Morality is Irrational: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Morality is Irrational » Morality is Irrational

Morality is Irrational

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morality is Irrational

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461

Posted 07/02/09 - 08:04 AM:	#21
I certainly understand that you want to use "moral" as one thing and "ethical" as another, but it seems rather petty and wholly besides the point. Fundamentally, the question is a simple, "Am I obligated to behave in a particular way?" -- We view the fundamental question very different from another. (apropo Relative Perspectives ) It had never occured to me to approach this from the question of obligation. I see no reason for any obligatory behaviour, as this is a form of social constraint. This has less to do with the "ETHICS" catagory in the Forum as it has to do with "SOCIAL SCIENCES". I can see where this difference is. Social Sciences tend to have a large degree of legal application associated, whereas "Ethics/Morals" are more the theoretical side of the debate. This is a question of catagory of argument. Nothing really major, unless we are not on the same page. I was of the perspective that we have no satisfactory language defining Morality. The idea that morality could be anything but relative and subjective is essential to have a basis for understanding the dialogue. It is difficult to speak of the "rationality/irrationality" of a thing if we have not established what this thing is. I wish not to work out of personal assumptions. "You like to focus on the locality of "morals", but lets talk about the centrality of them. Bears are obligated to eat berries, people to eat bears. Two different classes of things and two rules - does this make for a relative morality"? -- First of all, this example is not really valid. Bears are not "obligated" to eat anything in particular, nor do many people eat bears. Actually more people eat berries than bears, but that has nothing to do with the problem here. Thus, the given is not binding. Second, this is not a question of morality. You could just as well say that breathing air containing a certain degree of oxygen is a moral act. I cannot answer this question as it has really nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sorry, I do not wish to offend. "Sure, the rule that is applicable to you is relative to whether you are a bear or a person. It might even be that this rule was applicable in 1850 but not applicable in -50,000. But so what? The application is local, but the rules (with all of their particulars) are universal. -- Please correct me if I don't quite understand hat you mean, but I believe you are saying it is universal to have rules. If so, fine, but this is not "The Universal", a noun, the universal you are using here is an adjective, describing another thing. "The Universal" is not a descriptive term, but the concept itself. The application is local and the rules themselves, though universal in practice, are not "Universals", the noun and concept. "If you believe that we are nothing but fundamental particles acting in accordance with some set of "laws" (be they gravity, the strong force, or what have you), are we subjective? That is to say, does the fact that our particles did not always arrange themselves in the way that makes us mean that we are localized and therefore not "rational/logical" to believe in? If it is true that our particles did not always exist, is it not rational/logical to believe that they presently exist"? -- Again, where is the issue of morals in this question? "Laws" of Physics and "Laws" of Moral Codes are not the same thing. Physics are not based in the valuation of "good or bad" nor are subject to questions of being obligated to a particular social constraint. The examples here don't match up. Our particles that arrange themselves here, are we speaking of atomic particles or are we using a methaphor to mean our moral opinions? This seem to be a fallacy of example. "So what, precisely, about a morality do you take issue with? Everything is surely relative (if for no other reason than most people insist that definition involves separation of one concept from another). Everything is surely local (we live temporally and specially). All of our perceptions are surely limited to what we are capable of perceiving. All of our knowledge is governed by the same constraints that morality has. Is your point that it is not rational or logical to believe anything is true"? -- I take issue with making morality something that it is not, Objective, Dennotative, Universal, All-Inclusive, Non-Rarional/Non-Irrational. When this is done you have created a monster. A dictator. A meglomanic. All of our knowledge is governed by the constaints the morality has, YET we have a concept of the Objective, Dennotative, Universal, All-Inclusive, Non-Rational/Non-Irrational. How? By going beyond our preconceptions and limited perspectives. These are things that are not governed by law. You cannot "prove or disprove" such things. Love is a great example. Prove to me that you love someone. How? You cannot do it, but it is. It stands outside of catagories and valuations. It is beyond "good and evil". It can only be expressed through a language of symbolic methaphors. It is neither rational or irrational. It cannot be morally evaluated. It cannot be law. "Rather than beat around the bush, I suggest you focus on the notion of obligation (or “ought”). If we are capable of being obligated and the mechanism which creates obligation exists, are we not obligated"? -- Sorry, one Hitler was enough for me. Ought is the language of the meglomanic. This is the limiting of possiblities and progress. This is for dictators and manipulative politicians. I am not beating around the bush. I am disempowering the mentality of Bush. Reality cannot be limited by the aggression of morality, mine or yours. "If your point is that we cannot be obligated, then there is really no where to go. You believe what you believe". -- My point from the beginning. "If you accept that we can be obligated, then what can do the obliging? What level of obligation is sufficient to receive the appellation of “morals” or “ethics”"? -- I do not wish to creat more wars and suffering in the name of what I hold to be Morally Correct. In a limited system of reality, morality can work for a limited period of time, but if applied outside of it's own self-serving perspective, morality can only cause war and suffering. "Tangentially (by that I mean I am throwing away 2000 years of Western Philosophy/ethics) what does morality/ethics have to do with the good/valuable? Isn’t it precisely because we want to equate ethics with goodness that we end up throwing out ethics? I suggest you take your value assignments and leave them at the door. Good, bad, or indifferent, obligations relate to morals/ethics, not your preference. You may not like or value what you are obligated to do, but so what"? -- Morality is the valuation of things. (valuable and valuation are not one and the same thing)Without the orientation based in value accessments, morality has no identity. To speak of leaving your value accessments at the door and just do what is the obligation as assigned to you, George Orwell. You are proposing the stripping of all freedoms and allowing the rape of the psyche by the powers that be. You are proposing tyrranny. SIEG HAIL! I have said time and time again we need to go beyond our value accessments. What do you think I mean by "going beyond" morals and not making judgements of good and bad, or rational and irrational. Leaving your preconceptions at the door includes your assumed obligations as well. Obligation is not directly related to morals and ethics, other than to oppress them. This is really scary. Meow! GREG Edited by mayor of simpleton on 07/02/09 - 08:11 AM
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 797

Posted 07/02/09 - 09:04 AM:	#22
Greg, What do you make of religion? Does it not relate to ethics or morals? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/#HebBibNewTes http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/#DivCom And remember, the OP asked about morals. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NorDefMor You seem to be a fan of Hitler, but God existed long before Hitler did and people have attributed the basis of morals to God's will. The state is often thought of as a baby god. The state imposes legal obligations, god imposes moral obligations. Moral obligations are simply greater than legal obligations. Hitler wanted to make the state god forever more. Hitler lost. You want to remove ethics/morality/goodness from a governing object. The fact is, much of history placed ethics/morality/goodness precisely at the feet of a governing object. The question is simple, do you believe that a governing object is capable of dictating morality/ethics/goodness? If the OP believes that such is possible, then there are many arguments available as to why morality should continue, not the least of which is "Because God said so." My example was merely one of obligation. You might say that I can obligate neither bears nor persons, but the sentence doesn't change. If you can understand the sentence, then you can rationally come to a conclusion about what your obligation is. Just because your obligation is different than that of something else doesn't change your obligation. You (or your class) can be uniquely considered under a moral law. The law doesn't have to apply to all things in all contexts for it to be a moral law. I am not speaking of the universality of rules. I am speaking of morality as obligation. It is moral/ethical to do A because X, Y, or Z. If there is some X, Y, or Z that can create a moral standard, than the sentence makes sense. You do not get to pick that nothing is capable of supporting morality because you want there to be intrinsic morality - that is a choice for each individual. If the OP asked for a compelling reason for EVERYONE to be moral, we would be having a different conversation. Arguments are addressed to individuals, not to theoretical persons. (At a bare minimum, your audience is limited to those entities capable of understanding your form of communication.) You seem to come at the question of morality/ethics with much baggage. Why don't you just lay out what qualifying criteria you believe must exist for something to be considered a moral act? I will then address myself to your standards. I find it somewhat disingenuous for you to speak of "progress" and what we need to do. If value is subjective, please limit your comments to what you need to do. If you find the time, you should also explain why I should care to construct a society in which we don't all kill each other and annihilate the world tomorrow. For that matter, why should I do anything? Returning for a moment to the "real" world, explain why one arrangement of atoms is preferential to any other arrangement. And in what sense are you "real" such that you can be sufficiently proved? As far as I can tell, you are naught but a bunch of atoms conveniently referred to as "Greg" or "Mayor of Simpleton", but in no event is your existence any greater than your atomic arrangement. P.S. For some reading on "obligation" or "ought" being the dominating feature of moral or ethical discourse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics For a more focused discussion of a type of obligation based ethics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics In particular http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/#DeoThe wherein the difference between the "right" and the "good" are discussed.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461

Posted 07/02/09 - 10:23 AM:	#23
Did you even read my post? I am no fan of Hitler.
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 797

Posted 07/02/09 - 10:29 AM:	#24
mayor of simpleton wrote: Did you even read my post? I am no fan of Hitler. I read your post. You keep invoking him and the Nazis. Seems to be your thing, so I said you were a fan. If you aren't a fan of Hitler or the Nazis, maybe you should stop repeating "Sieg Heil". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_heil By the by, you'll also notice in the OP that the OP believes morality to be a code of conduct, not a standard of valuation. mway wrote: Morality is a code of conduct. Edited by xzJoel on 07/02/09 - 10:35 AM
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461

Posted 07/03/09 - 12:56 AM:	#25
"You seem to be a fan of Hitler, but God existed long before Hitler did and people have attributed the basis of morals to God's will". -- My question as to whether or not you read my post was the wrong question. I should have ask if you can understand irony. As I read your propositions, I am strongly remined of "Totalitarianism" and "Orwellianism". You, not I, have made such assurtions. Your positions reminds me very much of the rhetoric of the Nazis. The "Sieg Hail" was meant out of irony. Sorry, I assumed that your imagination could grasp this concept. When presented the option of the "Monster State" based in "obligation of it's citizens to this monster, without questioning", a red flag is raised for me (that means a warning signal and nothing communist) and I immediately try to put out the fire of dictatorship. Symbolic language is not the strength of lawyers. "The state is often thought of as a baby god. The state imposes legal obligations, god imposes moral obligations. Moral obligations are simply greater than legal obligations. Hitler wanted to make the state god forever more. Hitler lost". -- From what I see, the state you are presenting here is much like that of Hitler and the god you present is, as well, similar to Hitler. This perspective makes all three into monsters. With any luck the other two will lose too. "You want to remove ethics/morality/goodness from a governing object. The fact is, much of history placed ethics/morality/goodness precisely at the feet of a governing object. The question is simple, do you believe that a governing object is capable of dictating morality/ethics/goodness"? -- No, you did not understand what I meant here. Morality is the guide of the governing object. Governing object define morality. The govening object will is expressed through the concept of goodness and badness, value accessments, as dictated to the govening object by it's own morals it has created. (Arise Lord Vader!) "Ethics" has nothing to do with the lot. "Ethics" is beyond the limitations of goodness and badness. "Ethics" is not a collective of subjective connotations with a limited perspective resulting in morals and morality. A governing object cannot influence "Ethics" on way or the other. A governing object can only abuse "Ethics" and create a "wolf in sheeps clothing", masquerading morals as "Ethics". This is done through the use of moral codes and constraints, based upon whatever works to control and empower the holders of power. History did not place morals and goodness at the feet of the governing bodies. History is a collection of subjective perspectives of past events, largely written from the sole perspective of the winner of wars. History is biased. History is not a static collection of dates and locations, but the interpretation of events with emphasis on the content rather than just a chronical of time and space. History is written by governing bodies for the use of governing bodies. I guess you could say then that the ends justifies the means. I guess it is nice to be judge, attorney, jury and executioner all in one. History can be applied to uphold the "monster state" as it is a construct of the same governing body. A governing object can dicate morals and assumed goodness, but "Ethics" are beyond such trivial limitations of governing objects. No governing object can dictate a "Universal Thing in an Objective Manner" that is "All-Inclusive". If you believe this (I hope not), then you must be a meglomanic and then I must say "Sieg Hail". - irony - "If the OP believes that such is possible, then there are many arguments available as to why morality should continue, not the least of which is "Because God said so." -- I have no objection to possibilities. Just when these possiblilties go on the march to mute all other possible options, then I have my problems. Unfortunately, "because god said so" tends to do this. War in the name of god and god's moral agenda for all of mankind, been there done that. "My example was merely one of obligation. You might say that I can obligate neither bears nor persons, but the sentence doesn't change. If you can understand the sentence, then you can rationally come to a conclusion about what your obligation is. Just because your obligation is different than that of something else doesn't change your obligation. You (or your class) can be uniquely considered under a moral law. The law doesn't have to apply to all things in all contexts for it to be a moral law". -- If this was the case, you need to work on you writing and logic a bit. Whether or not you personally can obligate bears to eat berries or people bears is not the issue here. Bears are not obligated to eats berries. BASTA! Bears are omnivorus, people as well. How can one or the other be obligated eat just one thing in particular? Who governs this? Nature is open to more options than just berries. Look at what the word means. Definition 1 General: Bond of moral duty (whether of necessity or of one's own choosing) that ties two or more parties together. -- Who is holding bears to such an obligation? What moral duty is involved here? Is it immoral for bears to eat apples? Is it immoral for them to eat salmon? Is it immoral for them to eat us? Definition 2 Accounting: Duty to make future payment that is incurred as soon as a purchase order is placed, encumbers a certain sum of money, and is called obligation incurred. -- I sincerly doubt that a bear owes anything to anyone and would be subject or relegated to eating berries as the result of an accounting problem. Definition 3 Legal: Liability or duty to do something or refrain from doing something under the terms of a contract, such as the obligation of a borrower (the obligor) to pay back the lender (the obligee) under the terms of the loan agreement. Obligations usually involve a penalty for non-fulfillment. -- When was the last time a bear needed legal council? I cannot remember a bear being in any court of laws with regards to what they eat. That is unless the people living where the bears are feel threated by the bears and wish to have them removed or destroyed for the sake of convenience of the people. As to oblige a bear to eat berries, this is new too me. "I am not speaking of the universality of rules. I am speaking of morality as obligation. It is moral/ethical to do A because X, Y, or Z. If there is some X, Y, or Z that can create a moral standard, than the sentence makes sense. You do not get to pick that nothing is capable of supporting morality because you want there to be intrinsic morality - that is a choice for each individual". -- Funny, that is what I was speaking of as well. The application of obligation you speak of does not sound too local, but rather a universal application. (Again, I could make a Nazi reference here, as the moral and ethnic cleansing of mankind through moral obligation to the state was the rational excuse for the actions they took. Be careful here.) If there is some X,Y or Z that can create a moral standard, than that sentence makes sense, but only to those who agree with the X, Y or Z. Welcome to the reality of relative positions. Morals support themselves. They are a self-fulfilling prophesy. Rationality is the justification of a moral, based in what...? Morals! Just as the actions of another are determined to be irrational, based upon what..? Morals! "If the OP asked for a compelling reason for EVERYONE to be moral, we would be having a different conversation. Arguments are addressed to individuals, not to theoretical persons. (At a bare minimum, your audience is limited to those entities capable of understanding your form of communication.)" -- Funny, I thought the question being addressed here was "Are Morals Irrational?", with reflexive reasoning, one could ask as well "Are Morals Rational?". This raises two questions, possibly three, "what are morals?", "what is meant by irrational?" and in tern, "what is meant by rational?" To define morals I needed to separate them from "Ethics", thus define "Ethics". I do not wish to rely upon assumptions and wikipedia. "You seem to come at the question of morality/ethics with much baggage. Why don't you just lay out what qualifying criteria you believe must exist for something to be considered a moral act? I will then address myself to your standards". -- Funny, I thought that you are the one with a lot of "baggage". I try to be non-moral and carry nothing. The point is, "standards" are the "baggage". Standards are value accessments and limited perceptions. Standards are simply morals. I try to have none. Note the word try, as I do not claim to achieve this goal. "I find it somewhat disingenuous for you to speak of "progress" and what we need to do. If value is subjective, please limit your comments to what you need to do". -- Perhaps you are right here and progress is the wrong word. I speak less of what we need to do as what we need less of. The moving forward with the flux of the reality of things cannot be achieved by holding on to preconceptions and fixed moral assumptions. Whether or not this is "progress" or just an illusion, I cannot answer that one. I do take responsibility for my actions based on ..., no I do not wish to influence. (Role Models, positive or negative, are the Idols of the lazy mind and lame in spirit. When you think your legs are too weak and will not try, standing on the heads of giants might make you think you are tall. Or perhaps raise a flag and salute with the masses. Better to march in step than being alone, or? Another Nazi reference could fit here but, enough...) What bother me is when a moral apostle shows up and creates the moral agenda for the "good" all of mankind, in the name of ..., with basis that we are the "good" the other the "bad". A new form of "rationality" forms, then bang snap, the trap goes shut and the mouse is caught. Morals are the best method of leading the masses by a nose ring. "If you find the time, you should also explain why I should care to construct a society in which we don't all kill each other and annihilate the world tomorrow. For that matter, why should I do anything?" -- Why not! I'd love to here the next proposal of a "new world order" and the ranting of the next "James Bond Villan". Just need a white cat instead. The construct of such social orders tend to exclude us from what we really are, just another part of nature. We do not stand above or below nature. Our god-complex and obcessive compulsive illusion that the world cannot get along fine without us is our plague upon nature. Why should you do anything? Why not? Be prepaired to live with the consequences of our actions and just be. Obligation is obcession. We are not that important. Shame, through obligation obcession and the tyranny of the urgent we lose sight of possibility. Duty instead of possibility. "The Kingdom of God stands before mankind, but we are to blind to see it". That is a real "Paradise Lost". "Returning for a moment to the "real" world, explain why one arrangement of atoms is preferential to any other arrangement. And in what sense are you "real" such that you can be sufficiently proved? As far as I can tell, you are naught but a bunch of atoms conveniently referred to as "Greg" or "Mayor of Simpleton", but in no event is your existence any greater than your atomic arrangement. -- I was not aware that we left the real world. No arragment of atoms are prefereftial to another. All arrangments are what they are and that is what it is. Good so? Bad so? Perspective and local moral valuation. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

bajek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/03/09 - 05:20 PM:	#26
I'll offer a simple reason to pursue morality rationally: If you agree that suffering is a bad thing, then you will want to minimise it. You can examine rationally what causes suffering and act to reduce it accordingly. There you have the basis for building some kind of morality. (Note, this includes your own suffering, not just other people's.) Here is another: if there was no morality, society would not exist -- since irrational and primeval forces would take over and lead people to kill, rape, pillage, preventing them from establishing society -- and you would never have been in a position to ask your very intersting question. The limits of your experience as a human being would be far narrower than they are. People act according to some moral principles, have established a society in which you can at least afford to question is premises. That is valuable, is it not?

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1524

Posted 07/03/09 - 06:20 PM:	#27
***^ I don't agree that suffering is necessarily a bad thing, I see no point in minimizing it or maximizing it. For rational arguments for morality see Kant's categorical imperative. An ignorant summary from my humble and probably mistaken knowledge of Kant would be something like this: Kant sees the mind as a filter device that transforms reality into reality as we know it, categorical and systematic. Observing the nature of this filtering device is then akin to observing all that is true, including the moral code embedded in this filtering device. This ultimately rational moral code must apply to everybody in every situation, something like that. (Please, someone correct me if I got this stuff wrong. ) I'm no Kantian, morality can be both rational and irrational imo, the rational portion being systematically maximizing personal benefits through codes of social cooperation, the irrational portion being empathy. Then again, the desire to maximize personal benefits is utterly irrational, that portion of morality is simply a rational tool with which we achieve emotional desires with, the same can be said for Randian ethics though, but Rand would probably disagree? Once again though, the only part of morality that isn't selfish, the empathy part is completely irrational. Edited by kkiiji on 07/03/09 - 06:29 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

bajek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/04/09 - 03:38 AM:	#28
kkijji wrote: "I don't agree that suffering is necessarily a bad thing, I see no point in minimizing it or maximizing it." I'm fairly certain that if the suffering was yours, you'd move to minimize it. You would see the point then. Also, if the minimization of suffering for others would give you some advantage, you would move to minimize the suffering for others too. I would argue that minimizing suffering for others is advantageous. It enables them to participate in all sorts of ways. For instance, if everyone who contributes to this forum were instead moved to a concentration camp, you could no longer interact with them. It would be a poorer existence for you too, even if you were not moved to the concentration camp. Some aspects of your life would be curtailed. It would be in your interest to get them back out of the concentration camp if you could. The extrapolation of this is that if you consider others' suffering to be of no import as a motive for your actions, you are saying that interacting with others is of no value to you.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1524

Posted 07/04/09 - 07:35 AM:	#29
No, not necessarily. Depends on the particular suffering, some suffering is to be welcomed even if it is my own. Thus the tenet of "suffering is bad" is not some absolute that one could hover over everyone's heads. Suffering often builds character, as long as it does not completely overwhelm the sufferer. A life without suffering would be a very pointless one, I wouldn't want to live it. I agree that I don't want people on this forum to be moved to a concentration camp, but I can not conclude from this that "suffering is bad". Not at all.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

bajek
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 03, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 07/04/09 - 09:29 AM:	#30
Fine, I agree in the absence of absolutes. Nonetheless, I think that suffering is something you would want to minimize, perhaps even by definition. For instance, if you're walking around with a stone in your shoe which causes you considerable discomfort, are you going to continue like this on the grounds that it 'builds character'? No, you'll remove the stone. You would move to reduce your own suffering in lots of ways where you could. There are instances I can imagine where suffering is taken up voluntarily by people, for example fasting as a form of protest. However, it is - at least so far as I can think right now - done invariably to minimize a greater suffering (e.g. the release of political prisoners or in taking a stand for some higher value). Just go back to the stone in the shoe: Whenever you feel discomfort, you will shift to feel more comfortable. When you feel hungry you will try to eat. These reactions to discomfort are instilled by years of evolution; you would not have been here if it were the caset that your ancestors entertained discomforts or various forms of suffering when other options were open to them. If there is no basis for judging good action, then how do you assess, say, the Holocaust, or cruelty in general. Or would you argue that cruelty doesn't exist? What moral categories remain for you to assess how you and others behave? For example, the Austrian Joseph Fritzl, for whatever reason, kept his daughter imprisoned in the basement of his house for many, many years. He raped her and fathered several children through this, including one (I think) that died from neglect. How would you propose to assess the ethics of Fritzl's actions? Would you say we should all be permitted to act as he did? If not, why not? (I'm just curious.)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.