If you dare express that thought. What would be the consequences? A poor grade? A rejecting sweetheart or wife? A lost job/salary/car/ home? Absense/shunning by old friends? A tin cup on the corner? Oh, dear! Bite your tongue!
On Aug 27, 5:20 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > Is this any more than "never mind what anyone else thinks, if i think > it's right, then it's right"? Again, i'm probably missing something > profound, archytas :) > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around! > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com! > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
