Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: A Proposal of a View of Morality

  1. #1
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Proposal of a View of Morality

    Morality is composed of three things: good, evil, and fairness.

    Some things are considered to be purely evil. If a person tortures another person as a way to make that person subservient or take pleasure in their pain, this would be considered evil.

    If a person helps another person without the expectation or demand of gaining love or some kind of reward other than harmony, this would be considered good.

    People have a proclivity to feel consciously torn when they do something evil and to feel serene when they do something good. I believe we could call this our collective subconscious instinct to live in good standing with one another, for whatever reasons you want to say (since the reasons will be subjective).

    Everything else I think can fall under the system of fairness. People do what they think is fair. The businessman that works very hard in a capitalistic system and found success from it will find it unfair if others try to cheat that system. But others might see the fact that they work hard and have not had the success that the businessman had as then perfectly 'fair' to cheat the capitalistic system. I think this can also be applied to religions as well. We could look at someone following a religious belief and see that the judgments they impose on others are fair to them because their religious beliefs are the system that they have created for fairness that all human beings are supposed to follow. We can even apply this to the moral disgust idea that was presented in an older thread. When people find something disgusting, they don't see it fair to support such a thing, because they themselves find it disgusting. They may even think it is then fair to eliminate or try to stop something they think is disgusting just because it disturbs them and may believe it is then unfair to have to be subjected to that. In fact, I think all conflict outside of good and evil conflict comes from the idea of fairness; it is when different contradictory systems of fairness are created that conflict arises.

    Then to create an infallible model of morality that someone can apply to any situation, must one then find a way to create unity between to contradictory systems of fairness? Is this theoretically possible? Or is it wiser to create a model that understands unity should not or can not be given in certain situations where tensions will not be relieved without conflict (in the worst cases war), but seeks it otherwise? Then are some systems of fairness destined to have to defeat another to exist?

  2. #2
    crazedrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,885
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Torture is very unfair.
    INTp

  3. #3
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Your "evil" is more about fairness imo. Your "good" I would prefer to cover with a clause about it being fine if a person deliberately gives themselves the raw end of the deal. Note that such "helping others" can sometimes be taken very poorly by the other person (such that they would prefer that it stop), and there are known cases of torture being something desired by the victim.

    I don't think that systems of fairness can always be reconciled. Of course, some shared system of fairness is necessary to coexist - if the systems of fairness are truly irreconcilable, then the sad truth is that we must kill the other party. Frequently a "keep to yourself" system of fairness works as a baseline so that other systems of fairness can coexist.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  4. #4
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some things are considered to be purely evil. If a person tortures another person as a way to make that person subservient or take pleasure in their pain, this would be considered evil.
    I would add in something about this referring to nonconsensual torture/pain/subservience.
    Some people do play with pain/torture/subservience willingly.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  5. #5
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    Your "evil" is more about fairness imo. Your "good" I would prefer to cover with a clause about it being fine if a person deliberately gives themselves the raw end of the deal. Note that such "helping others" can sometimes be taken very poorly by the other person (such that they would prefer that it stop), and there are known cases of torture being something desired by the victim.
    That's a good point. Maybe they shouldn't be separated. Evil could then be considered to exist in extreme cases of unfairness, where to an external viewer the negative empathic or emotive response(s) caused will be the mind's instinctive reactions rather than the execution of a thought-out plan. And similarly, good could be the same idea, but instead with positive empathic or emotive responses and labeled extreme cases of fairness.

    Then everything in-between requires the question of fairness to be thought-out to some degree without empathic/emotive responses. And when what has been thought-out and concluded upon has been put into action, then if the imposed effect is negative then it is unfair, and if the imposed effect is positive it is fair. Of course, if it involves more than one person, then the perceived overall effect (being the collection of what everyone involved thinks of whether the effect was fair or not) would have to suffice for determining whether unfair or fair and conversely immoral or moral. Then I think that if the ratio of overall fair to unfair produced in a given action is closer to infinity compared to another ratio, then it would be more fair then the other action that produced the other ratio.

    The only problem then is the observer. One observer will reach different conclusions on fairness than another - being that sometimes what is overall fair for those involved will be completely unfair and unhealthy for the one observer. An amoral observer will not see fairness/unfairness, but what they want and how they can and will go about getting what they want. If an observer decides to base their fairness on what others find fair, then there is the problem of either melding into another person's fairness or fighting for one's fairness above others. Then would it be that all a person can really do is take everything they know into consideration and act on it, hoping for the result to be in favor of fair, but being mindful to act on what is fair for the person if it is deemed needed?

    Following from this, do we then have a conflict of contradictory systems of fairness between one person and the overall effect of fairness on a mass of people? And if it is only when systems of fairness contradict that they create actual conflict, would the person that is able to take those systems of fairness in others that are unwilling to be changed or affected (contradictory) and accept them as a part of them-self (changing their own fairness system), thus making them non-contradictory and creating peace between the two previously contradictory systems, be the epitome of highest moral fairness? So it would seem it is the most moral that sacrifice the most in terms of their own wants and desires, and perhaps needs in various cases. And then could it be said that the more stubborn a person is in not changing a system of fairness, the more immoral they are versus someone who is willing to be less stubborn? Thus to be an individual life from another is to have a part of a fairness system that is unwilling to be changed and will conflict at one point or another. For two life to interact, they must conflict? Then to live completely symbiotically would make two different life combine to make one life? Is the goal of those that strive for morality to be symbiotic? And the goal of those that strive less for morality to be an individual? Then morality is a measure of conflict? And the point of life is a huge question of morality, to conflict and see what morality results?

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    I would add in something about this referring to nonconsensual torture/pain/subservience.
    Some people do play with pain/torture/subservience willingly.
    Brilliand beat you to it. And now you must be punished.

  6. #6
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milkor View Post
    Brilliand beat you to it. And now you must be punished.
    Only cuz he hit enter before I did.
    But, to give fair do, his response had more stuff in it as well.

    As for the rest, wtf are you talking about? *I'm* the one who does the punishing!

    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  7. #7
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Only cuz he hit enter before I did.
    But, to give fair do, his response had more stuff in it as well.

    As for the rest, wtf are you talking about? *I'm* the one who does the punishing!

    I dunno. I was hoping that if I rambled a bit and asked many questions somebody else would figure out what makes sense or not.

    Mmmm, I bet you'd like it if I whipped you and then wrapped my hands around your hips and brushed the back of your neck with a kiss. You have fun fetishes How Would you like to be my cute F doll? Hmmmmmmmm? You know you want it.

  8. #8
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milkor View Post
    Mmmm, I bet you'd like it if I whipped you and then wrapped my hands around your hips and brushed the back of your neck with a kiss. You have fun fetishes How Would you like to be my cute F doll? Hmmmmmmmm? You know you want it.
    Sorry, I should have made it more clear....after saying that *I'm* the one that does the punishing...

    I'm on the left, with the paddle and bear and crown.
    My Pet is on the right, bound, hooded, and gagged. (more like funishment rather than punishment, though...but it gives me quite time on the forum, lol)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  9. #9
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So if Milkor and Ann were to meet who would be bound and gagged and enjoy it most?? You would!

  10. #10
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,338
    Mentioned
    210 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milkor View Post
    So if Milkor and Ann were to meet who would be bound and gagged and enjoy it most?? You would!
    Milkor would be bound and gagged.
    Ann would enjoy Milkor bound and gagged the most.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  11. #11
    Currently God Brilliand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    4,246
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milkor View Post
    That's a good point. Maybe they shouldn't be separated. Evil could then be considered to exist in extreme cases of unfairness, where to an external viewer the negative empathic or emotive response(s) caused will be the mind's instinctive reactions rather than the execution of a thought-out plan. And similarly, good could be the same idea, but instead with positive empathic or emotive responses and labeled extreme cases of fairness.

    Then everything in-between requires the question of fairness to be thought-out to some degree without empathic/emotive responses. And when what has been thought-out and concluded upon has been put into action, then if the imposed effect is negative then it is unfair, and if the imposed effect is positive it is fair. Of course, if it involves more than one person, then the perceived overall effect (being the collection of what everyone involved thinks of whether the effect was fair or not) would have to suffice for determining whether unfair or fair and conversely immoral or moral. Then I think that if the ratio of overall fair to unfair produced in a given action is closer to infinity compared to another ratio, then it would be more fair then the other action that produced the other ratio.

    The only problem then is the observer. One observer will reach different conclusions on fairness than another - being that sometimes what is overall fair for those involved will be completely unfair and unhealthy for the one observer. An amoral observer will not see fairness/unfairness, but what they want and how they can and will go about getting what they want. If an observer decides to base their fairness on what others find fair, then there is the problem of either melding into another person's fairness or fighting for one's fairness above others. Then would it be that all a person can really do is take everything they know into consideration and act on it, hoping for the result to be in favor of fair, but being mindful to act on what is fair for the person if it is deemed needed?

    Following from this, do we then have a conflict of contradictory systems of fairness between one person and the overall effect of fairness on a mass of people? And if it is only when systems of fairness contradict that they create actual conflict, would the person that is able to take those systems of fairness in others that are unwilling to be changed or affected (contradictory) and accept them as a part of them-self (changing their own fairness system), thus making them non-contradictory and creating peace between the two previously contradictory systems, be the epitome of highest moral fairness? So it would seem it is the most moral that sacrifice the most in terms of their own wants and desires, and perhaps needs in various cases. And then could it be said that the more stubborn a person is in not changing a system of fairness, the more immoral they are versus someone who is willing to be less stubborn? Thus to be an individual life from another is to have a part of a fairness system that is unwilling to be changed and will conflict at one point or another. For two life to interact, they must conflict? Then to live completely symbiotically would make two different life combine to make one life? Is the goal of those that strive for morality to be symbiotic? And the goal of those that strive less for morality to be an individual? Then morality is a measure of conflict? And the point of life is a huge question of morality, to conflict and see what morality results?
    However, if a system of morality encourages people to give up their system of morality, then it won't survive, and is rather likely to be replaced by a less moral system of morality - perhaps even one that dictates the death of the person who was so very moral to begin with. Not good! Of course, in rating systems of morality, we run into the problem that we have to measure them somehow - by whatever system of morality we already hold to, that is. Imo debating theoretical morality is futile, because the value of a system of morality is highly reliant on what the systems of morality of others are... so we must judge a system of morality based on what nearly everyone is like nowadays. The system of morality that can produce the most beneficial cooperation between the most people is the best one. Now, you mentioned good feelings as a measure of good/evil, which leads to the Felicific calculus - which works decently, but is perhaps a bit too loose, leaving room for other systems of morality to stamp it out. It fulfills the ideal of producing positive feelings quite well, but - dare I say it - a system of morality does need to defend itself.



    LII-Ne

    "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
    - Blair Houghton

    Johari

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything else I think can fall under the system of fairness. People do what they think is fair.
    No. You're projecting. People are doing whatever they want to do, until physically stopped by an external authority. People are pretending to be fair for superego trips and to ease their own guilt, but in raw reality are operating under all sorts of subjective biases and prejudices. If they weren't, how else could you explain all the evil in the world? And of course, the metaphysical issue of evil is that it's always here and never goes away - I just want to make you aware.

    Then to create an infallible model of morality that someone can apply to any situation, must one then find a way to create unity between to contradictory systems of fairness? Is this theoretically possible? Or is it wiser to create a model that understands unity should not or can not be given in certain situations where tensions will not be relieved without conflict (in the worst cases war), but seeks it otherwise? Then are some systems of fairness destined to have to defeat another to exist?
    First off I would tell you to stop being naive. Your entire foundation is screwy because you're seeing humanity in a better light than what it really is, just to make yourself feel better. There is nothing wrong with this and I don't blame you for wanting to escape off into bliss like that, but I think you do more good being as real as possible, and as intelligent as Hollywood CEOS who know more than you about the raw reality of as many organizations as possible.

    It's sort of like you're trying to make hamburgers when you have poisoned meat. I would first just get new meat, a better foundation. And I'm not criticizing you, but your ideas and general world-views. Take off the rose colored glasses and be man (or woman enough) to see the real pain that other people are going through.

    I'm glad that YOU yourself are being fair, but people as a whole suck, and we all know it's true. Only a few select individuals at a time are 'trying to do the right thing.' (Which in reality, the right ethical course of action to take is actually very hard and since, it's always easier to be lazy we just don't fool with it) Only a few people at a time are trying to be fair, and 'do the right thing.' Otherwise, people just do not care. And otherwise, too many people are either being bullies or allowing themselves to be victims.

  13. #13
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that the examples you give of good and evil are based on your subjective understanding of fair and unfair, ie you see torturing someone as obviously evil, and altruistically helping someone as obviously good, but this is about your subjective views really. You fail to explain why these things are evil and good and simply put them forth as such. This, like all systems of morality is unfair IMO, simply because it is dictatated by one person to another. There is no objective good and evil IMO, just the conscience and what the conscience dictates as being good and evil as you describe it, ie good brings peace to the consience while evil brings distress to it.

    What I mean, in a nutshell, is what dictates things that are good and evil in your system as being so, as opposed to this being just another judgement of fair and unfair?
    Last edited by Typhon; 10-07-2010 at 09:19 PM.

  14. #14
    Punk
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    TIM
    ESE
    Posts
    1,659
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brilliand View Post
    However, if a system of morality encourages people to give up their system of morality, then it won't survive, and is rather likely to be replaced by a less moral system of morality - perhaps even one that dictates the death of the person who was so very moral to begin with. Not good! Of course, in rating systems of morality, we run into the problem that we have to measure them somehow - by whatever system of morality we already hold to, that is. Imo debating theoretical morality is futile, because the value of a system of morality is highly reliant on what the systems of morality of others are... so we must judge a system of morality based on what nearly everyone is like nowadays. The system of morality that can produce the most beneficial cooperation between the most people is the best one. Now, you mentioned good feelings as a measure of good/evil, which leads to the Felicific calculus - which works decently, but is perhaps a bit too loose, leaving room for other systems of morality to stamp it out. It fulfills the ideal of producing positive feelings quite well, but - dare I say it - a system of morality does need to defend itself.
    You're right. I've been thinking about all this a bit more and no matter how I think about it, it always has flaws. I wanted that idea to work, but it just doesn't. I guess one doesn't have to define morality to make decisions about what is best. But it does leave the problem of whether it is best to act or to think, given a situation, holographically speaking. Perhaps to take that element away is to take away the concept of life. Felicific calculus is interesting. It makes sense to me to a certain point. I imagine any moral system that excludes it completely would ultimately fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    No. You're projecting. People are doing whatever they want to do, until physically stopped by an external authority. People are pretending to be fair for superego trips and to ease their own guilt, but in raw reality are operating under all sorts of subjective biases and prejudices. If they weren't, how else could you explain all the evil in the world? And of course, the metaphysical issue of evil is that it's always here and never goes away - I just want to make you aware.



    First off I would tell you to stop being naive. Your entire foundation is screwy because you're seeing humanity in a better light than what it really is, just to make yourself feel better. There is nothing wrong with this and I don't blame you for wanting to escape off into bliss like that, but I think you do more good being as real as possible, and as intelligent as Hollywood CEOS who know more than you about the raw reality of as many organizations as possible.

    It's sort of like you're trying to make hamburgers when you have poisoned meat. I would first just get new meat, a better foundation. And I'm not criticizing you, but your ideas and general world-views. Take off the rose colored glasses and be man (or woman enough) to see the real pain that other people are going through.

    I'm glad that YOU yourself are being fair, but people as a whole suck, and we all know it's true. Only a few select individuals at a time are 'trying to do the right thing.' (Which in reality, the right ethical course of action to take is actually very hard and since, it's always easier to be lazy we just don't fool with it) Only a few people at a time are trying to be fair, and 'do the right thing.' Otherwise, people just do not care. And otherwise, too many people are either being bullies or allowing themselves to be victims.
    LOL. Hi BND. I hope the following doesn't sound condescending, as my reply is intended to serve as an appreciation for your input. But it seems we are on different wavelengths, so let me clarify things a bit. So I'm not rationalizing the world as good or bad, but simply attempting to decide when a person's moral reasoning makes more sense against another person's, outside of emotional instinct (and even instinct in general) which is pretty straight-forward because it produces action independent of thought (although it can be reinforced to produce a different action). If that makes me naive from your perspective, I can understand. I certainly live that way, giving people the benefit of the doubt before all else, unless shown otherwise. I also wasn't equating fairness with morality in the sense that people know what is generally fair and right and don't do it. I was more thinking along the lines of conditioning of experience. Positive and negative reinforcements of experience shape people's thoughts, actions, and predictions of the future. Without this, we lose what makes us essentially...alive. And what I would like to do is produce a way to determine how and why one person's then, what I will call, moral conditioning would be considered superior to another. I realize now this is probably impossible.

    Oh, and you mentioned people being inherently lazy and that people have subjective biases and prejudices. I'm not sure I would agree that people are inherently lazy. I think the world generally speaking, due mostly to imperialism (but maybe this is more a leftover negative reinforcement from previous generations where people considered life just as a painful transient experience before heading to an eternal afterlife), has been put in a stressful state where the majority of people are forced to live in very uncomfortable means, where work and pressure rules all action. Why would someone is always on the verge of burnout have the energy to care about others around them? It isn't lazy to relax and not want to work too hard either. There is no status-quo of what the human race is supposed to be doing over a given timeline. Unhappy people want to be happy foremost. When they are happy and have the energy to care about others, they see no problem helping other people as long as it won't take away their happiness. And this is reasonable to me.

    When you say that people have subjective biases and prejudices, are you admitting that you find whatever biases and prejudices that you think works in your favor and use that to produce action? :wink: Or are you essentially, and what I'm assuming right now, referring to positive and negative reinforcement of experience? And using that to decide the future? Since you see yourself as an INFp (Ni-Fe), this would make quite a lot of sense, given the Ni-Se axis. I see the latter statement as a type of moral conditioning and the former as immoral. I wonder if you see both those statements (bolded so you know what I'm referring to) as equivalent though? I have an inclination to believe that might be a good example of Te PoLR (Fe seeing the same phenomenon as Te, but evaluating it on different Fe terms), if you don't mind me using you as a test subject .

    Quote Originally Posted by Typhon View Post
    I think that the examples you give of good and evil are based on your subjective understanding of fair and unfair, ie you see torturing someone as obviously evil, and altruistically helping someone as obviously good, but this is about your subjective views really. You fail to explain why these things are evil and good and simply put them forth as such. This, like all systems of morality is unfair IMO, simply because it is dictatated by one person to another. There is no objective good and evil IMO, just the conscience and what the conscience dictates as being good and evil as you describe it, ie good brings peace to the consience while evil brings distress to it.

    What I mean, in a nutshell, is what dictates things that are good and evil in your system as being so, as opposed to this being just another judgement of fair and unfair?
    That's a good point you make. Let me quote you to discuss this.
    I think that the examples you give of good and evil are based on your subjective understanding of fair and unfair, ie you see torturing someone as obviously evil, and altruistically helping someone as obviously good, but this is about your subjective views really. You fail to explain why these things are evil and good and simply put them forth as such.
    I completely agree with you, by the way. I was attempting to make a distinction between, what I might as well just refer to as, empathy, without subjecting it to a cold Ti analysis. But I guess it is necessary. Humanity throughout time has shown that it does not approve of say torture because it always puts forth laws that punish those that do it and spends a great deal of effort and money to enforce these laws. Naturally the reasons are because torture evokes a strong response of feeling awful, in many, if not most people, maybe because they feel bad for the person or because they don't want it to happen to themselves (I'll let the observer determine that since I am just interested in the fact that people feel bad from seeing it). Because of this, those that are against it attempt to punish those that torture with laws and social ostracizing. So I'm left to assume that the majority of people think this way or that enough of people think this way and the majority then doesn't mind upholding the laws - and these laws are emotionally driven and based. But the latter assumes no reason for the majority's upholding of the laws and without a reason I am inclined to think the former more likely to be the case. So it would seem there is a majority-enforced, overarching, emotionally-instinctive, Fe-driven morality to humanity that in the grand scheme of things, always reigns supreme. So in this sense, it seems apparent that, as the state of humanity is currently at this time of writing, something like torture would be seen as overall evil as far as the collective of humanity would be concerned. Now if in the future most of humanity was comprised of psychopaths, then this would most likely change.

    Outside of that though, and what I was describing earlier, was that we can also say that the attachments people have to one another can create positive feelings. If two people have positive feelings of attachment for one another, then when someone else attempts to remove that attachment or even the feelings, it will evoke some kind of instinctual emotional response in one if not both of those two people and they will try to stop that someone else. So for them what is good and evil is clear and the emotional action doesn't really require thought. This is what I meant by good and evil, in this sense. So you are right that it is a perspective thing, and it is that perspective that can really complicate things and has motivated me to drop the idea altogether. But I'm quite sure that this idea, although often a perspective thing, does have recurring themes in human societies and historical timelines. And that recurrence is worthy of noting as good and evil and an offspring of the human morality. This is primarily what I meant by good and evil, although the message may have been completely unclear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •