|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5549941 - 04/24/06 01:29 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think it is only a word-play, as I see 'preferences' as 'moral', too. Might it be in a individual context or in context of groups or society. I agree that morals have to do with humans wants, needs and desires (aka preferences), but there is a strong analogy to the existential form of identity, too. As I said before, if iron rots away, it will not be iron anymore. If iron needs to be iron (for some physical or biological need), there is a 'bad' or 'wrong' for everything which lets iron rust. Not for the human, but for the iron. Now we should draw the connection between these analogies, imho. Also, as I said before, we can not grasp a universal moral (in the above context) as we can not look behind the micro or macro (aka big bang/boarders of universe or quantum mechanics), so we must stay within our known context of 'generally', that means, a moral for all humans and for the planet earth itself (for example, simply said, all humans should be happy and that is, if they can healthily rely on a healthy living regenerating planet, not on other selfish people, imho. People make and see themselves as dominant system, but ignore the natural system they stem from, that is the main problem, which lets one not see general major morality, again imho)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,534
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: mr_kite]
#5550198 - 04/24/06 04:46 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
racism is hugely wrong. so is war. greed fear-hate and stupidity are at its roots.
when cornered with a raging lunatic, or stupid person. try to keep your ground without showing your teeth. sometimes it helps sing to them. it sooths the primitive beast within. all are children.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Quote:
RedNucleus said: You are talking about preference, and you gave that ice cream example. I don't know if you remember, but if we follow the posts, that ice cream example was supposed to be showing that you did not involve morals in the following sentence: "I do believe that individuals have the ultimate authority over their own body, including whether someone else may be allowed to touch it, and that those who violate this authority are acting outside of their rights"
The ice cream example is of individual preference. The rape example is definitely making a moral judgement You said people have a right not to have sex. It follows that depriving them of this right is amoral. If a rapist has a "personal preference" that people do not have such rights, would the rape be a-ok with you?
How exactly does it follow that violating someone else's rights is amoral? Morals do not exist independent of our judgments. In my example, I discussed preferences, i.e. what I like & what I dislike. The rapist's personal preferences do not overrule my individual rights and preferences regarding myself.
If he oversteps his individual rights, I can strongly prefer to avoid being raped, take action to defend myself, request assistance from the police in capturing and jailing him, and cooperate with prosecuting him for his crime. At no point in this scenario is a moral judgment necessary or important to me in any way.
This is the same as my preferring that you do not take my ice cream without permission, pursuing compensation for the loss of my ice cream, and perhaps deciding not to invite you over to my house again. A judgment of you or your action as right or wrong is irrelevant.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
No, this goes beyond word-play, Blue. The definition of preference is "to like or dislike, to see as better or best." It is purely personal, has no religious connotations, and does not presume in any way that it extends to anyone else.
Morals, by contrast, are defined as "judgment of something as right or wrong." They are global, if not actually "universal," and presume that they extend to everyone else.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5550864 - 04/24/06 11:49 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I can not see the difference. One has personal preferences/moral and if some people have the same preferences/morals 'shawoop' you get group-moral/preferences. It can be a personal moral, but also a 'group-moral' to have no 'group-morals'  If people with the same individual morals group together, the group-moral is automatically created. To force the morals of a group on individuals is not possible without them having the same individual moral before. Otherwise you get fakes, double-moral, destroyed individual existences, crime and terrorists.
|
dorkus
don't look back
Registered: 04/12/04
Posts: 1,511
|
|
On a personal level we talk about the difference between having an addiction or having a preference. The main difference as I see it, is how we react when the preference is not being met. Having it as only a preference means that we will not punish ourselves with bad feelings when they are not met. On an interpersonal level I would assume that a preference being broken should not result in punishment. Therefore if we defend that some deeds should result in punishment, it is more than a mere preference.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: dorkus]
#5551700 - 04/24/06 04:55 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I still can not see the qualitative difference between personal and group morality. I agree that there is a distinction between needs and wants, but that is for both parts. As for punishment, I also see strong similarities, as every punishment first exists from the direct physical response of (wrong) action or even non-action resulting in displeasure, or pain. For groups or individuals the same. Therefore one sets some future-based motivations, to not experience unhappiness. I think, that is the base of morals, as like for just facts to be (wrong/right or good/bad).
Edited by BlueCoyote (04/24/06 05:01 PM)
|
RedNucleus
Causal Observer


Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 4,103
Loc: The Seahorse Valley
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5551726 - 04/24/06 05:09 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks for being clear. To resolve this, we need to discuss whether rights imply morals. In my opinion, two of my rights are eating psilocybes, and free speech. One of these is not allowed in the USA. As a result I feel that my right to consume psilocybes is infringed upon by U.S. law. Where, then does this right exist? It seems to me that this right is a moral.
--------------------
Namaste
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Is the opposite of a civil right, a civil wrong? 
I believe that rights are amoral...that is "being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply."
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5566483 - 04/28/06 10:08 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
you lost me there...
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Quote:
right
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
The difference between what is morally "right" and a civil right is that the former is concerned with correctness, while the latter is concerned with justice/fairness.
Justice and fairness are amoral, that is, not of a moral nature.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5566760 - 04/28/06 11:56 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
As these are abstract human definitions, how you describe them, I think I have some more natural interpretations there, which fit me best and where I can not see a artificial distinction. Sorry, perhaps it is the language.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Well, you are obviously more comfortable than I with religious morals. I find the concepts of civil rights, justice, freedom and individual responsibility to be far more applicable to my experience of life.
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 16 days
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5566852 - 04/28/06 12:24 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, you are obviously more comfortable than I with religious morals. I find the concepts of civil rights, justice, freedom and individual responsibility to be far more applicable to my experience of life. religions as you see it ? No, that is some other corner around the corridor. But 'spiritual' concerned religions, which reflect the original morals of each individual don't exclude those 'values'.
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
|
Which religions, in your opinion, reflect the original morals of the individual? I have never heard of an organized religion which concerned itself with personal moral codes.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5566902 - 04/28/06 12:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to know too. I may want to join.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Icelander]
#5566910 - 04/28/06 12:46 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Meh, not me...I'm not much of a joiner.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5566957 - 04/28/06 01:06 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't say you. I want to join. You might win prizes.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Icelander]
#5567161 - 04/28/06 02:34 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Or there might be pudding!
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Being Wrong [Re: Veritas]
#5567262 - 04/28/06 03:23 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
As far as I can tell, 'justice' is entirely of a moral nature and an arbitrary concept without this God person around. Justice implies certain behaviors are correct and other behaviors are wrong. Thus 'justice' can be considered doing what is correct, whatever that may be, while being unjust is synonymous with being 'bad'.
What determines what is just and what is unjust? Furthermore, why do we have an obligation to be fair?
just (adj.) 1382, "righteous in the eyes of God, upright and impartial," from O.Fr. just, from L. justus "upright, equitable," from jus (gen. juris) "right," especially "legal right, law," from O.Latin ious, perhaps lit. "sacred formula," a word peculiar to Latin (not general Italic) that originated in the religious cults, from PIE base *yewes- (cf. Avestan yaozda- "make ritually pure;" see jurist). The more mundane L. law-word lex covered specific laws as opposed to the body of laws.
|
|