Relativism and deconstructionism do lead one into the depths of the well of disillusionment.
On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, 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 -
