Alternative logic systems versus sociopathic traits.

[FemMecha]

There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.

Xander, is this akin to saying that there is a distinction between a rule and a principle? That distinction is the heart of how i approach morality/ethics. A principle is an ideal that can be applied with flexibility depending on context. If the concept of lying is always wrong, then i have to ask, what is the principle behind that concept? Why is the act of lying a negative? Is lying seen as immoral because it makes a person's word/credibility meaningless? Is it because it distorts information which leads to others involuntarily coming to faulty conclusions? It seems important to be able to nail down exactly why lying is wrong in one circumstance, and then see if that principle behind the act holds up in another circumstance.

Personally i would lie to protect someone. If someone i trust is threatened by someone i do not trust, there is no basis of credibility, and so my credibility with them becomes irrelevent. If i distort the oppressors information to create faulty conclusions in their minds, when their oppression is based on faulty conclusions, then have i further distorted or clarified? For example, if i were hiding Jews from the Nazis and lied about it, i would be lying to someone who has approached me with the faulty conclusions these people should die. By lying to him and thwarting the first lie, perhaps i have achieved something closer to the truth? Not sure if this is a rationalization, but it is an approach that thinks as globally as possible, focusing primarily on principle over former applications of the principle.

 

[Xander]

toonia,
the point was that there is no 100% all of the time response. If it looks like that then it is only because that's how it has been drawn.

What you are describing is how you evaluate which principle/ value you hold highest in each individual circumstance. That process by itself shows that no moral is an absolute and all are relative.

 

[FemMecha]

toonia,
the point was that there is no 100% all of the time response. If it looks like that then it is only because that's how it has been drawn.

What you are describing is how you evaluate which principle/ value you hold highest in each individual circumstance. That process by itself shows that no moral is an absolute and all are relative.

You're right. You are speaking to the issue of being presented with two wrong choices - the lesser of two evils. That is one viable definition of suffering. fwiw, the overarching ethical guidelines in helping professions are (basically in this order)
1. Respect Autonomy (individual freedom of choice)
2. Do no harm
3. Attempt to do good

We see scenarios in which lying is a manner by which we can 'do no harm'.

 

[Xander]

You're right. You are speaking to the issue of being presented with two wrong choices - the lesser of two evils. That is one viable definition of suffering. fwiw, the overarching ethical guidelines in helping professions are (basically in this order)
1. Respect Autonomy (individual freedom of choice)
2. Do no harm
3. Attempt to do good

We see scenarios in which lying is a manner by which we can 'do no harm'.

Nice hierarchy there. Just one question though, where did the whole suffering tangent come from? Have I missed something or are you forging new paths in this? I ask cause I can't recall any mention of suffering and it seems to change the context of the subject.

 

[Park]

But it's often people quoting the Bible who refuse to lie, even when it's in service to a good cause.

I dunno. It seems even the Biblical record sees distinctions here.

Thanks for bringing that up. While Denmark isn't a very religious contry, our values are still build on christianity so it's not unusual to hear people talk about someone who's such a good person that "he/she simply is incapable of lying". That description allways hit me the wrong way because I don't really perceive lacking skill togeather with blind acceptance of rules to be a virtue. It's a nice to know that Christians and people with Christian values are on the wrong track when they use "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" without looking at the overall moral aspects of their acts.

 

[Park]

There has to be some measure of importance in your morals though. Shielding those in need in my book comes way higher up my list of important things to try and do than being honest does... honestly

I think the answer to this lies in the definition of 'rule'.

Personally I always objected to rules as too constrictive and inflexible. I preferred the idea of guidelines until I realised that it was just a euphemism for rules that were poorly defined and rigidly executed. Recently however it has occurred that rules are not rules, they are only steadfast and resolute because people will fortify them to be so and expand them to fill gaps which they are not designed to cover (look at legal issues for excellent examples). People bend rules and as such the rules cannot be considered as rigid. Rules are merely those things which are set down to build upon like foundations for a house. They are not infallible, never were, just adequate for the purposes intended. This is not a problem as long as those original parameters are kept in mind, however people all too quickly forget such parameters and hence you end up with irrelevant rules.

This same problem is the one which you have identified with peoples moral codes. They forget the parameters and hence their morals become irrelevant.

Good explanation.
About rules/laws, I'm wondering about something. Most laws are build up by placing a value on an act and bend it depending on the context. Can you create a law without doing that i.e. would it work just the same or does adding the value serve a purpose?

So instead of saying:
Rule NB1 lying is bad. (you place a positive/negative value)
Rule NB2 in some contexts, lying is less bad, or good. (you bend it)

You say:
Rule NB1 lying has a neutral value. (you place a neutral value)
Rule NB2 in some contexts, lying is bad or good (you bend it)

 

[ptgatsby]

So instead of saying:
Rule NB1 lying is bad. (you place a positive/negative value)
Rule NB2 in some contexts, lying is less bad, or good. (you bend it)

:steam: This drives me nuts, but you are correct Park.

In my view, no action can have a rule put towards it if it requires "but not always" added to the end of it. Essentially it makes the rule a non-rule.

From my view, all morality goes like this.

Perfect truth is the moral stance.
The world is not perfect.
Perfect truth cannot be achieved.

All morality goes through the "the world is not perfect" and therefore must be balanced.

Likewise, we weight the value of the less than perfect moral action against other less than perfect moral actions;

Not Suffering is the moral stance.
Truth is the moral stance.
The world is not perfect.
Will truth or suffering be better served with this one particular solution.

As such, the calculation operates along two conditions - how to lower suffering and tell the maximum truth. There may be more than one maximum that is optimal, which further confuses the issue, but there does exist a maximum moral stance given the degree of imperfection in the world.

 

[wildcat]

I think you've got to be the only person who ever reckons I've presented something well. We must be on the same frequency or something.

What do they know.
Besides, there is Lori, and the guy with the big eye.

 

[Park]

:steam: This drives me nuts, but you are correct Park.

Reminds me of a conversation I had early on in philosophy.

Is stealing wrong? Me: Yes
What if you are starving? Me: Yes
So you'd starve rather than steal? Me: No
So it is ok to steal if you are starving? Me: No

Pt, I've been giving this some more thought. The problem with the scenario above is, as you once explained to me, that stealing can never be described as objectively wrong or right since it doesn't conflict with any universal truth like 1+1=2. The act of stealing taken out of context can only be described as subjectively bad or good and both values represents opposite sides on a scale i.e. bad can ultimately be bended into good. So people who use rulesets which pr. default ascribe a negative value to stealing can never ascribe more than a relative negative value.

If a sum which calculates the universal consequences of any subjective act could be made, it would be relative as well.

Let me play god for a sec.
The total universal moral consequences of e.g. the act of stealing in %:
x % bad.
x % less bad.
x % least bad.
x % neutral.
x % least good.
x % less good.
x % good.

While the percentage of bad consequences, in context with stealing, probably is the highest, good consequences are still present and does make out a part of the total percentage. I.e. the consequences of stealing are allways both bad, less bad...good etc. in various percentages.

In my view, no action can have a rule put towards it if it requires "but not always" added to the end of it. Essentially it makes the rule a non-rule.

But this must mean that all rules which arn't based on universal truths are non-rules - or?

From my view, all morality goes like this.

Perfect truth is the moral stance.
The world is not perfect.
Perfect truth cannot be achieved.

All morality goes through the "the world is not perfect" and therefore must be balanced.

Likewise, we weight the value of the less than perfect moral action against other less than perfect moral actions;

Not Suffering is the moral stance.
Truth is the moral stance.
The world is not perfect.
Will truth or suffering be better served with this one particular solution.

As such, the calculation operates along two conditions - how to lower suffering and tell the maximum truth. There may be more than one maximum that is optimal, which further confuses the issue, but there does exist a maximum moral stance given the degree of imperfection in the world.

I reason differently but I have difficulties pointing out exactly how. Perhaps I perceive the world as perfect and moral stances as relative. So when I balance things, it happens in different way. I'll have to think about that one.