thought...
On Aug 27, 3:13 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the
> well of disillusionment.
>
> On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right'
> > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > help with her distress.
>
> > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > in this sense.
>
> > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view
> > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what
> > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt
> > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could
> > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
> > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
> > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
> > that.
>
> > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
> > > a change huh!
>
> > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
> > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
> > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks
> > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the
> > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
> > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does,
> > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline
> > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
> > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
> > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality,
> > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
> > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows
> > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
> > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some
> > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many
> > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds
> > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We might
> > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with
> > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around!
>
> > > > > > > > To dictionary.com!
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; you're
> > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing labels
> > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though.
>
> > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or
> > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or action is
> > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by ordination,
> > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this
> > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks "deconstructs"
> > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article.
>
> > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action, both as
> > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an individuals
> > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect.
>
> > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or disagree with my
> > > > > > > > > > socities ethical values.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not belive that
> > > > > > > > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a personal
> > > > > > > > > > understanding or what is right or wrong.
>
> > > > > > > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he says that this is
> > > > > > > > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire. Excuse me for
> > > > > > > > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our greatest
> > > > > > > > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks like moralyity
> > > > > > > > > > equated with our desires here.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to questions of morality (though i
> > > > > > > > > > > prefer the word "ethics" personally, so perhaps i'm closer to Marks
> > > > > > > > > > > than i might realise). A deconstructionist approach might lead one
> > > > > > > > > > > inexorably towards "biological value". If i recall (it was quite a
> > > > > > > > > > > while ago now), Matt Ridley presents this approach in his book "The
> > > > > > > > > > > Origins Of Virtue".
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > By Joel Marks- plus reader comments
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment