In regards to ethics, it may be all but dead as opposed to morality which covers a broader base and is universally understood as well as distinguishable as innate or externally imposed. While both refer to conduct, I view each as subsidiary to the other depending upon circumstance. Razing of land for commercial development without regard for conservation doesn't appear to have much of, if any, moral consequence. Whereas, razing of land for commercial development that displaces entire communities, including loss of agricultural sustenance and livelihood appears to have greater moral consequence. Here we can see morality as being of greater importance. Again, how is morality culturally defined? http://infochangeindia.org/200710016672/Other/Features/Hi-tech-building-plans-threaten-to-displace-Valanthakkadu-s-dalits.html Do you find moral issue there? Deconstruction ends up with a body only being able to do its best on the undecidable, a truism for sure arch. Deconstruction also splays moral intricacies as a schematic which can over simplify it to the point of establishing a universal rule, when there really isn't one. Perhaps Kant's moral maxim. I think morality takes the form of the individual situation in question and evolves along with the tides of change societies deem suitable for their time and place. Morality is generational and lives and dies with it's following and your faith in virtue is resultant of your experiencing/witnessing the generational gap in moral qualification. Ethics exist or don't exist and are set codes of conduct without the complexities of morality. My thought is that ethics is not subjective and morality is. Can we educate for real morality in society? Not sure but it seems, to me, that whatever morality exists in today's society is resultant of the cumulative stream of open media presentation, examples set by figureheads of society and parental influence. I think morality issues are not generated from academic models, they are instilled into society via fundamental socialization platforms. It seems that the intensity of morality infusion is strongest at the primary stages or formative years and nearly disintegrates into chaos later. Again, it is a evolutionary process. IMO, Slip
On Jan 30, 8:53 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
