User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 21

  1. #11
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    but.. man, you've got the capacity to push people's buttons when you talk about ethical issues.
    i think i may have found a possible reason for that: recently i noticed that people will make their insecurities into a moral stance as a way to condemn those that hurt them.

    example 1: a married woman goes on dates with someone else who compliments her, she doesn't physically cheat, but instead later comes and tells her husband she's not currently happy with the attention his giving her and asks his permission to have sex with another. if her husband is romantically and/or sexually insecure (a.k.a. attachment-theory dependent), then he would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against her - believing that what she did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or that "she cheated even by the thought" etc.

    objectively speaking, she was just being extremely honest, she didn't break any commitment in her actions, nor did she place any ultimatums. she might have not dealt with the situation the best way possible, she could have tried explaining what sort of attention she needs from him. but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned his own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.

    example 2: after an angry separation, the recently dumped extrovert tries to talk things with the ex who doesn't want to listen, then goes on and shares all of the resulting feelings and experiences from the breakup with pretty much anyone willing to listen. and as a result, he is talking with all of their shared friends, possibly even friend members of her family he see's as friends, and just laying it all out - all the stages of mourning, from pain to anger to missing her. if she is socially insecure, she would would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against him - believing that what he did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or "what kind of person would do such a thing".

    objectively speaking, he was just being extroverted, he asked her to provide herself as an alternative outlet, he can't be held to have a commitment to her once she broke of her commitments to him, and he was just practicing his right for free speech with the people who where in his life. he might haven't dealt with it the best way possible, and should have considered taking it into a social environment that doesn't know her, but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned her own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.

    my conclusion: we use ethics as a psychological defense mechanism to dehumanize people who do things that make us feel bad, and thus our insecurities and areas in which we are easily brought to feel bad about become prime candidates.

    this can explain a lot about why people take certain political views so personal: being insecure about one's sexuality and taking a stance against an alternative sexuality, being insecure or guilty about one's socio-economic position and taking a stance against economical unfairness, being insecure about one's faith and taking a stance against other faiths... etc'.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bologna View Post
    Sometimes, our logic has holes in it. Sometimes, arguments ought to be made so that they can be shot down (rationally or otherwise), which would hopefully make us stronger out the back end as a result.
    I really think that's what they were trying to do. It's funny; in a way, its is quite sophisticated, with skilled use of euphemism and seemingly genuine earnestness, but they shoot themselves in the foot with weaselly and incomplete logic. There is no hope of reasoned debate in the context of this paper.

    There's always the possibility that the journal editors took one look at this, saw it as an opportunity to push their own agenda, and ran with it, but I suspect that someone just turned their bullshit meter off the second they saw the potential hits to their very narrow site.

  3. #13
    Yup
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    Istj
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i think i may have found a possible reason for that: recently i noticed that people will make their insecurities into a moral stance as a way to condemn those that hurt them.

    example 1: a married woman goes on dates with someone else who compliments her, she doesn't physically cheat, but instead later comes and tells her husband she's not currently happy with the attention his giving her and asks his permission to have sex with another. if her husband is romantically and/or sexually insecure (a.k.a. attachment-theory dependent), then he would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against her - believing that what she did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or that "she cheated even by the thought" etc.

    objectively speaking, she was just being extremely honest, she didn't break any commitment in her actions, nor did she place any ultimatums. she might have not dealt with the situation the best way possible, she could have tried explaining what sort of attention she needs from him. but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned his own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.

    example 2: after an angry separation, the recently dumped extrovert tries to talk things with the ex who doesn't want to listen, then goes on and shares all of the resulting feelings and experiences from the breakup with pretty much anyone willing to listen. and as a result, he is talking with all of their shared friends, possibly even friend members of her family he see's as friends, and just laying it all out - all the stages of mourning, from pain to anger to missing her. if she is socially insecure, she would would most likely experience humiliation and degradation, and might very well make a moral stance against him - believing that what he did was "disgusting and morally wrong" or "what kind of person would do such a thing".

    objectively speaking, he was just being extroverted, he asked her to provide herself as an alternative outlet, he can't be held to have a commitment to her once she broke of her commitments to him, and he was just practicing his right for free speech with the people who where in his life. he might haven't dealt with it the best way possible, and should have considered taking it into a social environment that doesn't know her, but regardless the condemnation isn't appropriate: he just turned her own feelings and insecurities into an ethical stance.

    my conclusion: we use ethics as a psychological defense mechanism to dehumanize people who do things that make us feel bad, and thus our insecurities and areas in which we are easily brought to feel bad about become prime candidates.

    this can explain a lot about why people take certain political views so personal: being insecure about one's sexuality and taking a stance against an alternative sexuality, being insecure or guilty about one's socio-economic position and taking a stance against economical unfairness, being insecure about one's faith and taking a stance against other faiths... etc'.
    is it ok for a girl/guy to go into pornographic detail about sex with you and how they dreaded you touching them? just go off highlighting all the worse things about you but not just to their circle of friends but to anyone that would listen?

    its very give and take, its about allowing there to be an atmosphere so that you both and move on with out having deal with the opinions of others, or getting that sympathy look every time you walk into a room or dirty look.

    to me, revealing every detail about the relationship seems more about control and it is.
    "I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine. "
    -Bruce Lee

  4. #14
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yakimadude View Post
    is it ok for a girl/guy to go into pornographic detail about sex with you and how they dreaded you touching them? just go off highlighting all the worse things about you but not just to their circle of friends but to anyone that would listen?
    for me? yes. the humiliation would hurt momentarily, but that's about it. since 17 i have moved and broken my roots so many times that i have both confidence in my ability to regrow them and function without them. there's still attchament and loss but i am confident in my ability to recover from them. likewise, when returning to an old scene i am confident in my ability to deliver a new impression and change people's mind about me regardless of what they remember or being told. if your not secure in your capacity to form and reform social bonds, the need for approval becomes sensitive, but otherwise, if you built your social confidence, social approval becomes ... cheap, and over time, not even worth making a fuss about.

    simply put - the pain such actions will inflict upon you depend on your own insecurities, and that is what will drive you to dehumanize and prevent empathising with whoever inflicts it upon you, rationalized by taking an objective moral stance against the actions that can only hold by disregarding the context it was done under (which needs to account for both objective and subjective states).

    morality is contextual, it's pain and fear that make us loose sight of it.

  5. #15
    Yup
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    Istj
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    for me? yes. the humiliation would hurt momentarily, but that's about it. since 17 i have moved and broken my roots so many times that i have both confidence in my ability to regrow them and function without them. there's still attchament and loss but i am confident in my ability to recover from them. likewise, when returning to an old scene i am confident in my ability to deliver a new impression and change people's mind about me regardless of what they remember or being told. if your not secure in your capacity to form and reform social bonds, the need for approval becomes sensitive, but otherwise, if you built your social confidence, social approval becomes ... cheap, and over time, not even worth making a fuss about.

    simply put - the pain such actions will inflict upon you depend on your own insecurities, and that is what will drive you to dehumanize and prevent empathising with whoever inflicts it upon you, rationalized by taking an objective moral stance against the actions that can only hold by disregarding the context it was done under (which needs to account for both objective and subjective states).

    morality is contextual, it's pain and fear that make us loose sight of it.
    can totally see you looking for some lame excuse to return to your exe`s house with a new person in your car.
    "I'm not in this world to live up to your expectations and you're not in this world to live up to mine. "
    -Bruce Lee

  6. #16
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yakimadude View Post
    can totally see you looking for some lame excuse to return to your exe`s house with a new person in your car.
    i think i am missing your point here completely... and in fact getting a vibe that some ex-lover has humiliated you publically and has done something car related... or was that a metaphor for pregnancy? i am a little bit confused.

    if your asking me concretely out of some odd curiosity, then yes, since i raised my stepson most of his life and love him as my own, given the possibility i would keep that relationship with him even without a romantic relationship with her, which would mean eventually we'd probably be dating other people and occasionally coming to each other's houses, and maybe i'll be able to afford a car by then... so technically it is entirely possible that i'd be coming to my exwife's house with a new person in a car under the right circumstances, but it wouldn't be my first choice (still very much inlove with her).

    anyway i am not justifying the actions of either example- i actually explained why both are dealing with the respective situations badly. but i am saying that condemning people in the name of morals more often then not stems from our insecurities.

    hell half of the time when examined closely you'd find that you don't really act according to whatever moral code your latest pain brought onto you and have broken that rule many times in your own life, but dismiss those because given that they are the reasons you've done it, you already know the context in which your own actions took place and couldn't really prevent yourself from empathizing with yourself if you wanted too.

  7. #17
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    every time this thread pops up I keep picturing:



    you're welcome.
    -end of thread-

  8. #18
    Senior Member Keps Mnemnosyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    Mm
    Posts
    400

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i think i may have found a possible reason for that: recently i noticed that people will make their insecurities into a moral stance as a way to condemn those that hurt them.

    my conclusion: we use ethics as a psychological defense mechanism to dehumanize people who do things that make us feel bad, and thus our insecurities and areas in which we are easily brought to feel bad about become prime candidates.

    this can explain a lot about why people take certain political views so personal: being insecure about one's sexuality and taking a stance against an alternative sexuality, being insecure or guilty about one's socio-economic position and taking a stance against economical unfairness, being insecure about one's faith and taking a stance against other faiths... etc'.
    While I do see your point and it is a variable within a matrix, to say this is the main reason for people's moral stances seems too simplistic. Insecurity about sexuality can be used to take a stance against alternative sexualities or used as a reason to not judge others about their sexuality. As much as it is cute to think that homophobics are just closeted homosexuals insecure about their sexuality; it's not true....it would be similar to arguing that racists are closeted (specified race). Or the fact that people have moral stances in situations that, barely if at all, affect them....some person A may have ethical stances against B killing C despite the conditions that B would never be able to hurt A, and C and A may have no relations with each other.

    As an ethical statement it can be used to denigrate the ethical statements of others, which is what I think yakimadude is trying to get at. You seem to step away from this with
    anyway i am not justifying the actions of either example
    , but seem to be on an edge:
    for me? yes. the humiliation would hurt momentarily, but that's about it. since 17 i have moved and broken my roots so many times that i have both confidence in my ability to regrow them and function without them. there's still attchament and loss but i am confident in my ability to recover from them. likewise, when returning to an old scene i am confident in my ability to deliver a new impression and change people's mind about me regardless of what they remember or being told. if your not secure in your capacity to form and reform social bonds, the need for approval becomes sensitive, but otherwise, if you built your social confidence, social approval becomes ... cheap, and over time, not even worth making a fuss about.
    There is an important corollary to your statement. If P implies Q, so not Q implies not P. As such, those who are not hurt by someone's actions, will not have moral stances against it. In the above response to yakimadudes statement you state why it is an easily dealt with problem, and then reiterate your statement of others being socially insecure. You might think differently if you were stuck in a small town with the same people unable to escape a certain reputation. Your moral stance is of the situation's triviality to you, which may still not be ethical way of thinking about a situation of others.

    Now as a joke, since you stated an ethical thought about others' ethical statements does that mean you are insecure about ethical stances?
    Love wouldn't exist without loneliness to inspire it.

    Peach yogurt is made of love. And gnome kidneys. - Domino

    I can cope and will cope without polluting my lungs. - Saslou

  9. #19
    Society
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    As much as it is cute to think that homophobics are just closeted homosexuals insecure about their sexuality; it's not true....
    i am not saying that they are closeted homosexuals, i am saying that using this line of thinking there's a good reason to suspect that they are insecure about their heterosexuality, regardless of the reason for the insecurity or if it's rational at all, and if you then go to examine the case, you'd actually find that almost every line condemning homosexuals seems to stem from a stance that it can affect or imply something about the condemning-side's sexuality, from the view of homosexuality as a transmittable to the implication that if your child is gay so are you.

    if you are secure about your sexuality then such notions become irrelevant. further support for that psychological state can actually be found in an irrational version as well - where people who are overly confident about their health dismiss the possibility of getting sick and lacking a healthy avoidance for people with transmitted diseases.

    likewise:
    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    it would be similar to arguing that racists are closeted (specified race).
    at it's core racism is just a cognitive tendency to group similarities, but an actual belief that your race is superior to others probably does stem from some form of insecurities, it doesn't require that you'd think you might be another race, just that you think you might not be superior in any other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    Or the fact that people have moral stances in situations that, barely if at all, affect them....some person A may have ethical stances against B killing C despite the conditions that B would never be able to hurt A, and C and A may have no relations with each other.
    people project their own moral stances all the time.

    and this is actually a good guiding question: we all like to think we are against killing other people (at least), but when examined closely we all have certain contextual situations in which it would be ok for us to do so - i doubt there's many parents that wouldn't kill for their child if needs be. even with the most extreme violation of others - taking a life - we give ourselves leeway.

    so when judging someone else, what determines whether we try to understand the context and circumstances they did the killing under, or whether we condemn them for the action itself regardless of the context?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    There is an important corollary to your statement. If P implies Q, so not Q implies not P. As such, those who are not hurt by someone's actions, will not have moral stances against it.
    no, i am saying that if you wouldn't be hurt by someone's actions (directly or via projection), you wouldn't be inclined to condemn it beyond an understanding of context or judge only one side of the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    You might think differently if you were stuck in a small town with the same people unable to escape a certain reputation.
    i have grown up in a small town where you are "unable to escape a certain reputation" and had to reform my reputation several times over .

    its not difficult: if you are confident then you can solve a type of problem you have no reason to fear it and have less of a reason to condemn anyone providing you with a problem.

    and really there's no such thing as "stuck" in a small town here: if you have enough resources to be able to be able to go online and read this post, you probably have enough resources to find a list of jobs in another place, apply to to them and sell some stuff on ebay to pay for the bus ticket. hell i've convinced companies to finance flight tickets for me for free.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    As an ethical statement it can be used to denigrate the ethical statements of others
    as it should: condemning someone for the wrong reasons and acting upon it will will often lead to more damage then whatever you blame them for. in fact when you are doing so mistakenly and act upon that condemnation, objectively you become the aggressor - the only one causing intentional pain within the conflict.

    and regardless if you act upon it, anything preventing yourself from viewing the entire context and both sides of whatever happens is preventing you from making a more intelligent conclusion about the situation. if someone is giving you data important to the choices you are making, and your saying "no thanks, my brain had too much to eat at breakfast", then you are a lot less likely to make a a wiser choice.

    it is not necessarily to believe moral stances always stem from insecurities, only to recognize that insecurities are a likely source for moral stances, and that at the very least you need to examine for the possibility that they are - check with yourself if it has any ground once your insecurities and pain is gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    Now as a joke, since you stated an ethical thought about others' ethical statements does that mean you are insecure about ethical stances?
    haha... hmm... i suppose its possible. i have used it in both ways - to catch myself from commending and hating others unnecessarily, and as a way to devalue my own condemnation by others.


    Quote Originally Posted by Keps Mnemnosyne View Post
    which is what I think yakimadude is trying to get at.
    yea i still don't get that from the thing about the car.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Would it be possible to have an after birth abortion of Rush Limbaugh?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...W0mR_blog.html

    You can hear what he said here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1311640.html
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Quote from BF Skinner, free will, determinism and liberalism
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-14-2013, 01:34 AM
  2. What really happened before, during, and after Benghazi?
    By Zarathustra in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 12:22 PM
  3. virgin pregnancies and virgin births
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-07-2012, 10:15 AM
  4. Liberalism and Socialism
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-19-2012, 04:12 AM
  5. Quotes and sayings that don't make sense
    By Oaky in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 02-23-2011, 01:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO