The Responsibility of Man

[Seditious]

speaking of yourself no doubt

If you dont like what I say... keep cryin me a river

morality is black and white, when your done crying you could always give me an example where it is not...

that's about all the confirmation I needed that your posts aren't worth reading any longer.

enjoy your stay.

 

[Seditious]

I'm sure Seditious does indeed follow some moral guideline (whether only because of the law, or whatever, )

what can fairly be said is that I am indistinguishable from someone who actually respects the laws of his nation...though I happen not to respect a significant number of them.
I think my position can be summed up as this: morality is extraneous to an educated and rational people. Unlike the prominent humanists of our age, I have no interest in unphilosophically promoting morality in order to encourage the religious to let their teddybear go, which is what I take most to be doing (besides people like Peter Singer, who clearly believe their view is valid.)

Seditious, I'm curious: taking the example of an authority figure committing an illegal/immoral act (immoral might not apply for your views) do we of lesser authority have the responsibility to react? If our boss is mistreating workers? If a military commander gives an ill-conceived order? If our president engages in a war we feel is unjust? What if a parent did something questionable? Where is the line between "righteousness" and "family" drawn?

responsibility becomes an effectively unapplicable word, as it can only be applied in the sense that you have a duty/responsibility to brush your teeth well, bathe regularly, resist pain which is inflicted not for any beneficial end motive, etc. This kind of responsibility doesn't even extend to evolution or personal survival---you have no responsibility to reproduce and raise your young, or to refrain from killing yourself. The application of 'responsibility' here is really only to enlightened self-interest---'good reason suggests you do well to do xyz' is all 'a responsibility to do xyz' could entail. That seems to lack the force 'responsibility' tends to entail, which is why I wouldn't personally use it.

So, on that framework, looking to colleague maltreatment, there is a calculus to be done. Can you afford to lose the job? Are you likely to succeed when you complain (e.g., is there an employee protection infrastructure available to provide the necessary legal or social pressures to force the boss to conform to your wishes)? Is it in your interest to do so, or might you benefit from their loss? Might what happens to them happen to you soon, so you may as well fight now, with them, rather than perhaps not having their help once it comes to happening to you? There's a shitton of things to consider. Here I've only exampled things to consider for the isolated personal economic concerns. If you're friends with the person, or have few friends, or you personally dislike the boss... any number of other values than economic values also need to be considered, and ultimately it's not what's moral but what's most valuable that you'll desire to do... and whether you actually in the end do what you most desire, or what is most "moral", may just depend upon the social structures' impact upon your own frailties---you might wimp out and conform, as so many of us do. In other words, for all the rationality, you act on weakness---emotion. This is why morality is essentially counter-productive, not just baseless, and why I prefer to revive the ancient Greeks and speak in terms of virtue, such with which we might at least act in accord with our values, which I cannot help but consider an improvement, and more respectable.

I'm not sure how helpful that is to your concern, but feel free to elaborate if you want.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dude, you would love the book The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker. It's the first of a trilogy. A lot of the same philosophical ideas that you're mentioning are raised in that book. And it's a great read. It deals heavily with religion and history and whether or not they set us free or enslave us.

Also, thanks for clarifying; your post did help, greatly. You're basically saying what I assumed: that you would have people consider their actions according to their own best interest. You outlined a lot of good points. Also, I agree with what you said about acting on emotion, despite my own personal beliefs. I believe that social mores and norms encourage us in certain directions, and many people are afraid to go against the grain; but how can we blame them when the consequences are so dire? This is somewhat ironic; the consequences actually force it so that obeying the laws/mores/norms etc. is in people's best interest. Also, despite my belief in a pre-existing order, I find it fascinating to approach this topic from the other side of the argument. However, I usually end up submitting to emotion, as you said. Shame plagues us all.

@ razoredge: I'm not whole-heartedly disagreeing with you either, because I used to believe exactly the same thing you did. However, I've come to be more skeptical in recent years. I still adhere to a kind of natural order (I think, personally, because it makes me feel secure), but I also find it hard to argue against those who find none or believe in a different one. Do I disagree with the mistreatment of women in some cultures? Yes; but I don't believe I've any right (or duty) to force my morals upon them. Now the question returns to moral responsibility. It's a vicious circle. What do you believe in this latter case?

 

[Seditious]

Dude, you would love the book The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker. It's the first of a trilogy. A lot of the same philosophical ideas that you're mentioning are raised in that book. And it's a great read. It deals heavily with religion and history and whether or not they set us free or enslave us.

sweet. found it's on loan from 5 local libraries, but three others have it . I'll have to find my way down to one of them when I get a little free time. cheers for that; I love fiction that has a point

I believe that social mores and norms encourage us in certain directions, and many people are afraid to go against the grain; but how can we blame them when the consequences are so dire?

I'm inclined to say we can't. Since I work within the assumption of determinism, I'm already comfortable with the idea that maybe we can't "blame" people. The relevance of structuralism here---culture's influence on the individual without which he wouldn't do certain things he ends up doing---is just a lesser degree of the same thing, and one we can be equally optimistic about. If we want a different world we have to make a different people, and to make a different people we have to raise them differently, with different cultural standards (such as the diminishing of religion by compulsory education, and a peer-group who don't respect baseless idiotic childish claims, which together internally and externally influence what the person is ultimately going to decide). I don't find blame anymore necessary than morality, hell, they kinda go together, all I can 'blame' a criminal for is either being stupid enough to get caught, or being smart enough to take an opportunity. But we need not be able to 'blame' in order to respond in such a way as to discourage people from doing such things. Why do I need to blame a dog for pissing on the carpet? I just need to keep him outside, and if I don't stop him coming in, or I don't train him well enough to stop doing it, then that's my fault---I'm 'responsible' for stopping him from doing things I want to blame him for (it's not a metaphysical responsibility, I'm not immoral for not living up to my responsibility... it's just to say, more than anything else, that 'no one else is responsible', I can't claim that 'he had a duty to not piss there' or 'other people have a duty to make sure my dog doesn't piss there' or some such), which so far as he can tell is a good thing to do. To interrupt this process of reasoning with 'boo hoo he's wrong and evil and deserves bad things' really just gets in the way of infrastructural, or interpersonal, or personal improvement; it's a victim mentality, and it seeks to skate by in its weakness and helplessness on the accusations of other people. It's something I think we need to outgrow.

 

[OldScratch]

speaking of yourself no doubt

If you dont like what I say... keep cryin me a river

morality is black and white, when your done crying you could always give me an example where it is not...

"Morality" is nothing more than a code of conduct, a set of rules created by man, for man(see "Geneology Of Morals" Nietzsche for further enlightenment). You are, by implication, assigning morality some cosmic(or perhaps spiritual)origin, something man is innately and universally imbued with, and insisting that these moral boundaries are collectively acknowledged by all of mankind. History is replete with volumes full of example to prove that such an assertion is demonstrably false.

 

[OldScratch]

^ Are you trying to defend causing (undo) harm to others?

No, I'm explaining that the definition of what is due and undue in terms of causing harm is sometimes wide open for interpretation. If you are asking if I am suggesting causing harm to someone for no sensible reason is defensible the answer is no.

 

[Seditious]

No, I'm explaining that the definition of what is due and undue in terms of causing harm is sometimes wide open for interpretation. If you are asking if I am suggesting causing harm to someone for no sensible reason is defensible the answer is no.

can you clarify what you meant by sensible? sounds like you're referring to something moralistic.

I mean, say someone beats people up because it makes him feel tough, or he rapes women because he gets off on it, those are perfectly intelligible---if that's what you mean by 'sensible'---and how rational such acts are have the same questionable status as people who eat too many cheeseburgers. Are you positing something which distinguishes the former from the later case in some relevant sense (i.e., as opposed to merely being more complicated)?

 

[razoredge]

thats good seditious because I gave the guy a proper responce... I returned him his values.........

einherjar - first let me say I use I alot because I can only speak for myself so while it seems arrogant or autobigraphical its really not, in fact it may lead to my beliefs in self accountability. Im not religious, yet I have high moral code as to affecting others lives. I dont fear death infact at this age Im ready, seen enough lets say, and I hope for nothing more than dreamless sleep, I will be bummed if I find myself on some other plane having to deal with more bullshit... point being, I just want to be able to live with myself while Im here, so my conscience speaks to me all the time. I've done some kneejerk things Im not proud of either so dont get me wrong in my appraisal of myself. I dont place values or morals... for example on the consenting sexual kind because thats some form of mutual argreement or so we always hope, cant tell sometimes... lol

I agree with what seditious said regarding having to make personal evalutations when it comes to work and there are so many factors tugging at us. I somewhat already covered this. I quickly become very uncomfortable and a piece of the puzzle that doesnt fit. This has not had a positive effect on my life and I pay the price but I have no control over it. I see a world or society that has no interest in doing the right thing, you know "listen to the money talk"... well I hear other things, nothing I can do about it. Im OK with my views but it doesnt fit, others just ride the wave... my loss.

Karma - I have come to understand karma, the hard way. I've seen it happen to others but so many that deserve a good dose of karma never recieve it, so I have no conclusion for this other than it probably doesnt exist either.

Forcing morals ? Once again there are extremes, some opposed views we can tolerate for the sake of still waters and some I will not. If someone is in my oxygen zone and operating on an extreme I will create a far more uncomfortable situation. Been there and done it, as is more than obvious I have never been a contender for popularity contests.

But here is what I have come to ponder (not really, conclude is more like it). I believe in the weakest link or lowest common denominator theory. If someone has low moral values and disregard for the well being of others, and we let it slide are we now not reduced to lower values and therefore subject to having their values forced upon us ?

 

[razoredge]

"Morality" is nothing more than a code of conduct, a set of rules created by man, for man(see "Geneology Of Morals" Nietzsche for further enlightenment). You are, by implication, assigning morality some cosmic(or perhaps spiritual)origin, something man is innately and universally imbued with, and insisting that these moral boundaries are collectively acknowledged by all of mankind. History is replete with volumes full of example to prove that such an assertion is demonstrably false.

But ya see... what you are refering to is another highly inherent human trait. Its called greed and selfishness, this is why over the centuries man developed codes of ethics... though thier application seems vague. The line doesnt stagger only the personal application

for the "cultures" everyone is speaking of a simple application of their own infliction will soon find you floating in a river of tears laden with their code of ethics

history has more than enough proof of this as well

 

[Einherjar86]

But here is what I have come to ponder (not really, conclude is more like it). I believe in the weakest link or lowest common denominator theory. If someone has low moral values and disregard for the well being of others, and we let it slide are we now not reduced to lower values and therefore subject to having their values forced upon us ?

Well, if they exhibit no values or morals, then they can't force any upon us. Only people with strong moral convictions would feel that they were being trespassed against. I agree that people can defend their own moral views to the death if they wish. I would. However, in the face of adversity, it seems that it would make more sense for all men to abandon morals and simply embrace the struggle for survival. A world without morality is not that difficult to imagine, and actually would not be as chaotic and anarchistic as you might think. There would still be crime and criminals, but no more than there are now (or possibly a very trivial, minute increase). In an amoral world, human beings would operate according to need, as Seditious outlined. Human beings who needed to commit crimes to survive, or desire to commit crimes in order to live better, would do so (as many do now). Those who do not need to or feel no desire to would not, the same as now. Despite what William Golding says, I believe that most human beings would not commit violent, "immoral" acts simply because they could. That would attract unwanted negative attention towards them and fare them badly in the long run.

But ya see... what you are refering to is another highly inherent human trait. Its called greed and selfishness, this is why over the centuries man developed codes of ethics... though thier application seems vague. The line doesnt stagger only the personal application

In a world without morals, I think there would be no greed and selfishness. There would be only human ambition. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries. It would be irrelevant to discuss greed in an amoral world. Codes of ethics were not created because of greed; the idea of greed was actually created by a system of ethics.

 

[razoredge]

So your saying criminals are criminals as a means of survival only ? (granted this is the case with inner city drug culture) but many I know of are just lazy dirtbags. Then to further what I said about those with low morals as well as reversing the tides... go steal from a theif and watch him become a killer.

Then you say screw ethics, values and standards, go for the dog eat dog world, well that is what society has been doing for the past 30 years and we watch the rich get richer and the poor poorer, separation of the classes is gigantic now as they use others to meet their greed (see my comment on application). Now what does this do ? This gives few a fighting chance, if you doubt that see my referal to inner city drug culture, what is there for them to do other than dealin' and hoein' ?

Now if you want to loose morals/values/standards/ethics and only place value on struggle for survival does this mean we will be allowed to kill the wealthy and remove our fair share from their bank accounts for our labors involved that made them wealthy in the first place ? afterall we are talking about survival and we only want "mine".

History - lets look back at cultures that had lower morals... how did the majority of their populations live ? Who benefited by this more primitive standard ? Is it a suggestion that while we have physically and mentally evolved that our standards should not ? Its not like we're simply gathering food anymore where the strong, hardy and the quick survive... quite the opposite in fact. If that were the case the inner city people would be ruling the field.

 

[Seditious]

So...


...field.

does this cargohold of herring have anything to do with the validity of your preferred morality?

 

[Seditious]

In a world without morals, I think there would be no greed and selfishness. There would be only human ambition. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries.

sounds too idealistic to me. It sounds like the Communist dream... as if there would be no rapists because sex is free for everyone next to the free-for-all Walmart. Not everyone can sit in the front row. there's always going to be resentment, even where material possessions are available without cost (hell, just look at young siblings... no work, no money, no costs...and they still find plenty to be upset about lol)

 

[Blowtus]

I took him to mean that the terms would be useless, not that people would stop wanting stuff...

 

[Seditious]

I took him to mean that the terms would be useless, not that people would stop wanting stuff...

true. I see how you can get that.
Didn't figure that myself since for my part I always try to punctuate that sort of thing differently.

e.g.,
In a culture that doesn't employ moral claims, I think there would be no "greed" and "selfishness" as such. These are only human ambition, and wouldn't be labeled otherwise. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries.

 

[razoredge]

does this cargohold of herring have anything to do with the validity of your preferred morality?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. You didnt say much to refute, agree or understand that facts that I stated in said post and thereby assume my smelly cargohold held too much undisputable truth ?

Suggestions of no morals/values/standards/ethics implies lawlessness and a return to barbaric, not communism

 

[Einherjar86]

So your saying criminals are criminals as a means of survival only ? (granted this is the case with inner city drug culture) but many I know of are just lazy dirtbags. Then to further what I said about those with low morals as well as reversing the tides... go steal from a theif and watch him become a killer.

Then you say screw ethics, values and standards, go for the dog eat dog world, well that is what society has been doing for the past 30 years and we watch the rich get richer and the poor poorer, separation of the classes is gigantic now as they use others to meet their greed (see my comment on application). Now what does this do ? This gives few a fighting chance, if you doubt that see my referal to inner city drug culture, what is there for them to do other than dealin' and hoein' ?

Nothing, perhaps; but that wouldn't matter.

Now if you want to loose morals/values/standards/ethics and only place value on struggle for survival does this mean we will be allowed to kill the wealthy and remove our fair share from their bank accounts for our labors involved that made them wealthy in the first place ? afterall we are talking about survival and we only want "mine".

Yes, you would be. In fact, some would claim you have that right even now. I'm not taking a side in this discussion regarding caste or class hierarchy. However, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people would not help you do that. A great deal of life would be lost by engaging in wars with those who can afford protection. The point of an amoral world is that people would act based on rationality and need, not emotions. Sure, maybe some people would want the wealth of the upper class; but might it cost them their lives? Possibly. Might this then deter them from participating? Absolutely.

Seditious outlined this very well in one of his earlier posts.

I took him to mean that the terms would be useless, not that people would stop wanting stuff...

true. I see how you can get that.
Didn't figure that myself since for my part I always try to punctuate that sort of thing differently.

e.g.,
In a culture that doesn't employ moral claims, I think there would be no "greed" and "selfishness" as such. These are only human ambition, and wouldn't be labeled otherwise. The concept of greed springs from the creation of moral boundaries.

Blowtus is correct; I meant the terms themselves would become irrelevant. Greed and selfishness would still exist; but because of the elimination of a moral code, we would not longer view them as negative, hence the definitions would disappear (or be altered). They would likely simply be absorbed by the idea of ambition. razoredge said that ethical and moral codes were created because of greed; but this is not the case. Before moral codes, there would be no concept of greed. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[zacmenta]

We Human beings have the responsibility to at least clean up our own mess (the state of the planet).

It's a pity that the vast majority of people are too stupid, lazy, greedy, apathetic or any combination thereof, to do so.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

Thoreau wrote that when obeying any government would compromise your own moral code, that governments authority is forfeit. I don't have the highest opinion of Thoreau, but that seems reasonable.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a very common idea, and was in place long before Thoreau (it's in our Declaration of Independence, even ). It's a good point to bring up. However, governments (including ours) contradict many people's moral codes all the time, and nothing seems to be done about it. Do people have a higher responsibility to themselves directly (i.e. going to work, going to school, keeping healthy... rather than protest the gov't)? Or is the responsibility human beings have towards their government their highest responsibility, and does it affect them the most? In today's day and age, people find it easier to proclaim that we have a greater duty to justice and morality than to our state. But if that state protects you while committing these "immoral" acts, would you protest? This goes back to Seditious's argument. Do we have a responsibility only to ourselves, and if so, would it benefit us most to simply sit back and allow our government to do as it wishes?