may be wrong
Running in the opposite direction from the threat beats even Brazilian Wrestling skill, and Judo, and Aikido, as a defense.
.
Serendipper wrote:Run from a bear and you're guaranteed to die. Stand and fight and you might live.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Serendipper wrote:Run from a bear and you're guaranteed to die. Stand and fight and you might live.
And standing tall and looking ready to fight is the best strategy at certain distances. You might not even have to fight. And you're right of course that the last thing you want to do is trigger predator chase instincts. A lot of big predators are not used to us as food but when we run, it screams ' catch me, kill me, eat me.' The last two not necessarily in that order.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]