Posted by alexandra_k on March 12, 2005, at 16:29:30
In reply to Re: Another go... » alexandra_k, posted by Impermanence on March 12, 2005, at 6:22:38
>I could never hurt another living thing (apart from flies and earwigs). But I don't see someone who does as evil, I believe it's a combination of their conditioning and brain chemistry that causes them to act in such a cruel manner.
Okay. We can distinguish between the person on the one hand and the behaviour or the act on the other. I am not saying that some people are 'good' or 'bad' I am saying that some acts or behaviours are morally 'right' or 'wrong' or 'good' or 'bad' if you like. I am not interested in *why* they do what they do (a causal explanation of the act) rather I am interested in whether their act is 'right' or 'wrong' in the moral sense.
>I don't believe there is such a thing as good or evil, there just is what there is.
Yes. I have said the same thing before :-)
But 'good' or 'bad' 'right' or 'wrong' emerges relative to our interests. And aren't the interests of human beings (on certain levels of abstraction) similar enough for us to be able to consider some acts 'right' or 'wrong' - 'good' or 'bad'?>Nothing is to be feared, it is only to be understood!!
Judging an act to be immoral doesn't imply that we cannot understand it. That we cannot sympathise with the person who does it. But that does not alter the act being wrong.
>I have a deep inner love and respect for all living things but does that make me good? and let's say Hitler evil? I don't think so, if I grew up with what Hitler grew up with and I had his genes (and we know he was psychotic) would I have run around giving flowers to the Jews, I don't think so.
Once again, we can distinguish between the act and the person. Giving a causal explanation doesn't preclude our considering the act to be wrong. Consider 'annihilating 6 million Jews was a morally bad thing to do'. That doesn't commit us to saying that Hitler was an 'evil' person but it does commit us to saying that that action was morally unacceptable.
>Morals really are relative, I know this yet I still have a standard way of treating others because thats how I'm programmed and thats how that programming effects the chemicals in my brain.
But we can distinguish between what people do in actual fact to and what people should do to behave according to morality. Sometimes people do things that are immoral. Consider lying, breaking promices etc etc.
> Consider this, in India preteen girls are married off to men their perents choose as young as 12. Over here thats absolutely outrageous to most people and a form of child abuse.All hangs on what sorts of things count as 'child abuse' and that is a slippery notion. Thoughout history different things have counted and not counted as abuse. I guess it might be a universal moral law that 'abuse is a wrong thing to do' but figuring out which acts count as abuse is a very hard matter indeed. I guess we look at the CONSEQUENCES of the acts, typically. If someone is traumatised and suffers because of it then it was wrong. If it works out for the good of the individual (as it may well do in at least some cases in india) then it would be morally acceptable.
Ian Hacking has written a book called ""Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality Disorder and the Sciences of Memory". The last chapter or two look at memory and definitions of abuse. He addresses the questions you are asking. You might be interested to read what he has to say (you might disagree!). It is an interesting account anyway.
But it important to make another distinction: Just because people do do things doesn't mean they are morally acceptable things to do. People do murder lie cheat swindle steal rape maim etc. But we typically consider these acts to be morally wrong. Figuring out just what counts as an act of murder, lying, cheating etc is a further question. And there are difficulties as you pointed out.
> Ideas, philosophies, morals are relative to the people and cultures that thought them up over thousands of years. You can know this to be true and still hold morals yourself as a result of your own conditioning.
So what we consider right and wrong is just what we have always been told is right and wrong. But can't we break free from that via questioning the accepted standard? And can't people simply be wrong? I would say that torturing an innocent child for fun is morally reprehensible despite a particular individual or even a particular society condoning it. With respect to what acts count as torture I define that as something intended to cause intense pain and suffering and the very point here is that the only motivation for doing that is 'for fun'.
I think that is wrong.
Whether anyone else agrees with me or not ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:468601
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050305/msgs/470132.html