The ethics of purchasing music.

[AchrisK]

Those are really good points. If I'm not mistaken there have been some psychological studies which apparently suggest that people do not typically reason antecedently to having moral beliefs, but rather have moral beliefs and try to rationalize them after the fact. We should be careful, however, about what that sort of data implies. ...

 

[waif]

I don't see how my example contradicts anything. Assuming there are moral absolutes does not = everyone believing or accepting that. I agree with your point that people behave in a morally relativistic way. But I disagree that "nobody adopts a controversial ideology like neo-Nazi terrorism if it makes them feel guilty". I think that average* people who go down paths typically seen as evil or morally wrong have to get through feelings of guilt on their way to becoming things like rapists, serial killers and the like. In fact they likely experienced feelings of guilt all the way from their first look at a naked booby in a magazine. As you allow yourself into territory that brings feelings of guilt, you slowly desensitize your "conscience" over time and end up where you may never have imagined. I would even go so far as to say that feelings of guilt still plague them from time to time. Therefore a moral absolute can exist while being ignored to varying degrees. The wide spectrum of views is based not on the truth of moral relativism, but on the selfish nature of humankind.


*I am distinguishing between "average" people and those raised in non-typical situations such as abuse or being taught racism from birth.

I think being a rapist - which is neither an ideology nor a profession - is distinct from being nazi and that whether or not rapists eventually stop feeling bad about it is irrelevant. A nazi is either raised to believe that neo-nazism and so won't feel bad about it, or decides that neo-nazism is right and so won't feel bad about it; there aren't really going to be situations in which someone is peer-pressured into neo-nazism. That was my point.

As far as moral absolutes, if they exist but aren't accepted by all (or any, really) then I see what you're saying but don't see how it's relevant. There could be a really cool magic teacup floating around Uranus; this is awesome, but doesn't affect teacups here on earth.

As far as feelings of guilt, I'm going off-topic here but if you're not familiar with the red army atrocities during WWII it included the rape of over 2 million german women aged anywhere between 6 and 80, many being violated up to 70 times and often killed or mutilated with broken bottles by Russian soldiers. In interviews with soldiers who took part in these atrocities very few have expressed regret or remorse.

Nice, and InFlames' response was good too.

I don't really know how to counter this because eventually you just start arguing things that are really impossible to understand. You're arguing that usually personal moral standards derive from some idea of specific universal facts. These facts aren't debatable, and thus you could argue that some moral standards are more sound than others.

Let's look at an example (if you have a better one, or if I'm missing your point, redirect me):

Someone comes up to me and says "killing people is wrong" (I'll play devil's advocate). I say "no, killing people isn't universally wrong; there is no moral standard that says 'killing is wrong.'" Then I ask, "why do you believe that killing people is wrong?"

Here are the facts I'm given:
"It's just wrong" (as InFlames correctly declared that many people would probably say)
"You are inflicting harm on another (and likely, more)"
"You infringe upon another person's inherent liberties"
"You put yourself at risk of prosecution and punishment"

Now, the first two probably deal more directly with moral responsibility. However, I believe that the response of someone who did not believe in absolute morals would reply with "who cares?" "You're inflicting harm on another person." "Who cares?" Basically, someone who sees no moral responsibility will not see any flaw or mistake in harming another person. It doesn't affect the aggressor, so why does it matter?

The second two deal more with logical reasoning. In the society we live in, it would be unwise for someone to kill another person because it really wouldn't benefit him or her in any way (this is why I claimed that it would be stupid of me to buy the record of a band that wants to bomb my city; not because I think they're wrong, but because it would be illogical to do so). The idea of personal liberty is another logical argument. Someone who wants to maintain their own personal liberties would be acting irrationally in killing another person, because they would be potentially harming their own personal liberties.

Bascially, I believe that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally, but it achieves much the same results. People shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of "morals" (they should recognize and understand them and their impact on society, though). Rather, they should consider what is best for themselves (which, coincidentally, is usually best for the community).

That bit about inherent liberties is opening up a whole new can of worms

As for the response of someone who did not believe in absolute morals, I think somehow there may be a middle ground between absolute morals and simply not having any

AS for that last bit, have you ever read the Tragedy of the Commons? If not, you should. I think it might change your mind.

 

[AchrisK]

...

As far as moral absolutes, if they exist but aren't accepted by all (or any, really) then I see what you're saying but don't see how it's relevant.

It's relevant because you said my statements were contradictory, and said the following: "Yes, there is a wide spectrum of views on this, but that is precisely because morals and values are relative." I was telling you why my statements were not contradictory, as well as explaining why I disagree with your statement.

There could be a really cool magic teacup floating around Uranus; this is awesome, but doesn't affect teacups here on earth.

This is stupid.

 

[waif]

It's relevant because you said my statements were contradictory, and said the following: "Yes, there is a wide spectrum of views on this, but that is precisely because morals and values are relative." I was telling you why my statements were not contradictory, as well as explaining why I disagree with your statement.

No, I meant to question the relevance of the original supposition.

This is stupid.

Intentionally; my point is that if something's there, but it's abstract and has no practical value, then it's not relevant to this discussion

 

[AchrisK]

No, I meant to question the relevance of the original supposition.

What original supposition?

 

[waif]

What original supposition?

To my surprise, no country for old wainds is making the most sense in this thread so far. This "responsibility" seems to imply an agreed upon set of moral values. Given Cythraul's extreme example, to say that there exists a level of responsibility is to say that racism is wrong and that violent acts against another person is wrong. So let's assume there are absolute moral stadards. Even then that does not mean everyone, or anyone, cares. Of course some do care, but each person cares to varying degrees. The spectrum of views on the issue is huge. Of those who disagree with racism you have everyone from the person who will not listen to NSBM, to those who will not own it, to those who will not purchase it, to those who will not purchase it new, to those who will purchase it (new or used) and question themselves, to those who will purchase it (new or used) who will not really give it a second thought. Then you have the whole range for those who don't think about NSBM issues or don't care. And then finally you have the range of reactions from those who agree with NSBM ideals.

We all make "moral" decision every day, as Challeng eEverything pointed out. It's a constant balance (or imbalance) between what we know, how much we care about a given issue, and how much we are willing to be inconvenienced by our ideals.

My point is that the absolute moral thing isn't really relevant here.

 

[AchrisK]

My point is that the absolute moral thing isn't really relevant here.

Wrong. It must be assumed if responsibility is to be assigned.

 

[waif]

well first off you didn't mention assigning responsibility at all, but most importantly you freely admit that nobody adheres to this absolute set of morals and imposes their own morals and responsibilities on themselves and others. since this is a discussion grounded in reality rather than being purely theoretical I see no utility in debating these intangible absolute morals.

 

[AchrisK]

well first off you didn't mention assigning responsibility at all, but most importantly you freely admit that nobody adheres to this absolute set of morals and imposes their own morals and responsibilities on themselves and others. since this is a discussion grounded in reality rather than being purely theoretical I see no utility in debating these intangible absolute morals.

Didn't I? Read that post of mine you quoted 3 posts up.

This discussion is about the original questions posed by Cythraul. Does there exist some level of responsibility for those who feel an ideology is morally wrong, to not support that ideology (directly or indirectly), and to project that responsibility on to others.

My observation that people don't adhere to a morality that I believe exists (and was said to be assumed in the original scenario) is to point out that people will act and react in a broad range of ways with differing levels of adherence to what they believe to be the truth. Whether absolute morality exists or not, you will not be able to successfully control what people do. You can try to influence them, but ultimately they have to decide for themselves, and their decisions will be made based on a range of things from selfishness to apathy to duty to altruism to love.

 

[Cythraul]

ummm, what's so funny?

 

[no country for old wainds]

Bascially, I believe that acting rationally is not the same as acting morally, but it achieves much the same results. People shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of "morals" (they should recognize and understand them and their impact on society, though). Rather, they should consider what is best for themselves (which, coincidentally, is usually best for the community).

that was a good post but "people shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of morals" seems self-contradictory to me, as soon as you're saying "people shouldn't" you're making a moral claim

 

[Einherjar86]

that was a good post but "people shouldn't be clouded by these ideas of morals" seems self-contradictory to me, as soon as you're saying "people shouldn't" you're making a moral claim

Good point. But I would argue that it's a logical claim, not a moral claim.

 

[cookiecutter]

Interesting discussion. I'm still with Cythraul on everything so far. Because I do not believe in objective morals, I often ask myself why I have any morals. This also comes up often in debates about religion when religious people question why atheists are morals. I think Cythraul is correct when he says that people learn morals and then rationalize the afterward. Most of my rationalizations involve empathy. If I know my action will cause someone else pain, then I don't want to do it. Obviously there are exceptions but I think they're besides the point.

 

[AchrisK]

ummm, what's so funny?

The way I took what you said was that just because people have initial, un-thought-out reactions to what they feel is wrong, we want to be careful not to assume that people have an inborn sense of right and wrong (conscience) that may have been placed there by a creator.

That is what I inferred from your statement. I could be wrong but that's the first thing that popped into my wee mind.

So is all this discussion aiding you at all in regard to your original questions?

 

[waif]

Didn't I? Read that post of mine you quoted 3 posts up.

Oops.

This discussion is about the original questions posed by Cythraul. Does there exist some level of responsibility for those who feel an ideology is morally wrong, to not support that ideology (directly or indirectly), and to project that responsibility on to others.

My observation that people don't adhere to a morality that I believe exists (and was said to be assumed in the original scenario) is to point out that people will act and react in a broad range of ways with differing levels of adherence to what they believe to be the truth. Whether absolute morality exists or not, you will not be able to successfully control what people do. You can try to influence them, but ultimately they have to decide for themselves, and their decisions will be made based on a range of things from selfishness to apathy to duty to altruism to love.

ok, sure.
But with regard to absolute morals, that implies objective responsibility. When you get there, I think people will fall into 2 camps and there's not really much you can do to convince someone that there are or are not objective morals and responsibility.

Good point. But I would argue that it's a logical claim, not a moral claim.

Agreed.

Interesting discussion. I'm still with Cythraul on everything so far. Because I do not believe in objective morals, I often ask myself why I have any morals. This also comes up often in debates about religion when religious people question why atheists are morals. I think Cythraul is correct when he says that people learn morals and then rationalize the afterward. Most of my rationalizations involve empathy. If I know my action will cause someone else pain, then I don't want to do it. Obviously there are exceptions but I think they're besides the point.

I think all else being equal - i.e. absolutely no consequences or rewards at all ever - if most people had a choice between hurting someone or not hurting them they would choose not to. This is moral, obviously, but I would argue it's also rational and stems from loyalty to the species, which is not a strong force at any point but would come into play here.

 

[Einherjar86]

AS for that last bit, have you ever read the Tragedy of the Commons? If not, you should. I think it might change your mind.

I find Hardin's logic to be flawed. I don't think his metaphor translates perfectly into actual practice. Furthermore, I disagree that the most beneficial practice of the herder is to put "as many of his cows into the pasture" as he can. If it is common knowledge that the pasture will soon be drained of resources because of the large number of cows, then it is most beneficial for the herders to properly balance and manage the amount of animals they place within the pasture. It is in one individual's ultimate interest to survive. Placing so many cows at once within such a small space is detrimental to survivial, and thus acting irrationally, and not in one's best interest.

I believe that people do occasionally act in this way, but I do not believe it is the most rational practice. That's why I disagree with Hardin.

 

[waif]

I think that Hardin overestimated people's selfishness (because if you put a ton of cows out to pasture but everyone else, or even a lot of other people, are responsible and reduce theirs accordingly, it'll be fine), but I don't think that overall he's correct.

And that particular metaphor might be somewhat flawed, but the overall point was applying it to the population issue, in which he's definitely correct, since acting irresponsibly might endanger long term survival, but acting responsibly actually constitutes an immediate threat to the survival of your genes.

 

[Einherjar86]

And that particular metaphor might be somewhat flawed, but the overall point was applying it to the population issue, in which he's definitely correct, since acting irresponsibly might endanger long term survival, but acting responsibly actually constitutes an immediate threat to the survival of your genes.

Could you explain this to me? Why is acting responsibly an immediate threat to the survival of your genes? If you survive at all, that's your genes surviving. I'm not sure I understand.

 

[waif]

If you survive at all, that's your genes surviving.

Wrong. That's you surviving. If your offspring survive to maturity and reproduce, that's your genes surviving.

It's an immediate threat because the responsible thing to do is to have no children, which obviously ends your genes right there. Even if you have one child, there's then a strong risk that that child will not reproduce for some reason (death, homosexuality, infertility in themselves or a partner, etc). The best way to ensure the survival of your genes is to have lots of kids, but obviously that's irresponsible.

 

[Einherjar86]

Wrong. That's you surviving. If your offspring survive to maturity and reproduce, that's your genes surviving.

It's an immediate threat because the responsible thing to do is to have no children, which obviously ends your genes right there. Even if you have one child, there's then a strong risk that that child will not reproduce for some reason (death, homosexuality, infertility in themselves or a partner, etc). The best way to ensure the survival of your genes is to have lots of kids, but obviously that's irresponsible.

Ah, I can't believe I didn't get that. Thanks.

I can't respond right now because we're going out to a football game (go Bulls!), but I'll think about it and post later.

Sorry this thread has gotten so derailed (good discussion though).