»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
A Tale of Two Wiki's
| Philosophy 101 |
|
A Tale of Two Wiki's |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
Moral luck Main article: Moral luck The problem of moral luck is that some people are born into, live within, and experience circumstances that seem to change their moral culpability when all other factors remain the same. For instance, a case of circumstantial moral luck: a poor person is born into a poor family, and has no other way to feed himself so he steals his food. Another person, born into a very wealthy family, does very little but has ample food and does not need to steal to get it. Should the poor person be more morally blameworthy than the rich person? After all, it is not his fault that he was born into such circumstances, but a matter of "luck". A related case is resultant moral luck. For instance, two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving carelessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers' intentional actions; yet most observers would likely ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed. (Compare consequentialism.) The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy#M.C3.BCnchhausen_Trilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism There. NOW, can we talk philosophy? Could one of you smart folk explain it to me please? And I LIKE analogy, but could we use a fresh one so as to keep this impersonal and therefore a subject we can explore with less risk of personal attack/insult? I think we can do this, good people. Well, I think ya'll can do this. I need a little help...and in case someone is confused as to what I need help with, it would be the comparison and contrast of the two topics.  Thank you very much. |
||
| © Copyright 2010 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
Is the question do circumstances beyond our control at times influence the results of the same behaviors, be it the circumstances or the position we find ourselves in? yes.... but, to me, in both caes or examples given above, one is no less morally responsible simply because they are hungry or they escaped harming another through their actions. To steal...is to steal. To be careless, is to be careless. The moral doesn't change because of the circumstances. Moral luck, to me sounds like an excuse for why "we" society... turn a blind eye. Which is also to me... totally a different discussion.. :-) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm still thinking... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
These are really excellent examples to cause one to think, Karen. As Ron says, stealing is stealing and wrong, regardless of circumstances. However, survival and reproduction are the two most basic drives humans have. Are you a thief? An honest person would answer no. Would you steal a loaf of bread to save your starving child? My bet is the answer would be yes. Reminds me of Les Miserables in that light. In my opinion, the crime is in the justification of it more so than even the actual committment. If I were to steal that loaf of bread to save my child and were caught, I'd like to think I would say, "yes, I knew it was wrong and I did it, anyway." What we seem to have, though, is a society of excuse seekers. Instead of "Yes, I know stealing is wrong but I did it, anyway", we have, "I live in a society where no one cares, where the rich run everything and have so much while I am starving and it so unfair that I didn't have the opportunities others had and, if I want to take something not mine from those who have so much and can afford it, I don't see a problem with it. It's not my fault I was reduced to being forced to commit a crime." Regardless of whether that person has a point about society, the fact is the action was wrong and no excuse can make it right. There is a lack of people willing to be responsible for their actions, I believe. I would have more respect for a person who says, "Yes, I did it. So what? I'm a thief." than one who claims "I'm not really a thief. Life, society, circumstances, the world, my bad parents, teachers who didn't teach me well, yada yada yada, made me steal. It's Officer Krumpke all over again. You know what makes me see red? The lawyers who advertise that they can get you out of any ticket or DUI charge. They advertise it on tv, proudly. THERE is a microcosm of our society. Anyway, thanks for making me think this morning... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I keep finding myself thinking, "it depends"...grin, and my own sources (those wiki links) are standing there shrugging at me admitting they are pretty much inadequate. After I get some morning stuff out of the way, I'll dig around some more. Maybe I can actually come up with an opinion of my own.  But thank you, gentlemen. I just have a nagging feeling that I'm missing a component here....hmmm.  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
"In my opinion, the crime is in the justification of it more so than even the actual committment" Mr. 'Deer... does this statement mean that it is a larger crime to justify an offense than to commit one? If so, then justifying stealing a loaf of bread by saying you did it to save your child, is an offense worse than stealing the loaf itself? I think..and it is of course only my poor opinon, but there are multiple levels of questions here... 1. An act that is deemed to be against the law or agains tthe moral code ( ie. Stealing) 2. Motivation for the act. (ie. the stateement I stole it to feed my child) 3. How society or the system deals out punishment to those who break the code. this could easily end up in the means justify the ends debate... it is or it isn't a breach of moral code and or transgression against the law... regardless of the reason it might be done. The reason it might be done, however, might indeed be understandable to most, which would lead to leniancy in how the issue is dealt with... hmm.... sounds a bit like liberal judicial values... |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Hello, Love. In adding, or not adding to this, when I first read only your post, my first thought was... Karma. We only think we have capacity to change the world. We sometimes forget that the world changes matter, which changes us. But overall I'm looking forward to all of the others' responses. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Ron, it doesn't. Apparently I used the wrong words to make my point, which confused you. When I refer to the "crime" of making excuses, I was not referring to an actual crime, as in law-enforcement legal and punishable. I was simply referring to crime as in how you would say "It's a crime the way he treats his wife", which does not necessarily mean he beats her or commits actions that are arrestable. I had thought that would be understood but apparently it wasn't so I will try to be more literal in my comments. Is stealing a transgression of the law? Certainly. Is it against one's moral code? Things get a little trickier there. Whose moral code? A mother who steals the bread may consider it her moral duty to save her child by any means necessary, including breaking the law. We have certainly seen cases of that. Moral codes are not written down in any book I am aware of and, frankly, I am suspicious of anyone who dictates to others what their moral codes or responsibilities should be. By whose definition? WHat qualifies them to be able to do so? Sir Thomas More is a good example. He had possibly the strongest moral code in history. He lived by it but didn't try to force it on others. When imprisoned breaking the law of not doing the king's bidding, he went without complain to prison, knowing that his refusal was against the law but refusing to sacrifice his moral code by condescending. A mother stealing to feed her child may feel the same way, knowing that her action is illegal but feeling her moral responsibility is to do anything to keep her child alive. When I spoke about people using excuses as outs, I am not referring to the mother. I refer to people who knowingly break the law or act immorally and then claim "It's not my fault!", coming up with some of the most God- awful excuses one could ever hear. Who is going to judge another's morality? Beats me. In the Bible, thousands of innocent new-borns were murdered. Was that a moral act? If you say yes, how can you justify it? If you say no, then you are calling God's action immoral? The being who arote the commandment "Thou shall not kill", did. Was that moral? Apparently Jews and Christians think so or else they knowingly follow an immoral God? See what happens when one starts trying to define it? It takes a much smarter man that I am to try to dictate another's morality or pass judgement on them. I don't even try. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmmm. Moral luck, then, is more about ethical conduct? Because if it is about ethical conduct (rules/laws) then we need a point of reference. At least I would. If such a code were enforced by a majority opinion, then perception of good and evil comes into play. Which is probably why I found that on a "List of unsolved philosphical problems. ?Consequentialism (I am working this out as I go along) would be the gray area then, if, if my wiki-reference is true, lends itself to the attitude of "the end justifies the means". And? aha! There on that page I find "deontology"--new word for me-- "deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action, and onto then, virtue ethics--"an approach to ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent,, rather than rules or consequences, as the key elements of ethical thinking. And for Kari's offering, let's also throw in Draconian law, which dictates an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth in the most literal sense. (I think.) Now, I'm sure there's more to this, but do you think that laws which govern our freedom here in the United States utilize all of the above with varying intensities/emphasis, or just some of the above, or none of the above? And if you could write the rules yourself, what would be your ethical formula? (Um, I'd hoped to present the argument in an orderly fashion, from white to grays to black and white--and I hope I succeeded here.) I'll tidy up all the quote thingies and better link presentation after I tidy up my thought processes.  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ah Mike, you type faster than I. I was hoping to leave Religious law out of this, just to keep it simple for now. If the thread catches on, I see no reason to not talk about it later, but right now I'm more curious about collective agreement and self-government. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, ok. No problem. I don't really see a difference between religious laws and just laws but I can understand that that could open up another completely different avenue to travel down. I rescind that comment Ass far as luck is concerned, Lee Trevino (the golfer) used to say, "The harder I practice, the luckier I get". I wonder if one could simply say the same about life in general and the morality it produces? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I've just been thinking a lot lately, but I really am trying harder to be more patient and take the time and utilize a little focus. How much of each standard would you say would come closest to your personal ideal? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I think I'll sleep on that tonight, too. g'nite everybody  |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
(chuckling) Mr. 'Deer... then since the topic is moral luck, we should set aside criminal luck or law and focus on Morals? I do see the difference between the two, and I think to discuss the subject of moral luck we have to agree what morals? If morals are relative, then the idea of moral luck is relative? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Am I morally lucky to be born in the Volunteer State? LOL. That pretty much warps the agent of responsibility due to the environment being disproportionately given to a voluntary state of mind. That seems too Nietzsche to me. And there needs be more "types" of moral luck for me to be a fan of the moral theory. Like: Menocausal....Evidential..etc. Nice brain tangler! |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
Of course you were morally lucky to be born in TN.. LOL your points are well taken and I happen to agree, in large part. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, Ron, yo u are right. I deviated from the topic. I got caught up in Karen's words about a mother stealing and went off on that tangent instead of moral luck. Sorry about that. It fits in with my ADD!  Ok, moral luck. First let's discuss luck. No doubt luck plays a very important role in our lives. The Beubonic plague killed over half of Europe. It would have been bad luck to be born there then. It would have been bad luck to be born a Jew in Germany in 1920. It is very bad luck to be born in Africa in areas where thousands are being slaughtered, raped and disfigured every month. These victims had no choice in their birth. There are children born with horrible birth defects and others who do not survive birth. These are the rolls of the dice that Lady Luck throws at us. So, yes, luck plays a major role in our lives from birth. "The fundamental question of moral luck is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control" Our luck is certainly changed by our circumstances but I don't see where that should influence our moral responsibility. As I understand it, moral responsibility is moral responsibility. It doesn't matter how big your house or bank account is. People should be held responsible for their actions. Unfortunately, we live in a world that follows the Golden Rule, i.e., he who has the gold rules. They are given breaks, special favors. Does their moral responsibility change? It shouldn't, imo. The "luck" seems to come from whether or not grave consequences come from their actions. It does not make them any less culpable, though so I'm really not sure exactly what the question is. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
ah, sir, one has to believe in luck... or is what we call luck, simply a way to explain how but for the grace of god goes I? Or...is there a predestiny, a grace of god, or are we simply the result of random factors. The products as well as our lives of coin tosses? fate? Karma? chance? the answer would depend on the personal beliefs of those discussing... and we would find as many answers I think as we would find beliefs. For myself, not knowing which answers are true.... I am not sure I am qualified to weigh in on one side or the other... |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sorry for the confusion. Those aren't my words--that was taken from the article that defined the term. I do apologize for not making the source more clear. There's gotta be a better source than wikipedia though. And I'll be back around. The beer tasted bad, the Saints won, and there's a House marathon on tonight. This has nothing to do with the originating post..or does it? Damn if I don't distract m'self. I'll be back. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I can assure you that I am not qualified to weigh in on one side or the other, either |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I need a better analogy, but even more than that, I have to have a moral to my moral luck story. *grin* I start typing and I lose my focus. Stories of moral luck and circumstance...I'm hard-pressed to find an example I can use that isn't religious. Lemmeee see--okay. We seem to WANT parity--we tend to go to great lengths to make good sport in games. We want the teams to win because of ability, and not because of luck, or even say, the circumstance of the wealthier owners being able to "buy the best" thus we put a cap on players salaries, the teams with the worst records get first choice at draft picks, etc. Now. Do we all agree that these now standard practices are reasonable rules that help to ensure parity in the game? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Agreed...and that has to do with morality and moral responsibility how? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I just erased my answer TWICE.  *expletive tiny keyboards* People are getting BIGGER and technology is making things smaller, it's seriously frustrating. But anyhow, here's where I'm reading now-- Ah, now this is better... "Moral luck occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control. Bernard Williams writes, “when I first introduced the expression moral luck, I expected to suggest an oxymoron” (Williams 1993, 251). Indeed, immunity from luck has been thought by many to be part of the very essence of morality. And yet, as Williams (1981) and Thomas Nagel (1979) showed in their now classic pair of articles, it appears that our everyday judgments and practices commit us to the existence of moral luck. The problem of moral luck arises because we seem to be committed to the general principle that we are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control (call this the “Control Principle”). At the same time, when it comes to countless particular cases, we morally assess agents for things that depend on factors that are not in their control. And making the situation still more problematic is the fact that a very natural line of reasoning suggests that it is impossible to morally assess anyone for anything if we adhere to the Control Principle." FROM: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/ So I'm thinking that we would need to leave the moral luck alone, and first decide exactly what morality might be, and if it is subjective as a perception of collective agreement, does it being an entity of its own accord? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sorry if that's confusing--um, I managed to braid two posts into one somehow. *giggle* My son warned me about technology. That's right, I'm talking via the medium my son warned me about... but actually, that page is good reading so far, because I am so very tediously trying to make my way down to "The justification of laws and punishment" section on the page I just referred ya to...I think. It wasn't easy getting here without talking about religion or politics either. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I’m thinking that: An exact decision on what morality might be, borders immorality. Because we cannot 100% agree on what morality is: Won’t we, in a sense, be in a position of moral opposition? Which is what immorality suggests. Moral realism? Lol. I’m glad the world is round. I’m not fond of boxes. They are objectively material to the suppression of my subjectively non-material, and very idiosyncratic, traits—Like getting up at 5am for no other reason than to listen to the voice that stirs me. Some might feel a moral obligation to have me committed, even when they have not a grasp on the greatest good to Whom I’m committed. And I don’t see how moral exacts could truly be applicable to being true to self, even if one feels they forget self for love, service, duty, or the unknown…etc. Is it nap time yet? Hello Ron Yeah, I feel lucky to be born in Tennessee. By endearment, of course. But I do have to accept that my young'uns didn't feel so lucky and, therefore, they have left the nest for the big wild world. I miss them so much. They'll be back. I'm lucky that they'll miss my cooking! Lol. |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
MOrals? I'm still stuck on luck.... I can assume that we might without defining it say there is a moral set of codes or a moral system for the sake of debate... We coulod not draw judgements or decide particular cases, since we would have to agree that we would not define that moral code or system.. but, I'm still wondering and unable to say luck exists... chance exists, and if by chance you stumble on a dollar laying in the street, is that luck? and is it moral luck that you pick it up and no one claims it, or is it simply loss to the one who lost it, and our own self preservation or betterment that might make us pick it up and keep it without looking for the true owner? Now..if you increase the amount of $ and it become 100, then 1000, then 10000... does it become more agregious that we do not search for the owner? If so, then are we saying values and morals, assuming in this case it is our moral obligation to find the owner and return the loss, are relative? Chance..and we have an obligation or a windfall.. Moral codes that are or are not relative to the amount... I am not sure how to pursue this without as Karen said, getting into religion or politics... both subjects that if you will pardon my statement, hold no absolute truths.. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Aw Reggie, I do hope you're not feeling bored, but I won't chain you to the thread. But it's understandable though. I think there is some benefit to the discussion even if we must ultimately draw our own conclusions, if only to realize that we must draw our own conclusions and stop leaning on others to put their own conclusions in our minds because we never thought it through long enough. And good morning you to Cap. (That made me feel like Mr. Moose and ping pong balls should be falling on your head.) Heh. Maybe it issssssss naptime. But if you guys get bored, I'll just talk amongst myselves. I've been accused of "useless rants" before, and some of them have been, but almost all of them at least cleared my head. But before I fell alseep last night, I was veering toward the same line of think as you, regina. Asking myself questions, like yours, what exactly is morality? It's not exactly a concrete noun (or palpable<--new favorite word)so it is a code, like a code of ethics? Does it require a majority consensus, like reality? Is reality the same thing as truth? Is there good morality or bad morality? It's a slippery word that's thrown around a lot, and lives and careers ruined in the process of being deemed moral or immoral, so I think it is a subject worthy of discussion. I don't think it matters that we may never precisely agree on what constitutes this subject, as long as we become a bit more aware of what we ourselves think of what defines it, no one can simply conveniently slip their definitions in our minds placing their value judgements where we should be placing our own. My hope is to ensure that we raise a red flag of warning internally the next time someone starts wagging about immorality. So, today I need to head back to that site, as I have discovered that this thing that seems to be a subjectively defined code has several different categories! Boring to some, I realize, but me? My favorite breakfast cereal is cheerios. Plain old cheerios, no honey, no nuts.  No honey, no nuts? Well now. I've come a long way, baby. Maybe even full circle? *wink* |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Regina. I know what you mean about the luck of being born there in God's country. I feel the same about my Irish roots. I never ask people if they are Irish. If they are, they will tell me. If they are not, there's no sense embarrassing them! if by chance you stumble on a dollar laying in the street, is that luck? Good question. Yes, it's luck but does one no good if he is not looking down at the time, which leads me to Lee Trevino. I think we all have lucky occurences happen in our lives. Are we open to them? I'll give two examples: A woman has not found the right person for her. She had a few relationships that didn't turn out well and wondered if she would ever find the right person for her. In spite of that, she continued to take care of herself. She exercised, dressed well, always made herself presentable, and was kind to others. One day a stranger moves into town, accidently bumps into her. they both feel sparks, develope a relationship, get married, and have a happy life. One could easily say she was extremely lucky that the fellow moved to her town where that relationship could form and become what it did....and that would be true. HOWEVER, had she not maintained herself in the way she had, perhaps he would have looked at the them sloppily-dressed, badly make-up applied woman who wore a look of pessimism and not been interested at all. Her (and his) availability for that luck caused it to make that luck work. A man is unemployed and down to his last pennies. He's gone on many interviews but continued to be turned down and there were very few available jobs in his town, anyway. In spite of that, he kept looking. He watched the news and kept up on current events. He kept looking. One day, a company moves into town, having selected it as a good place to build a business. The man applies. The interviewer sees a man, smart, well-versed, decently presented, sincere in his desire to have a job,,,,and hires him. Years later, after the man has risen to a high position in the company, a friend says, "Boy, you sure were lucky that company chose your town", and they would be right. If the man had not been prepared to take advantage of such luck, however, it would have done him no good. Lee Trevino - "the more I practice, the luckier I get." The more prepared you are, the better chance luck has to work for you. If the man had not been aware of his surroundings, had not been looking down to see that dollar, he would have passed it and someone else would have gotten it. What does this have to do with morality? Beats me! I do know that, in our society, a man who finds a large amount of money and returns it to it's rightful owner, is front page material and considered a hero. SImply doing the right thing seems to be cause for celebration. That's how rare it seems to be...and that's a sad statement of the morality that exists. Sunday morning sermon is now ended  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, it's not...LOL! I'm reminded of another golfing great (the best,in my opinion), Bobby Jones. Playing in a major tournament, and winning by one stroke, he called a penalty on himself. The ball moved while he addressed it, either by wind, movement of the grass, or who-knows-what. It is one of the more ridiculous rules in golf. Once a person takes his stance to hit the ball, and it moves for whatever reason, the golfer is assessed a penalty. If you ever watch a golf tourney on tv and it's a windy day, you will see golfers on the green, putting, waiting for the wind to die down so they can quickly stand over the ball and putt it before the wind moves it....as I said, a ridiculous rule. Anyway, there was Bobby Jones, on the far side of the fairway, with no one near him, no one to see the ball move, calling a penalty on himself which would cost him the tournament. The tournament officials almost even tried to talk him out of it. "Are you sure, Bobby? No one saw anything, Bobby...can you say, without a doubt, it moved when no one saw it?" Bobby responded, "I saw it" and the penalty stood. After the tournament, when the reporters applauded him for such a moral gesture, he responded, "You don't applaud a man for not robbing a bank." That was Bobby Jones.....and that's morality. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
A Short Story by Guy de Maupassant: http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/PiecStri.shtml (dash---->Meet The Press is on) |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. I tossed that one up there because it's a good read, it's short, and there's a moral to the story. There's several if we drag it to bits--and well, let's play the game-- What do you think the moral of the story is? |
||
|
Cpat Hair
since 2001-06-05
Posts 11793 |
(chuckling) Regina... my best to you and yours... even if they no longer reside in as Mr 'Deer put it "Gods Country". Your thoughts are well considered it would seem, and if an early rise is reason for one being declared less than normal, I fear I am much less than normal.... but there are voices to listen to and there are moments of peace at the early hours... or so it seems.. Mr. 'Deer.... your conclusion that it is a shame when doing the right thing becomes news, is one I have to somewhat disagree with. If you look at literature and the many stories told, a good many of the classics do have a theme of doing the right thing. Sometimes with suffering of innocence, sometimes with long paths to redemption, sometimes to the trials and temptations that come from being celebrated for doing so. If we look at that body of work and the time periods in which it exists, I would conclude that it has always been news and is used to uplift as well as teach the accepted values, the tough decisions, etc. So, I honestly don't think it any worse to read today than it was in the past. I do agree that what you call "luck" in your examples is a combination of hard work or attention coupled with chance. I think in Karen's original question the use of the word had connotations of circumstances that are viewed by some as an unfair equality of consequences based on who you are... your position. Your wealth.... Karen..I am not bored... quite the contrary. I am waiting for something to narrow down the debate in a way that perhaps we can draw conclusions or agree to disagree. The original topic is one I had thought of in terms of injustices, relative justice, and situational consequences. Those might be explained using the term moral luck I suppose, but the term is broad and I can't quite get my head around how to speak to all of it. NOT, that I probably have much in the way of intellegent conversation that has value.... still it is nice to noodle around the possibilities. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. I am finished cooking supper, and tsk...I see no one offered up a moral to the story. Or perhaps the moral of the story is "beware of picking up loose threads?" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I could have chosen something easier as an example, but easier isn't necessarily better, Guy's story has more nuances to it, and the subtext provides us with ample material for more lessons. While pondering his story, I found this, so I lifted it and thought I'd share: "The Tale consists simply in the narration of a story either founded on facts, or created solely by the imagination, and not necessarily associated with the teaching of any moral lesson. The Parable is the designed use of language purposely intended to convey a hidden and secret meaning other than that contained in the words themselves; and which may or may not bear a special reference to the hearer, or reader. The Fable partly agrees with, and partly differs from both of these. It will contain, like the Tale, a short but real narrative; it will seek, like the Parable, to convey a hidden meaning, and that not so much by the use of language, as by the skillful introduction of fictitious characters; and yet, unlike to either Tale or Parable, it will ever keep in view, as its high prerogative, and inseparable attribute, the great purpose of instruction, and will necessarily seek to inculcate some moral maxim, social duty, or political truth. The true Fable, if it rise to its high requirements, ever aims at one great end and purpose--the representation of human motive, and the improvement of human conduct, and yet it so conceals its design under the disguise of fictitious characters, by clothing with speech the animals of the field, the birds of the air, the trees of the wood, or the beasts of the forest, that the reader shall receive advice without perceiving the presence of the adviser. Thus the superiority of the counselor, which often renders counsel unpalatable, is kept out of view, and the lesson comes with the greater acceptance when the reader is led, unconsciously to himself, to have his sympathies enlisted in behalf of what is pure, honorable, and praiseworthy, and to have his indignation excited against what is low, ignoble, and unworthy." http://www.2020site.org/aesop/ I have no idea who wrote this stuff, but I got it from the above site--I copy and pasted it because I'm of the belief that people don't go to all of the sites we post. I know I don't. It's a happy day that I found it, because I am trying to cover my ground, instead of throwing a huge, long ramble that alludes to stuff that make sense only to me. But I had to acknowledge stories as I go about my personal investigation of what I deem morality to be, I want to know how it came to be, and if I have faulty wiring going on that makes me believe assumptions as truth. Just a bit of more navel gazing. I don't mind gazing at yours either. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Is the beginning of morality found in our genes? Our survival instinct? Is the baseline of morality that which is deemed to best perpetuate the species? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I would vote for genes and how our brains are wired |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The question isn't really about morality (which I believe has to be a personal thing between each individual and their own personal "higher power"). The question, rather, is about our assessment of people based on our own sense of morality. It's still a fair question, of course, because it's how we pick our friends, business associates, lovers and spouses. We like and trust people in large part because they share our sense of values. Still, I think that shift in perspective makes a huge difference in the question of this so-called moral luck. About a hundred miles north of me, a guy by the name of Scott Herrick was recently arrested on charges of sexually exploiting children and possessing child pornography. Herrick was a Boy Scout director for seven years and also worked as an instructor at the YMCA. If guilty (he's still awaiting trail), I'm sure few people would fail to judge Herrick harshly on ANY moral scale. And yet, this is what the mother of one Scout said: "We had no negative experience whatsoever; it was all positive," Rhonda Carson said. "Scott was a wonderful role model. He had good values and a good core to him and worked well with boys. ... We're disappointed. We were pretty close to him." Carson clearly made her assessment of Herrick on limited knowledge, something every single one of us has to do every day of our lives. That affected her assessment, but it does NOT affect the reality of Scott Herrick's moral values. I think most of the examples of "moral luck" in Karen's references and in this thread are similar instances of limited knowledge. One woman drives carelessly and hits a child, another woman drivers carelessly and doesn't hit a child; we know more about the first woman and that affects our assessment of her morality, but it again does NOT affect the reality of either woman's moral values. The second woman was lucky she didn't hit a child. This time. If she continues to drive recklessly she won't always be so lucky and our judgment of her will surely change as we gain a deeper understanding of who she is. Just as Rhonda Carson changed her opinion about Scott Herrick. Moral luck, if such exists, is simply a cloud temporarily obscuring our vision. Like all luck, it can't last forever. There are a lot of other issues raised in this thread, of course. The woman stealing bread for her child speaks to moral dilemmas dating back to at least Socrates, to the sense of a "higher morality," and in my opinion to the question of adhering to moral values not just when it's easy, but also when it becomes extremely painful. There's issues of free will and determinism, of cause and effect, of responsibility and punishment. Unspoken, but almost palpable, is the issue of confusing morality with ethics and legislation. They are often conflated because, of course, morality, ethics, and the law frequently overlap. Personally, I believe you cannot successfully legislate morality. Attempts to do so simply erode respect for the law. quote: Were the basis of morality any of those, Reb, then we would all share the same moral values. I think, rather, that most morality (much like ethics or law) is the very human attempt to coerce others to do what we want (or, to be kind, what we sincerely believe they should). Morality is always the best choice for exerting such pressures, with guilt being a real close second. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Hey Karen, No, no. Not bored. Not me. I was falling a little drowsy and was ready for a cat nap. D’accord My point was--our own conclusions. We spend our lives drawing ever closer to a conclusion. We like to think to each his/her own, but that notion must borrow from elements of more than one...because that’s how I got here, and my development would lack simple essences for growth and any sense of grace is removed. I don’t see how that could be more in any light, given I don’t ever want to feel completely alone. Mores and means & means to more values. Is it any wonder to some why I might cry out, “Lord, help me?”Looking at origins is an interesting thing. I can only speculate that in most social beginnings, someone attracts another by some form of acceptable behavior. But even Charles Manson has fans. Speaking of which: The origins of the swastika symbol he carved into his forehead was a primitive Greek symbol that was supposed to represent prosperity and good luck. Eerie. Imo, parables mainly focus on moral dilemma and consequence and are meant to draw a listener close to his/her own moral or spiritual awakening. Very life-changing if one is open to such. Perhaps the opposite of parables are folktales & lore. They were/are extremely useful tools in helping people avoid moral dilemmas through the use of crafty stories that manipulate & control the listener. If you believe in the "boogers" in the woods you won’t ever go there to meet a lover. Did you ever watch the movie “The Village?” Mike, LOL!! I’m doubly lucky then. I’ve got Deep Irish roots all the way through the Appalachians. I won’t ask my neighbors if they feel lucky about that. Haha. Thanks, Ron. Yes, the wee hours are precious to me for a proper full day of the world’s noise. But you’d be surprised how many people think I’m crazy for getting up so early instead of sleeping-in on my day off. I consider it a safety measure in case I’m ever sick. If I’m not up by 8am. Call an ambulance...10am...gosh...no pulse. The other Ron pretty much sums it up for me, as he's so good at doing!! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
NICE.  I was all prepared to go through this alone, but then I fell asleep on my own notes. I'm gonna try to go back to sleep and catch you guys in the light tomorrow morning. And...thank you! |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
In reading “A Piece of String” by Guy De Maupassant, I found a smoothly conveyed moral dilemma that led to the unraveling of Maitre Hauchecorne. If solid in his “True Norman” beliefs that “everything was worth picking up which could be of use,” then he wouldn’t have been ashamed to lay claim to a "little piece of string" he found on the ground. He wouldn’t have craftily concealed his actions in the face of a friend or a foe. There are certain respects we can still maintain, even between enemies. Maitre Malandain may have disliked Hauchecorne due to a heated quarrel, but he may not have found him to be the likes of a thief until he gave him the pleasure with his questionable behavior. Whether Malandain had fair discord with him, or not, is immaterial. Malandain now had just enough material to implicate Hauchecorne to a heavier bill in the case of a lost pocketbook. The author points out how the people had a fear of being cheated by sellers, and the sellers had a practice of greed with buyers: The ancient atmosphere of fear and greed where a person’s character was/is always in question. Perfect setting/grounds for anything on the ground to become material, as well. Hauchecorne had not properly tied up loose ends with Malandain. And if he so revered the fibers of dignity (good faith, truth, honesty, social image, justness, etc.) that issue would not have been left dangling. He picked up "A Piece of String" but tripped over his own pride. Just my take on a good read this morning. Thanks for the link. And now I must bid the bleu adieu for nows and focus on my mess of a house. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you, all of you, for your input. Sorry I'm late--we've had storms here and lately I seem to fall into some kind of fugue state when it rains. Hmm. Not like me at all. Thanks for reading the story, Regina. It's one of my all time favorites, and I relate to it much, since I am the sort of person who will pick up a piece of string for no apparent reason. And yo, Reb, and yo Ron, I don't believe that morality is a question of genetics. I do not believe in evil babies. Morality requires an audience with some sort of agreement as to what they think is "good" or "bad". Although interestingly enough, in my notes somewhere I have a source that there is a gene for "altruism" that has been identified in animals, and I had become jaded enough to think that altruism didn't exist at all. So I'm open for discussion on that too, even though altruism isn't exchangeable with morality, it's got to rank pretty high up there on the "do good" morality list. I was also wondering when ethics would come, into play, but if the definition of ethics is the study and discussion of morality, then we've sort of blended into that territory already. And this is as far as I can go without my glasses. They were on my head when I fell asleep...sigh. brb |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. So I wasn't "right back" but I'm here. Thanks Regina, because like you, when I find myself thinking of situations that might describe "moral luck" I find myself veering toward a judgement call of, if not immorality, then at least a feeling of "it just ain't right." *smile* As of right now, I'm still trying to figure out where the grade curve is on morality, unethical, etc. Some people don't believe in luck. Oprah just stated that she did not believe in luck. But I had to wonder if the people who received some pricey gifts from her consider themselves lucky. And Reb? I've been thinking about the genetics thing. We would first have to agree on what attributes constitute morality--um, like that altruism gene I was talking about...some people might consider that a positive quality whereas others might consider it a streak of stupidity. So there's a topic worthy of its own thread as well--genetic "goodness" and the old nurture vs. nature stuff. Any discussion about morality though, will eventually lead to religion, politics, and a subject I would like to venture into myself would be journalism ethics/morality in the internet age with perhaps separate threads for each? If someone posed a question that they feel I didn't answer to their satisfaction, just ask again. Ya'll know I would. I'm not saying I can answer it, but someone else might have a better theory.Sorry for the delay--nothing serious, I just ate popcorn and my gallbladder rebelled. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I forgot to add my own question. Does intent play a role in your definition of morality? (er...sort of like grading on a curve?) I'm also curious as to what other attributes fit in your personal definition(s) of morality, ethics, and values? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Genetics and brain wiring plays a role in a lot of things. Why is one brother a genius and the other of normal intelligence? Why is one a sociopath? Why do some have a natural ability for languages or math or whatever while others don't? I feel strongly that is it simply the way we are put together. Was Bing Crosby a great singer because he practiced, having nothing to do with how his body was formed? I doubt it. You can see time and time again siblings with the same upbringing being complete opposites and both with different sets of morals. The only explanation that makes sense to me is how their brains were formed, which areas draw more emphasis, which learning centers are more powerful, etc. I think people are created to be what they are, for the most part, including their views of morality. Oprah doesn't believe in luck? That's nice. Billionaires don't have to. I sincerely believe, though, that if she were to go through her past and rise to wealth and fame, she might find where she benefitted from some. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm equally fascinated by the "brain-wiring" thing. We are inundated with info from birth with information, imprinted by family relations, social, etc. Can I smile wide, now? We agree on somethin'! *chuckle* The quality of nurture can break a perfect genetic blueprint, imo. So exhale with me. See? We can agree. *chuckle* |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Reb: quote: If the beginning of morality is in our genes ... or survival instinct, can it really be morality? In other words, intrinsic to the idea of morality is a kind of rightness that transcends preference or means to an amoral end. If morality can be shown to be biologically based then I don't see how the incumbency can or should remain. "The conscience doesn’t make us feel bad the way hunger feels bad, or good the way sex feels good. It makes us feel as if we have done something that’s wrong or something that’s right. Guilty or not guilty. It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel as if we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy" (Robert White, The Moral Animal — Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology) Karen, I found the same problem expressed in the book of Proverbs of all places. May not be the context you were considering, but I do find it interesting that the question is much the same. "Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, 'Who is the LORD ?' Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God." Proverbs 30:8 Later, Stephen |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but I was telling somebody that all it takes to go crazy is a few hard whacks from life to leave you in doubt... I am not sure how it works for you, but I have to restore faith in myself in order to have it at all. Nice to see you again, Stephan. *hugs* |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Good to "see" you too Karen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
