psilocyberin said:
Sometimes, I hear people using the word "amoral" as if it is an "evil" thing.... case in point, that face of disgust as the word "amoral" is uttered is a cause of the acclaimed morality.
True, but those uses of the word are incorrect. The word "amoral" is, depending on context, either meaning devoid of moral values, or devoid of moral value. There is a different - a person, devoid of moral values, can be described as amoral because they hold no values. An act, devoid of moral value, simply means it is neither good nor evil.
So in some cases, yes, amorality is construed as being 'evil' through the lens of a moral person's assessments...but this doesn't make them correct. Only actions can be judged as "good" or "evil," people are simply vehicles for those actions.
Quote:
I think the concept and the actions done in the name of morality are useless. Now, some will argue that morality is needed for a society to function.... not true.
I think morality is a descriptor of action, not a motivator as such per se. In many cases, actions are motivated after a will to do good, but "the actions done in the name of morality are useless?" What does that even mean?
All acts serve a purpose. All acts have causes and effects. No action can be "useless." The use can be determined unimportant, but there is still an action, and by the fact, there is still a result. A use.
Morality is not needed for society to function, it just seems to go well enough hand in hand.
But we're jumping the gate here - your argument is predicating on a definition of morality that I'm not sure I understand. There are countless moral theories; many definitions of what is and isn't moral. What view of morality is it you're attacking? What kind of morality is it you have a problem with? What definition of "moral" are you using?
I'm uncertain as to what you're actually saying. Are you attacking the entire field of ethics? Morality is not something that we've imposed - it's something that exists, which we study and theorize about. People behave in certain ways, and we like to try to decypher what kind of rules people follow.
Essentially, I need to know what you mean when you say "morality" because the definition of such varies widely. I think you'll find that what you perceive as a moral codice is very different from what I perceive as a moral codice - and so your arguments likely won't apply, or even make sense.
Define your terms.
Quote:
Rules and a framework of societal interaction is needed, as well as the people that make up that society need to follow those rules and framework.
No argument here - though it should be noted that those rules and frameworks generate from the people without any need for a grand conspirator pontificating on right and wrong - they are constructs generating from the very nature of social animals.
Even wolves have rules of behavior within their packs.
Quote:
How is that different from morality? well, morality gets its power/control from its byproducts of righteousness and guilt, and while in a perfect world, the self-governing power of fiercly instilled and conditioned morals would be all that is needed.... it is not the case in reality.
Morality gets its power? Dictionary.com defines morality as " conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct."
How does the act of conformity gain power? It is, and has power, because of fundamental human nature. Righteousness and guilt are human emotions that exist regardless of the particular moral code.
A Talibani might feel guilty not stoning his wife to death if she goes outside without a shawl. We might consider that an immoral act, the stoning, but he will feel guilty not doing it. And so there it is - our moral codes derive no power from guilt. We are not conditioned to feel guilt or pride - we feel these things naturally.
Ethical subjectivists would argue that we develop our own morality based on personal feelings of guilt. So there it is.
Quote:
Here is a good example: speed limits.... everyone here knows that they are perfectly capable of driving 110 MPH, and believe it to be so, yet the consequences from the law usually keep us from doing so.... and even if you were to do 110 mph in a 60 zone, you wouldn't feel guilty.
And? Speeding is not a moral act, neither is it an immoral act. Speeding is amoral...unless, of course, we believe that it is moral to follow the law - but then, that's a specific moral code, and you haven't defined if you're gunning after a specific code, or ethics in general.
And as far as it goes, I don't believe I'm capable of driving 110mph in a 60mph zone without crashing and dying - my motivation to not do such comes not from fear of law, but rather from not wanting to kill myself on a turn.
Quote:
basically, there is a huge difference between following the rules set forth by society for the sake of societal cohesion, and acting upon what you deem to be wrong and right for such selfish purposes of feeling "good" about yourself.
Yes, and? That's the major argument against ethical egoism - no truly altruistic acts can be performed because they all serve the purpose of giving oneself a sense of value and worth. But it's not a good argument against morality itself. Some would argue that that feeling good about oneself is the ultimate goal of morality, and that it is to that end that we should behave ethically.
Quote:
Do you really think the balance of humanity would be upset if people ceased doing what they deemed "good"?
No, I think that the difficulty would be in the fact that motivations are often largely irrelevant to acts - we assess the judgment of "good" or "bad" to an act after the fact, by a great variety of mechanisms - not to the motivations of the act.
Indeed, though, the fact is that many ethical models claim that that is good which promotes societal balance. As such, stopping doing what's "good" (and, by contrast, deliberately doing what's "bad") would ultimately result in damaging social structures, yes. Now, ceasing to act out of the motivation to do what's good? That's a different thing entirely - and may not damage society simply because the "good" (society-promoting) acts would still remain done, albeit for different reasons.
Quote:
I think in the end, through a long chain of cause and effect, no action is wholly righteous, or something which ultimately is for the greater good of all of humanity.
Conflict of culture does impair ones ability to act for the greater good of all humanity - but then, that's another argument entirely. Tell me, what chain of cause and effect? And what is "righteous?" You can't tell me that no act is righteous without defining first what you think righteousness is.
I think that from a Kantian perspective, you may be right - no act can exist which does not involve some other motivation aside from one's duty - but that doesn't mean that acts can't be judged as either "good" or "bad."
So there it is. It appears to me you need to clarify quite a few terms, else your argument proves effectively nothing. And I'm not sure that your premises support the conclusion that no righteous acts exist, anyhow. It seemed rather disjunct from the rest of your post.
--------------------
"Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." - N. Bohr
"The world is ruled by letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering." - Tao Te Ching, 48
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
SneezingPenis 
Icelander 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
mrfreedom
neuro
Ravus
Swami
silversoul7