Values = self-esteem?

[moimeme]

A friend asked me recently to not reveal a confidence. I assured told my friend that I could be trusted. On pondering this during my shower, I considered explaining that I don't like people who betray trust and therefore, not wishing to be a person I don't like, I wouldn't behave like one.

 

Which got me wondering. Is it possible that people who don't like themselves don't care about living up to any standards, theirs included?

 

One recent poster posted to ask how he could keep one girl that he's cheating on while keeping the other girl in reserve. Do people not understand how unkind and inconsiderate and hurtful that behaviour is? Do they just not care about others' feelings? Is this amorality? Or is his opinion of himself so low that he doesn't care if he behaves like a jerk?

 

Is it that people just don't have any values which include being virtuous?

 

How come people measure their worth in terms of faces and butts instead of by whether they are kind enough, understanding enough, generous enough, loving enough?

 

Why do people revere sports and entertainment stars even when those people behave abominably?

 

Why is it that these so-called 'Family Values' organizations don't specialize in teaching people to be more loving and considerate of their family members and focus instead on finding people to censure? Are they making 'values' a bad word?

 

Are 'virtues' old-fashioned?

 

Is it that people require threat or reward (in the forms of religious conviction) to behave decently to one another?

 

Is it that people who don't esteem themselves can't be bothered being people they might like?

[Tony T]

1. "One recent poster posted to ask how he could keep one girl that he's cheating on while keeping the other girl in reserve. Do people not understand how unkind and inconsiderate and hurtful that behaviour is?"

 

Yes they do but many people have consciences that have eroded for one reason or another. For many, the evil doesn't exist in the doing but rather in the being caught. As a matter of fact, that is embedded in the cultures of certain countries..such as Morocco. Other people don't care because they are selfish and far more concerned about getting their selfish desires fulfilled than ensuring other people's feelings are respected.

 

2. "Do they just not care about others' feelings?"

 

Not at all, unless it will affect them in some way.

 

3. "Is this amorality?"

 

Yes, to an extent.

 

4. "Or is his opinion of himself so low that he doesn't care if he behaves like a jerk?"

 

It has nothing to do with low self esteem. If anything, it has to do with an inflated opinion of oneself, the narcisistic position that one's desires and feelings are superior to those of everybody else's.

 

5. "Is it that people just don't have any values which include being virtuous?"

 

Some people have values, others don't. But so much of this has to do with programming. Computers come with limited software and all else must be downloaded. People are the same way. If parents don't download morals and principals into their offspring during the socialization process....garbage in, garbage out. Many parents today come from a generation when people didn't give a shxt.

 

6. "How come people measure their worth in terms of faces and butts instead of by whether they are kind enough, understanding enough, generous enough, loving enough?"

 

Initially, they do because others do. This is an attraction thing. Until somebody can get to know you well many will assess value to physical characteristics because that's all they have to go on. I blame the media for a lot of this. Advertisements in magazines and on TV imply that you ain't nobody unless you look like this or that. Many people measure their worth in terms of what they do, implying that a doctor is a far more worthy human being than a sales clerk. It's simple insanity, basically because very few people are as insightful as you are and don't question the crap that's bandied about in society. In other words, we are remiss in self-examination and we don't question things happening around us.

 

We live in a society where people with nice faces and butts receive more rewards while kind, understanding and generous people often having their behavior shoved back up their butts. It's very, very sad and I don't know what the answer is. Oddly, people often assign the qualities of kindness, understanding, etc. to those who are on the attractive side without even knowing them. DUH!

 

7. "Why do people revere sports and entertainment stars even when those people behave abominably?"

 

For the same reason people read romance novels, watch TV, etc. Many people live their lives through others....their children...their heroes...and particularly sportws and entertainment figures. The project their very beings into those people, if only for a while. They take their minds into the center of others' fame and accomplishments because they are too lazy to get it for themselves. Many people's morals have decayed to the point they don't take note of the abominable behavior and often don't even notice it. Some even consider those people role models...so if it's OK for one to cheat it's OK for them.

 

8. "Why is it that these so-called 'Family Values' organizations don't specialize in teaching people to be more loving and considerate of their family members and focus instead on finding people to censure?"

 

I think it's absurd to look to any organization to try to compete with the mass media, movies, TV, etc. to teach anything like that. If parents can't pull it off, I don't think some far off organization is going to do it. I will say that some organizations, such as Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Boys Town and many similar local groups have gone a long way to touch the lives of many young people and turn them around...one at a time.

 

9. "Are they making 'values' a bad word?"

 

No, values don't even seem to be a consideration. Twelve years ago, when Vice President Dan Quayle crticized TV 's Murphy Brown for having a baby out of wedlock, people came down on him with a vengeance. People thought it was just fine for Murphy to screw around, get pregnant and have a baby on her own. Back in the old days, say 50 years ago, it would have been a major scandal in any community for something like this to happen. Today we accept it without question. Right here on this message board, it's business as usual to have two unmarried people living together with two or three children. Years ago, local laws forbade two adults of different sexes from living together without being married....yes, believe it.

 

10. "Are 'virtues' old-fashioned?"

 

If you were lucky enough to have parents who enstilled values and virtues in you, you're pretty lucky. But it's tough for anybody to live in a world where the greater number of people have no morals or principles and are out to screw you at every turn. I don't think that "virtues" are old fashioned. It just takes two giant airliners crashing into skyscrapers in New York City to bring them out in people for a few months.

 

11. "Is it that people require threat or reward (in the forms of religious conviction) to behave decently to one another?"

 

That's why religions and government emerged in the evolution of humans on the earth. The threat of eternal damnation in hell has kept many men from raping the woman of their choice or murdering their boss. So morals are often not the way of the person but more and package of behaviors which as repressed by thread of reprisal. And, as you can easily see if you read the papers, even punishment is not a deterent for some people.

 

I also think that many more people have given up the idea of heaven and hell. The New Age people have come upon the scene and telling us that the kingdom of heaven is within us (I think Jesus said that too) and that karma will kick you in the ass if you get out of line. Meanwhile, people intent on satisfying their immediate urges aren't inclined to even care about that. Just like so many people spend their credit card limits like water without any consideration for that fact that the money will have to be paid back at some point.

 

12. "Is it that people who don't esteem themselves can't be bothered being people they might like?"

 

Seldom do they even give the possibility a thought. This is difficult for some people to analyze because we have the tendency to project our own thoughts, inclinations and values onto other people. It is wrong to think that most of these people really like people with values. Often they are prey to the bastards who realize that those with esteem think well of the world and therefore will assume the best in everybody. People who are honest just figure everybody is...and that makes them vulnerable to and targets of those who don't esteem themselves.

 

There is evil in the world. I suppose that evil people have a form of perverted positive esteem.

[2SidestoStories]

I considered explaining that I don't like people who betray trust and therefore, not wishing to be a person I don't like, I wouldn't behave like one.

 

I think this is a rather unusual perspective to have. Often times, people are not willing to see their own behavior, let alone act in such a way that they deem worthy in others. It is apparently quite a strain for individuals to recognize themselves as active members of their own lives. More often, I think folks are apt to see other people's responses to their behavior without recognizing that they behaved in any certain way. (I'm so terrible at communicating this! It's all there in my head, only my head doesn't seem to want to translate the ideas into words for me to type here. Drat it all. Stress is an amazing thing! Ah, see...a perfect example of what I was trying to illustrate! Perhaps I should leave it at that!)

 

 

I will try to come up with a better thought out plan of attack later. Or, I could just leave it to Tony, as he is often quite brilliant at explaining things.

[moimeme]

very few people are as insightful as you are

 

Thanks very much for the very kind comment

 

Thank you, too, for your thoughtful reply. Very interesting points.

[moimeme]

It is apparently quite a strain for individuals to recognize themselves as active members of their own lives.

 

Despite your claim, Beth, you've said what you said very eloquently.

[2SidestoStories]

Thanks Moi.

 

Oh, and I've had coffee, so my brain is in a more functional mode now.

 

originally posted by Tony

Other people don't care because they are selfish and far more concerned about getting their selfish desires fulfilled than ensuring other people's feelings are respected.

I would like to add to this point by saying that even though this may be true, my hats are off to those here who have concluded that in spite of the majority trend toward selifishness, remaining true to the basic premises of kindness and consideration in human interaction. Also, in the face of these disquieting tendencies of group mentality, it is significant to acknowledge kindness in others when we see it, perhaps spreading the contagion of happiness and acceptance rather than the contagion of atrocity. (Call me hippie all you want! )

 

originally posted by Moimeme

"How come people measure their worth in terms of faces and butts instead of by whether they are kind enough, understanding enough, generous enough, loving enough?"

 

Again, to ascert the notion set forth just before, it is certainly something to acknowledge this behavior. However, the reigning faith in humanity that I have come to embrace (see my profile for additional comments) allows me to see that although this may be true for a majority of people, if perhaps each one of us here that shares the ideals of virtue, generosity, understanding, loving, etc. were to touch a single other individual in that regard, thereby inspiring them to go out and perhaps say "Thank You!" to the grumpy lady who pours the coffee at breakfast, who in turn for the surprise that some random person actually thanked her for refilling his miserable coffee mug is pleasant to the next customer down who is new to the town and has had several doubts about being there until this nice waitress started up a great conversation about the town's hot spots....you see where I'm going here. (I could easily go on and on, in fact!) Almost like a human chaos theory: one stranger makes a polite remark in California that causes the entire city of New York to start hugging. Okay. Yeah. Now it's out of hand.

 

However, as a mother, I take this idea extremely seriously. I have set very firm boundaries with my 4 year old as to what may be construed as joking, and what may not. She's the most respectful little girl I've encountered in a very long time. She consistently says please and thank you, is respectful of other people's things, does not throw fits in the grocery store, etc. She's willful, mind you, which I am wholeheartedly in support of, but she knows already that being nice gets you farther in life than being manipulative or whiny! Granted, she's four and has yet to really get out "in the real world" so to speak, but the ideas are planted and tended to daily, so I believe they'll be ingrained. Not to mention the whole learning by example aspect of it.

 

Okay...I'll let this go for now since I could easily fill the message length requirement. Hope I'm not just being totally repetative!

[Iamhappy]

I was going to post a reply to this earlier, but I needed time to think about what I was going to say. Your post is very thought provoking and requires something resembling an intelligent answer.

 

I think part of the reason why it seems like people no longer value qualities like giving, sharing, compassion, honesty and gentleness is the idea of scarcity.

 

We live in a materially abundant world where we tend to overlook goodwill and kindness in favor of more showy "virtues." We let our big houses, our brand new cars, our salaries, or our social positions define who we are. It isn't fashionable anymore to just be kind, loving and giving.

 

We have to have a lot of things nowadays in order to "count" in society, but fame, fortune and success are hard to come by. You don't get rich or become successful just by working hard anymore. Of the few who "made it", some did it by having malleable morals and disposable virtues.

 

I have more to say, but not enough time right now so I'll post a continuation of my reply later.

[jenny]

this is a really interesting series of questions. i think it may be partly generational, certainly, without making any undue presumptions about moimeme's or tony's ages - just that they, in their situations, may have had more access to discussions about morality. weirdly i was debating this the other night with someone, and then again over breakfast with someone else, so i'd like to work out and refine all these ideas. this is a bit of a jumble, but i'm just going to work it through.

 

i think it is possible to be ethical without having the moral discourse for it, if that makes sense. i am a genXer, for certain, i think i fit all but four characteristics of it. so i am part of a crowd, and, for my time, part of the dominant western demographic as depicted in media. here are some of the characteristics identified in this group:

 

*irony (which might be seen to negate sincerity)

*deep suspicion of institutions, particularly one that frame themselves as moral

*suspicion about political and religious figures and an increased respect for overtly

pleasure-seeking ones

* an increased desire to see irony, rebellion, and disinterest depicted in popular media

 

(seinfeld did not become popular without the aid of thousands of alienated youth)

 

but here is the thing - we see all of these things as *honest*.

 

we look to generations before, with their ostensibly moral intentions, and we see McCarthyism, hippies-turned-yuppies, conspiracies, etc. we see charity organizations bringing food to third world nations as proselytizing capitalist enterprises. we're not accurate in all cases, obviously, but in many we are.

 

hence there are very few moral discourses that do not fill us with suspicion - i obviously don't include all individuals in this - i do think that everyone posting here is quite moral - but more than my generation, in my demographic, simply do not have the vocabulary for it.

 

there is something so satisfying about characters on a sitcom refusing to have acceptable and predictable affective feelings for one another. this reflects our experience in the world perfectly...people screw each other, so why not just enjoy them as people anyway?

 

here is to me, the lived difference between morals and ethics. morals sets up a framework where one has a preexisting abstract framework in which to judge all actions. ethics works on the man-made level, where each framework judges actions according to its own customs and traditions, and needs - in this way, however, it allows for pluralism, where objective abstract truth does not.

 

in this way, i think it's likely i'm amoral, but very ethical. and i'm cool with that, i find it honest. and rigourous. ethical people are just as self-satisfied as moral people, but for different reasons.

 

overall i am a caring person. i love easily and would peck out my own liver for those i care about. but i also know i am only this way because i am preconditioned by my parents and by society to be like this, and i would change these characteristics if i had to to survive, which proves that they are situational, contextual.

 

so from this perspective, here are my answers to moimeme's initial question:

 

"Is it that people who don't esteem themselves can't be bothered being people they might like?"

 

i think we all do try to be people that we might like, and seek out others like us. i like dissatisfaction-translated-artistically as a trait in people. i like the brutal honesty of my pleasure seeking friends - they do not always do the right thing, the honest thing, the moral thing. they do do volunteer work, however, and they do try to produce things that will make the world more tolerable. as cynical, commercially-produced, obedient examples of our zeitgeist, we protect each other overall from what we see as a fundamentally antagonistic world - irony expiscates comfort.

 

moimeme - you are one in a zillion. i am one in four. be gentle with us - we have not had the same advantages, which is not an excuse, but it is a reason.

[moimeme]

presumptions about moimeme's or tony's ages - just that they, in their situations, may have had more access to discussions about morality.

 

I've been interested in all aspects of philosophy since I was 16. I've been curious about people and their motivations and inner lives since I can remember.

 

(seinfeld did not become popular without the aid of thousands of alienated youth)

 

I *hate* Seinfeld.

 

but here is the thing - we see all of these things as *honest*.

 

So cruelty = 'honesty' and morality = 'hypocrisy' because many people who claim to be honest are not? Is everyone now a follower of Hobbes?

 

this reflects our experience in the world perfectly...people screw each other

 

This reflects selective perception and cognitive dissonance. *Some* people do but attention is paid to the negative examples and any positive examples are ignored. It's as if those of us who don't screw others (figuratively, I hasten to add) are not worthy of respect or even attention.

 

Have people just stopped believing that anybody is honest? That way lies the total destruction of society, you realize. If everybody thinks everybody else is corrupt and therefore they can be corrupt with impunity, then that's how we end up with some of the many nations in this world that have gone down the road to corruption.

 

so why not just enjoy them as people anyway?

 

Because they are distasteful humans?

 

here is to me, the lived difference between morals and ethics. morals sets up a framework where one has a preexisting abstract framework in which to judge all actions. ethics works on the man-made level, where each framework judges actions according to its own customs and traditions, and needs - in this way, however, it allows for pluralism, where objective abstract truth does not.

 

Well, actually, you are talking about meta-ethics versus ethics and values. To the former belong the concepts of 'objectivism' versus 'relativism'. 'Ethics' form part of both concepts but their derivation and application differ depending on which metaethical concept informs your theory.

 

ethical people are just as self-satisfied as moral people, but for different reasons.

 

People base ethics on morals; they are not divergent concepts.

 

we protect each other overall from what we see as a fundamentally antagonistic world - irony expiscates comfort.

 

It does? Sure you didn't mean 'expiates'? Somehow the two seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

moimeme - you are one in a zillion.

 

Surely not. In fact, as I consider Tony's kind remark about me above, my reply is the same. There are a stack of people here who are insightful, ethical, thoughtful people. This is a microcosm of the world. Don't be telling me I'll not find many like me. It is difficult to find likemindeds, it's true, but at least there are some here so there must be others places I've not yet looked. Having said that, lots of my friends are people of great integrity. The difference between them and me has only been in levels of tolerance.

 

i am one in four. be gentle with us - we have not had the same advantages, which is not an excuse, but it is a reason.

 

Four?

 

This thread pertains to nobody, though I did mention one poster as an example of what I believed to be inconsiderate behaviour. It is a set of questions which literally came to me in my shower about why people do what they do in relationships and life in general.

 

I have thought more or less what Tony wrote; that selfidh, inconsiderate, or amoral behaviour is due to a simple lack of caring but then I questioned whether there could be other reasons that I hadn't considered. I believe all one's assumptions or conclusions ought to get a good dusting-off from time to time lest one become complacent in ones' beliefs. So I tossed mine into the ring to see what sort of fresh air you folks can blow through them.

 

Why here? Because maybe our conclusions will help to inform our answers to others as well as giving us insight into ourselves and people around us.

[jenny]

ok. a couple of things:

 

*i accept your point about cognitive dissonance, and selective perception. this is essentially the problem with speaking in wide generalizations. but i think i'm right, in terms of a cultural viewpoint, as illogical and poorly evidenced as it might be. and, in fact, my own experience with people has always been pretty good which suggests any mistrust i have is more culturally based.

 

*i further accept your point that i inadvertently aligned morality with dishonesty. i do *not* think the two are related, but that the institutions that have often (falsely) claimed to be moral have not been, leaving a general mistrust of the concept.

 

*i don't know about distasteful humans. i don't know how to answer this. i know there are some people who cannot fit into my ethical structure, or artistic structure, but i doubt i could fit into theirs, either. i get grumpy with those who threaten my particular structure (say, posters with nude pics) because i have been conditioned to do so.

 

*my understanding is that ethics works as a kind of study of a variety of judgment systems, a sort of science of the ways in which people have chosen to customize their judgments over history and throughout the world. they are definitely not divergent structures, i agree, but neither are they conflated ones, and neither one has primacy. this is my limited understanding, i'd be happy to be educated further.

 

Well, actually, you are talking about meta-ethics versus ethics and values. To the former belong the concepts of 'objectivism' versus 'relativism'. 'Ethics' form part of both concepts but their derivation and application differ depending on which metaethical concept informs your theory.

 

*i don't understand this, but i'd like to. i understand all of the words, i have no idea how they are working together.

 

It does? Sure you didn't mean 'expiates'? Somehow the two seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

*i do think irony 'fishes out' (giggles, that word was on a test i took last week, sorry:)) comfort for us. for me. of course it is selective perception, again, but that's the nature of the demographic beast. but it works, and how well it works can be evidenced by sales figures, and that interests me. many seek irony. it's not only seinfeld - it all over good music, its movies with violent brilliant dialog, its family guy, simpsons, futurama, clone high...it's common enough to be a phenomena. we don't even have TV and its unavoidable.

 

*in addition, seeing examples of immorality throughout your day, as evidenced by the original post, is another form of selective perception, but that is what makes it so interesting. these are our deductions in advance, so of course we seek to prove them. i am glad to have someone like you to help see things i have been missing.

 

*these posts were not at all intended to argue against your original post, just to provide some insight into people who waver on the morality spectrum might be coming from. i think the discussion of those who make what are deemed incorrect choices need more specific descriptive adjectives than are currently being applied.

 

i do rather see moral people as exotic, and compelling, so, once again, i really appreciate the effort that you and others are bringing here. i am prepared to be the cheese standing alone on this topic, but that's cool with me, as long as i'm learning.

 

xox, j

 

p.s. i think if three people were offered a million dollars to cheat, either on a partner or on a test, i might be the one in three who would no. i have the ethics of a third of most people. i think if millions of people believe in, say, war in iraq, you would the one in millions who would think this wrong despite overwhelming media instructing you otherwise. giggles, just in case you are wondering about the methodology behind 'a zillion'

 

p.s.s. we should define our terms - i'm still working on the comment i did not get, but i *think* you might mean that i was not making the proper distinction between ethics as a discipline (meta-ethics) and ethics as they pertain to a profession. this is a good point.

 

(i hope it is ok, am now sending your other comment to philosopher friend so that she can help decipher. )

[moimeme]

*i accept your point about cognitive dissonance, and selective perception. this is essentially the problem with speaking in wide generalizations. but i think i'm right, in terms of a cultural viewpoint, as illogical and poorly evidenced as it might be. and, in fact, my own experience with people has always been pretty good which suggests any mistrust i have is more culturally based.

 

Wasn't referring to cognitive dissonance in you but in your cohort who, you say, view the world as full of Hobbseans.

 

*i don't understand this, but i'd like to. i understand all of the words, i have no idea how they are working together.

 

There's a heap o' studyin' in philosophy. Great stuff, though. I took an Ethics in International Affairs course and got hooked.

 

i do think irony 'fishes out' (giggles, that word was on a test i took last week, sorry) comfort for us.

 

That's what I didn't get. It would seem to me that irony is the product of discomfort, not that it would relate to comfort.

 

these posts were not at all intended to argue against your original post, just to provide some insight into people who waver on the morality spectrum might be coming from

.

 

That's what I was looking for. I didn't take them as argument but as discussion.

 

do rather see moral people as exotic, and compelling

 

Egad! Heaven help us all if moral people become 'exotic'!!!!!!!!!!!

 

i think if millions of people believe in, say, war in iraq, you would the one in millions who would think this wrong despite overwhelming media instructing you otherwise

 

Who me? LOL! Yes, but that's simply a question of being independent enough a thinker that I am unwilling to swallow the pap that people with an agenda try to feed me. Which has more to do with intellectual rigour than with morals, IMHO. Morality comes in when politicians lie (yes, 'political ethics' is an oxymoron, too often) but the desire to know truth is just a quest for knowledge. Which, apparently, has been bred or educated out of too many people. After all, a populace that is intellectually lazy is simple to control. Tell them what you want and they believe you. But don't get me started LOL.

 

Back to:

 

you might mean that i was not making the proper distinction between ethics as a discipline (meta-ethics) and ethics as they pertain to a profession. this is a good point.

 

Sort of. Meta-ethics is much broader. Ethics are not contrasted against morals; they are essentially the same. You are saying that you are a relativist which is still a type of ethics/morality. It isn't set apart from ethics/morality but is one of the broader constructs of all ethics.

[jenny]

can you explain the comment a little further? i may need diagrams. i do get all the words, and concepts, but not how you are relating them together, nor the hierarchy that seems to be implied. my philosopher friend is a little baffled too...help us out...

 

also could you detail exactly what you see as the relationship between ethics and morals? and the definition of both? as a learner, i use geometric shapes quite well, so that might help me, and i do need help because i do not have a clear understanding of what definitions you are using? you obviously have studied this stuff a ton, and i am sooo delighted to learn!

[jenny]

"Ethics are not contrasted against morals; they are essentially the same"

 

what would you see as the differences, if any, between them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol: p.s. evidently i am being your ion today

[moimeme]

I could write you an essay LOL. Instead, I'll revert to a tried-and-true method - find where it's already written very well rather than re-inventing the wheel. Here's a teaser:

 

The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics. We may define metaethics as the study of the origin and meaning of ethical concepts. When compared to normative ethics and applied ethics, the field of metaethics is the least precisely defined area of moral philosophy. Two issues, though, are prominent: (1) metaphysical issues concerning whether morality exists independently of humans, and (2) psychological issues concerning the underlying mental basis of our moral judgments and conduct.

 

For the rest:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm

[jenny]

sorry, i was not clear. i do understand your orginial comment better now, and i did know the term. i am still interested in how *you* see the fields as different. is it motivation? purpose? explicate! i want **your** take, too, on how you see them, respectively or jointly, influencing your daily decisions.

 

lol, sorry, it's a good thing we've all agreed how much we love vigour, giggles.

[moimeme]

*you* see the fields as different

 

Fields? You mean meta-ethics, etc as fields of study or morals and ethics as applied?

[jenny]

what is the difference between morals and ethics. in your personal opinion.

 

i trust you enough that i do not need citations, ok? you only need to source yourself here as expert.

[jenny]

wow - i'm actually badgering now. but equivocation as fallacy makes me only slightly less nervous than prejudicial language.

 

giggles - in the interest of rigour, here is the one i committed: hasty generalization based on the unrepresentative sample of all the people i knew throughout university and throughout my jobs. bleedin' experiential evidence. i retract and will attempt to go and quantify with more integrity.giggles, and stop dating all those ionic straw men.

[moimeme]

what is the difference between morals and ethics. in your personal opinion.

 

Depends if you're speaking about in my life or in the field of study. In life, nothing. If you want to get into the lingo of philosophy, you can end up in a rat's nest. Broadly, you can think of morals as a code of behaviour and ethics as the study or thought around that - but there's not really such a thing as a single code of behaviour, so IMHO, you're right back to the meta level. I think it's incorrect to limit 'morals' but I see that some people are giving morals a narrower definition of late.

 

i trust you enough that i do not need citations, ok? you only need to source yourself here as expert.

 

I was just being too lazy to type.

[jenny]

lol, ok. i understand now where we can agree to disagree, and i thank you for the very fun experience. after a debate that edifying, i always wish i could send flowers or something.

[moimeme]

understand now where we can agree to disagree

 

Did we disagree?

[jenny]

yes, i think we do. i think we might basically disagree on definitions, which is semantic and cannot be resolved. and ultimately it comes down to, for me, a question of how distasteful we might find humans who do things that we would not do. this is your thread, and your expertise; you have an excellent point that should not be ignored, hence i'm bowing out gracefully.

 

cheers, xox, j

[moimeme]

a question of how distasteful we might find humans who do things that we would not do

 

That's a succinct summation of the flavour of many of the threads here, when you think of it.

[2SidestoStories]

Yet again I will point out that there are individuals, some of whom happen to have found this particular board by various means, who share, and pardon my simplification of the ideas, the basic notion that human beings ought to treat each other well.

 

My thought in terms of this idea is whether it is the responsibility of the "few" to educate the "many" as to the sundry means by which each person is capable of treating another human being with decency.

 

This then becomes a philosophical and spiritual matter of who's right and who's being ostentatious, though, does it not? The question of free will versus following guidelines, and who is to lay out these guidelines then motivates most people to either scurry for the cover of (as Jenny remarked) dogmatic institutions that "stand for something," hurling the rocks of their own righteousness out at passers-by, or to give in to the precept that silence and inaction equals "going with the flow." Either way, there will be some few who refuse to accept the conventional view of the world as the truth, and thereby seek out their own truth.

 

Whether you hold to the concept that human beings are simply biological machines or that we're all spiritual balls of light flittering throughout the cosmos, there is a common thread that I have found to be true: we're all looking for something, and we each have limited means by which to find whatever we're seeking. Which is not to say that we must remain limited in our means by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, I dare say that if more people would utilize their imaginations, they might just discover that they don't have to continue being unhappy all the time.

[moimeme]

Yet again I will point out that there are individuals, some of whom happen to have found this particular board by various means, who share, and pardon my simplification of the ideas, the basic notion that human beings ought to treat each other well

 

Apparently that thought is the verge of radicalism LOL.

 

being ostentatious

? How are they being ostentatious?

 

free will versus following guidelines

 

They are one and the same. You exercise your free will to follow guidelines. If you don't follow guidelines (well, if you think you don't) then you follow the guideline that you don't follow guidelines! In short, you always live by a rule of some sort. You choose to do so or not. *That* is where free will comes in to play, you see. You always have free will.

 

the conventional view of the world

 

That would assume that such a thing exists! People have assumptions about what that might be. For instance, Jenny says her associates assume that 'people screw each other'. That is their world-view. It doesn't mean that it's accurate. You have to be mindful that your assumptions are all subjective always.

 

thereby seek out their own truth.

 

There isn't individual truths. There are ideas which people accept as truth or not and they vary widely. In accepting a 'truth', inevitably it will be someone else's truth which you have taken for your own.

 

For my own ease of analysis, I lump people's 'truths' into Hobbesean and Lockean idealists. Those who go along with Hobbes' life is 'nasty, brutish, and short' believe the other guy is out to get you. Locke is the 'no man is an island' guy; life is about fellow-travellers on the planet and we should help each other. And before the philosophy scholars wallop me for the simplifications, let me assure you that these statements are WAY simplified