I think most people just soak up what is external, so I don't go much for the virtuous person stuff - a case of over-individualisation for me. Deconstruction ends up with a body only being able to do its best on the undecidable - I'm afraid I don't have much faith in that. We seem to have made honesty into the policy of the stupid.
On 31 Jan, 01:43, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > The opening paragraph stands alone and separate from the post as a > whole. The use of Plato's quote is confined to the opening and > pertains to the diversity of Minds Eye threads in that some thread > content (the lessor stones) may seem puerile or vacuous at times but > also serve a purpose in contrast to the abstract philosophical > explorations (the larger stones) which for some may be burdensome > arcane mazes. Each in it's own way complimentary to the other, as > work and play. I find Minds Eye threads sometimes very entertaining > when they cover the cold sober, sometimes somber, deliberations and > the lighthearted, sometimes ridiculous antic participation. > > Having clarified that, I now have to dismiss your paragraph beginning > with....Here the personification of........ and further identify the > wonderful question as originating from fran's post which you cited. > > >>>Here, as I suggested at the start, it appears you are talking about an > > external moral standard, yes? Most people do have some sense of what > institutions project, both officially and in action…often quite > different things as you suggest. And, even if taken as some sort of > instruction, and even if internalized, is this not an externally > imposed notion/ethos? Of course, laws as you mention are too, no? > <<<Orn > > Agreed, all externally imposed regardless of internalization. > > True, we should address and establish whatever degree of innate > morality exists and to what degree it affects society as a whole, > being that innate morality is subjective, individually and culturally, > and may or may not have influence on group morality. Where does this > innate morality stand in the strata of global morality? > > On Jan 30, 5:56 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > “…While ethics and morality in specific instance can intertwine, I > > generally would view them separately. A corporation may engage > > business ethics without a scant consideration of morality, while > > another corporation may invoke both moral and ethical policy if the > > nature of it's existence affects the morality of society…” – SD > > > Here the personification of a concept, and an abstract and diverse one > > at that (corporation) as interesting as it is, does little for me when > > it comes to reaching the top of what you so graciously called the > > ‘larger stones’. > > > “…How do we achieve more consciousness of the primacy of moral values > > in society/markets/public life?...” – SD > > > A wonderful question, of course. > > > “…I'm inclined to think the governing body holds the highest level of > > responsibility in creating that consciousness, though initial > > examination of contemporary government does not indicate that….” – SD > > > Here, as I suggested at the start, it appears you are talking about an > > external moral standard, yes? Most people do have some sense of what > > institutions project, both officially and in action…often quite > > different things as you suggest. And, even if taken as some sort of > > instruction, and even if internalized, is this not an externally > > imposed notion/ethos? Of course, laws as you mention are too, no? > > > Regardless, for me a more serious area to address is whatever innate > > moral sense we can find. > > > “…This sets the stage for the questions, what do we really mean by > > morality? and what is "real" morality?...” – SD > > > Yes. And, as with most such immaterial things, using this medium we > > may be able to point in the correct direction. In no way do I expect > > us to be able to nail it down with specific terms. If that happens, it > > would be a first for me! The process is enough for me for now. > > Especially as I shift back to said internal ethos now and then. While > > we could call such a thing something arrived at by experience in the > > world, and some of the above notions do point in this direction, is it > > not possible that we do have some sort of innate knowledge here? > > > On Jan 30, 10:03 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Nice move Orn, re-elevating the MInds Eye discourse to it's intended > > > level. It's seems that as of late some of the threads have subsisted > > > on mediocre tidings. However, "As the builders say, the larger stones > > > do not lie well without the lesser", Plato. > > > Fran's post presents four questions, How do we achieve more > > > consciousness of the primacy of moral values in society/markets/ > > > public life? How do we educate for real morality in society? What > > > do we really mean by morality? and What systems of morality can we > > > propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, interdependent, > > > open/closed contemporary societies? > > > The foundation of this thread is developing nicely with a earnest > > > attempt at establishing a mutual understanding of connotation and > > > direction. While ethics and morality in specific instance can > > > intertwine, I generally would view them separately. A corporation may > > > engage business ethics without a scant consideration of morality, > > > while another corporation may invoke both moral and ethical policy if > > > the nature of it's existence affects the morality of society. > > > Halliburton is not McDonalds. > > > How do we achieve more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in > > > society/markets/public life? > > > I'm inclined to think the governing body holds the highest level of > > > responsibility in creating that consciousness, though initial > > > examination of contemporary government does not indicate that. For > > > example, it would seem that moral values are not as much a precedent > > > as warnings of the danger of smoking, in the government agenda. > > > Perhaps this is due to the increasing presence of immorality in > > > governmental conduct which of course sets a precedent for market > > > enterprise and a standard tone by which society gauges itself upon. In > > > addition, setting legal standards greatly influences the morality > > > issue as participation in illegal activity becomes immoral behavior > > > while reversing the legal standard renders the activity moral. This > > > sets the stage for the questions, what do we really mean by morality? > > > and what is "real" morality? > > > > On Jan 29, 2:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In a different thread, fran suggested an exploration of morality in > > > > the context of economics and society. Rather than rephrase him, here > > > > are his words: > > > > > “…Most importantly, for me at least, many contributions (including > > > > your > > > > own appeal to charity) seem to point to some kind of primacy of the > > > > "ethical" in the organisation of human societies, be it within a > > > > "capitalist" or a "socialist" framework. This point came home to me > > > > after reading the thought-provoking article by Howard A. Doughty (and > > > > doesn't he live up to his name! :-)) in the link provided by Don. Of > > > > course, this insight raises many more questions: how do we achieve > > > > more consciousness of the primacy of moral values in society/markets/ > > > > public life, how do we educate for real morality in society, and, > > > > most > > > > fundamtentally, what do we really mean by morality and what systems > > > > of > > > > morality can we propose for our complex, splintered, internetworked, > > > > interdependent, open/closed contemporary societies? > > > > What a wriggling can of worms! Back to Plato, Aristotle and all the > > > > others ... ;-)” – fran > > > > > I agreed and wish to explore the area…what we mean by morality, how to > > > > educate for it etc. My responding post: > > > > > “Fran, I find that you have pointed to the heart of the matter… > > > > ethics. > > > > As far as I see it, if different people have different ethics, it is > > > > probable they will espouse differing economic and/or social systems > > > > based upon their personal point of view. This seems so obvious. > > > > Many here have studied the subject, formally and informally. And, of > > > > course, each person has an opinion. For me, some sort of empathetical > > > > or at least sympathetic analysis of how differing ethoses function > > > > would be appreciated. And, yes, even in this simple request, my > > > > personal ethos/morality shines through. > > > > I have a few ideas on how to progress, however I’ll wait and see if > > > > those better versed in the topic can guide us towards a more fruitful > > > > discussion. “ – orn > > > > > So, since the other topic continues to appear to include > > > > contradictions to this notion, I’m starting a new one to address it > > > > for those who wish to explore rather than reject.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
