open Democracy News Analysis - Morals AND Ethics, - Comments

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:04:46 +0000

Well, I'm nothing if not original.

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:51:06 +0000

The idea of God and the Devil having to argue over the basis of morality is quite amusing. Especially at a bowling ally.

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:26:54 +0000

Matt, Maybe the two people you overheard were not of this world, perhaps...and this is just a thought, you unintentionally overheard a conversation between god and the devil. Ok, more likely just my imagination but I really ought to write this stuff down, publish a book, maybe a poem, perhaps even set it to music and make an opera of it...

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:08:26 +0000

A:"Look you're just being an idiot over this!" B:"It's Kant's theory of the categorical imperative!" A: "Fine. Do you want lemonade or cola?" - Conversation overheard second to last time I went bowling. (Okay, I'm paraphrasing a bit... but I swear I did once hear someone use the term in a bowling ally)

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:58:49 +0000

"I miss the casual ponderings of a simple conversation about a topic." Jo, Have you tried your local ten pin bowling alley?

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:53:47 +0000

I agree with David. Most of my day-to-day actions are fairly intuitive, guided more by basic reason and compassion than detailed philosophical considerations (If I do X, then Y will happen, rather than what is the meaning of Y?). But it's also important to occasionally question what lies beneath the numerous assumptions that guide us. Eventually some of this rather abstract thinking will filter down to my everyday actions, allowing me to make informed decisions. Socrates famously said that the unconsidered life is not worth living. He meant that a life lived without forethought or principle is a life so vulnerable to chance, and so dependent on the choices and actions of others, that it is of little real value to the person living it. He further meant that a life well lived is one which has goals, and integrity, which is chosen and directed by the one who lives it, to the fullest extent possible to a human agent caught in the webs of society and history. As the phrase suggests, the 'considered life' is a life enriched by thinking about things that matter - values, aims, society, the characteristic vicissitudes of the human condition, desiderata both personal and public, the enemies of human flourishing, and the meanings of life. It is not necessary to arrive at polished theories on all these subjects, but it is necessary to give them at least a modicum of thought if one's life is to have some degree of shape and direction. To give thought to these matters is like inspecting a map before a journey. Looking at a map is not the same thing as travelling, but it at least provides orientation, a sense of place and of how places relate to each other - especially those one would like to visit. A person who does not think about life is like a stranger mapless in a foreign land; for one such, lost and without directions, any turning in the road is as good as any other, and if it takes him somewhere worthwhile it will have done so by the merest chance. - AC Grayling ('The Meaning of Things')

David Wood on "Morals AND Ethics"

David Wood — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 02:52:54 +0000

Joeanna - i agree that in many day-to-day situations that is exactly what we all should do. And please don't imagine I spend my time thinking in the way I have been writing here - that's just trying to think through what I do in a systematic way to explain in to those interested in philosophy. The way I actually arrive at what I do is intuitive (compassion, common decency etc.), but... it helps sometimes to stop and think about the assumptions on which intuitition is based, otherwise intuition may turn out to be mistaken or result in bad decisions. Just now and again, not all the time! The other limit to reducing things to the pickle argument, is when the situation is more ethically complicated or involves serious harm or potential loss of life. Unfortunately there are actions we all have to take from time to time, when 'it's just a pickle' doesn't apply... most of use get through large parts of our life without having to take these decisions, but we all do sometime. Now these are also the times when absolute morality and pure relativism also break down as options... and indeed probably any preset idea of what one 'would do it'... facing reality just isn't the same, but it probably helps to have done at least some thinking. I hope. Message was edited by: David Wood

Joeanna Nee on "Morals AND Ethics"

Joeanna Nee — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:43:28 +0000

Huh, interesting exchanges. My original idea was so much simpler. Or at least thats the way I was approaching it, to be more exact. I ofter wonder why it is, that most people find that they have to define every aspect in life to the point of microcosmic realms. It's like complicating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It's great that everyone has an idea about all these differing topics, but I am so struck by all the nonconversational pieces that I miss the casual ponderings of a simple conversation about a topic. My Aunt once related a little 'ta-do' that her and her husband had while ordering a meal at mickey d's. (and said this in such a conversational tone, mind you) and when her husband had gotten his meal at the drive thru window blew a biscuit on the poor woman because his order was wrong. She ( my Aunt) said she admonished him for stating that for an idiot job how could she be so stupid as to screw up a 'friggin' burger. I thought that was good, until she followed it by stating how she reminded him that because they were people of intelligence it was their duty to be tolerant of those of less intelligence. I was flabbergasted. So, I said "Huh, I ofter wonder why it is that those poor stupid people handle stress far better than those claiming to be so much smarter, as to know how stupid it is to flip out over a damn pickle" That being said, I ofter wonder if we spend so much time trying to define how we function into such microscopic segmented bits that we forget it's just a stupid pickle.

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:02:52 +0000

As far as I'm aware it's an advert for 'The Simpsons' on BSkyB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSkyB There's more info here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2006100428,00.html

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:56:31 +0000

Matt, Outside topic question. Do you know who made that real life Simpson's clip, that I found via your blog?

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:51:35 +0000

Chris, Well, if you want to start a campaign against using 'relativist' to mean 'skeptic' (once you've read up on it, of course) then I'll back you. As 'Skeptic' does seem more relevant to what's meant.

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:48:03 +0000

Matt, I haven't read it yet but I have printed it out and will read it later tonight. The 'NO' means that I am not willing to use terms interchangeably.

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:17:04 +0000

Chris, Is that No as in: "No I won't read it that way" Or: No, you're talking out of your arse once again"

chris9234 on "Morals AND Ethics"

chris9234 — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:12:55 +0000

"For Relational read Relativist, and for Relativist read Skeptic." Matt, No.

Matt Murrell on "Morals AND Ethics"

Matt Murrell — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:00:06 +0000

Chris, For Relational read Relativist, and for Relativist read Skeptic. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/ The terms are used interchangeably by some, but not by others. Which could be confusing.

Morals AND Ethics,

Joeanna Nee — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:37:26 +0000

Ok, this is only a quick deal. This subject is huge, but during my research this struck me. I got this off an agnostic/athiest web page, which had some great links they used for some of their pages. MetaEthics, Deontology, teleological ethics, normative, descriptive....all this to explain how they use ethics to form their moral compass. Now, Im still stuck in the subsections of normative: deontology and teleolgical. I keep getting sucked into metaethics or virtue ethics. I guess my problem with it is...why does there have to be so many types of ethics that either form a type of morality or create a duty to a preset of morals that conform to said ethics? Read the rest of this post...