Since with your dissertation at issue, this is not just another online discussion, and so, I will refrain from saying more. Good luck.Morally good choices are those which have good consequences, good choices from the perspective of the individual I would agree are outside the sphere of morality.
An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version)
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
Consider what you wrote in the context of this short poem by Simone Weil:We may want to be deontologists and say that people ought to only act in certain ways or according to certain maxims. But the problem with this is that maxims are always arbitrarily defined, in that a maxim that says "don't kill" could be made better if it included an exception for when the person you are killing is trying to kill you and you are defending yourself, but it could be made even better by including an exception for cases where killing that person prevents the death of five others who are in morally similar circumstances, and so on and so on until our maxims describe the situation we are in and what to do in it perfectly. This of course leads to the distinction between acting and letting happen, and it isn't clear how we can draw a clear distinction between something that happens because you did something and something that happens because you stood by. Without having a strong way to morally distinguish action from inaction, it seems we ought to be consequentialists.
Which person is more morally free: the one who rationalizes morality and consequences or the one who is able to act upon consciously looking? Imagine this poem hanging outside an abortion clinic. Abortion advocates would insist it hampers freedom of rational choice so should be removed. Anti-abortion advocates would want the poem to remain since it furthers freedom of human choice. Should the poem stay or go?There Comes
If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,
there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;
if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
Personally I am against short, religious, judgemental, patronising messages hanging over any workplace so I would remove the sign.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
OK, so you would logically rationalize morality rather than look with conscious attention as Simone described. That's one vote for freedom through logically rationalizing at the expense of freedom through consciously looking.Eduk wrote:I was talking to a mother the other day as I was dropping my kid off at nursery. Chicken pox came up, as my son has it at the moment, turns out she had chicken pox quite late in life and was hospitalised and miscarried. Later on she needed IVF treatment as the chicken pox also left her partly infertile. She told me that she wouldn't have her child if she hadn't miscarried. She said she was very happy. From quite a positive perspective she prefers to view it as gaining a child rather than losing a child. Personally I think this is a commendable outlook and logical. There is a limit to the number of children someone can raise, for some people that is one, for others that is more. Life is complex, you need to be careful when judging people, people have different perspectives, we don't all need to agree on everything.
Personally I am against short, religious, judgemental, patronising messages hanging over any workplace so I would remove the sign.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
No. I don't recognise your position as logically having anything to do with consciousness. You can define that it is but that does not amount to a logical argument. Saying if you look inside yourself you will agree with me and if you don't agree with me that means you aren't looking inside yourself is a problem, I think you need to do better.That's one vote for freedom through logically rationalizing at the expense of freedom through consciously looking.
Logically I accept that much of life is very complicated. As soon as you attempt to categorise something you find exceptions which don't fit the categories. Even something as simple as an organ or a planet or male or female. Rationally we must allow exceptions and complications in life and open debate. We should be very careful when we impose our will on others as history has shown. We should never think that we know all.
Your position although claiming to come from a different place makes identical claims as Christian dogma. It is unfortunately a wholly religious opinion which has nothing to do with ethics or logic. It purports to be the only correct opinion, unchanging, irrefutable, 100% correct. It is a simple view of the world which does not match reality.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
It isn't that complicated. It isn't a matter of looking inside but looking at the abortion with conscious attention. Read that poem again:Eduk wrote:No. I don't recognise your position as logically having anything to do with consciousness. You can define that it is but that does not amount to a logical argument. Saying if you look inside yourself you will agree with me and if you don't agree with me that means you aren't looking inside yourself is a problem, I think you need to do better.That's one vote for freedom through logically rationalizing at the expense of freedom through consciously looking.
Logically I accept that much of life is very complicated. As soon as you attempt to categorise something you find exceptions which don't fit the categories. Even something as simple as an organ or a planet or male or female. Rationally we must allow exceptions and complications in life and open debate. We should be very careful when we impose our will on others as history has shown. We should never think that we know all.
Your position although claiming to come from a different place makes identical claims as Christian dogma. It is unfortunately a wholly religious opinion which has nothing to do with ethics or logic. It purports to be the only correct opinion, unchanging, irrefutable, 100% correct. It is a simple view of the world which does not match reality.
The truth is that you would rather rationalize than consciously look. Most are like this. Perhaps there is a capacity within us that understands the value of morality as it pertains to life and death better than our logical rationalizations. If there is, true moral freedom comes from allowing this capacity to develop and function through the practice of conscious attention.There Comes
If you do not fight it---if you look, just
look, steadily,
upon it,
there comes
a moment when you cannot do it,
if it is evil;
if good, a moment
when you cannot
not.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
I do believe our positions are fundamentally different though. You propose to make an action illegal, as such I think the greater burden of proof falls on your claim? And the greater certainty in that position is required? I do not know if you agree with that?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
Eduk, You are introducing legality where it doesn’t belong. There are no accusations. Or need to prove anything as it pertains to this thread. Consider this excerpt from Dan’s OP:Eduk wrote:Ah there is little point arguing about logic and consciousness. We both accuse each other of the same lack of consciousness and rationalising our own position so really there is no need to go on and on. Let's just agree to disagree.
I do believe our positions are fundamentally different though. You propose to make an action illegal, as such I think the greater burden of proof falls on your claim? And the greater certainty in that position is required? I do not know if you agree with that?
How can we know what it is to be a person without opening to what it feels like being a person as opposed to a conditioned creature of reaction? When a person is in a psychological state of conscious attention, by definition it excludes imagination. In short we have to consciously look. No laws, rationalizations, or preaching. A person has to become able to look without interpretations. Then they may experience objective reality and the feelings that become the basis for objective moralityI take as my starting assumption that morality, if it exists at all, is the way in which persons (by which I mean free, rational, conscious agents) ought to be or act, where ought is understood in a categorical and universal sense. With this assumption in hand, we can begin to ask what that way might be, or to put it another way, what is of moral value, by considering what it is to be a person.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
The same poem hanging up in the high street with out other connotations would be a whole different case. Although again if it were solely my choice I would take it down as I personally find the morality of the poem objectionable. That is only my opinion though, if I truly passed it in the street, or saw it hanging on a shop wall it wouldn't be high on my list of things which are wrong with the world.
But just to be clear and to avoid further confusion what are your actual thoughts?
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
Eduk wrote:If no judgement is implied then the position of the poem is at fault as that is the clear implication. Not many people going into an abortion clinic are undecided so if you stop someone and ask if what they are doing is right or wrong they will assume you don't agree with their decision. Also not many would say they had given it no conscious thought, so a sign telling someone not to fight, but to look, until they had seen if it was right or wrong makes it feel like you are saying that up to this point they haven't given it conscious thought and again attacking the validity of their decision.
The same poem hanging up in the high street with out other connotations would be a whole different case. Although again if it were solely my choice I would take it down as I personally find the morality of the poem objectionable. That is only my opinion though, if I truly passed it in the street, or saw it hanging on a shop wall it wouldn't be high on my list of things which are wrong with the world.
But just to be clear and to avoid further confusion what are your actual thoughts?
As conditioned creatures of reaction justice and morality are conditioned responses. They are purely subjective without a necessary connection to anything objective. I believe Plato is right that objective morality is the natural condition for the soul. As such moral freedom requires experiencing what is objectively normal. Simone’s poem is providing a means for experiencing objective normality
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm
Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.
Thus, after criticising the conventional ideas of justice presented differently by Cephalus, Polymarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, Plato now gives us his own theory of justice. Plato strikes an analogy between the human organism on the one hand and social organism on the other. Human organism according to Plato contains three elements-Reason, Spirit and Appetite. An individual is just when each part of his or her soul performs its functions without interfering with those of other elements. For example, the reason should rule on behalf of the entire soul with wisdom and forethought. The element of spirit will sub-ordinate itself to the rule of reason. Those two elements are brought into harmony by combination of mental and bodily training. They are set in command over the appetites which form the greater part of man's soul. Therefore, the reason and spirit have to control these appetites which are likely to grow on the bodily pleasures. These appetites should not be allowed, to enslave the other elements and usurp the dominion to which they have no right. When all the three agree that among them the reason alone should rule, there is justice within the individual.
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: October 26th, 2015, 9:05 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
That being said, whether I think the poem should be taken down depends entirely on who is putting it up. If the people who run the clinic put if the poem because they like it, then I'd leave it there. If people have legislated that they have to put the poem up in order to discourage a choice that their religion disagrees with, then I'd take it down. Personally, I would never put the poem up as I suspect it would produce feelings of guilt in people that were raised in particular religious traditions with regards to abortion, and I would have no desire to make people feel guilty for that.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
You have not thought this through. According to this “theory” only the few who are ruled by reason can be just. There would not be three parts of the city if all were ruled by reason.The class of merchants, craftsmen, farmers, etc., are ruled by their appetites. The auxiliaries or guardians are ruled by their spiritedness. Since neither is ruled by their own reason they are not just in this restricted sense. Put differently, the city could not be just if all were just in this limited sense of the term. The just city is ruled by the philosophers, it is not a city of philosophers. In other words, justice cannot be fully defined as an internal condition or state or balance or harmony of the soul. There must be an external component. Justice is not just personal, it is political.When all the three agree that among them the reason alone should rule, there is justice within the individual.
-
- Posts: 3364
- Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
You wrote:Daniel McKay wrote:I would say that looking at a situation and letting your "gut reaction" or "moral intuitions" guide you, is not a good or consistent way of determining what is actually moral in that situation.
That being said, whether I think the poem should be taken down depends entirely on who is putting it up. If the people who run the clinic put if the poem because they like it, then I'd leave it there. If people have legislated that they have to put the poem up in order to discourage a choice that their religion disagrees with, then I'd take it down. Personally, I would never put the poem up as I suspect it would produce feelings of guilt in people that were raised in particular religious traditions with regards to abortion, and I would have no desire to make people feel guilty for that.
If morality is just an expression of our subjective choice, what value is it? If we deny the means to experience objective morality by definition we will be limited to subjective morality. We create our own reality. Why call it morality? Why not just call it choice of action and save the word morality for a more conscious recognition of objective value?So, our candidate for moral value is freedom, but freedom over what? As this morality is objective and universal, it is presumably not the case that it makes conflicting recommendations, or made no recommendations at all, in almost all practical situations, which would seem to be the case if all choices were of equal value. However, if the freedom that matters is the freedom to make one's own choices, the choices that relate to those things that belong to the person; their mind, their body and their property, then morality would be functional.
-- Updated Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:32 pm to add the following --
The human condition can be described as Man's "being" being upside down. Plato describes the normal human being as being guided by reason with the emotions supplying the force enabling the body to be able to put reason into practice. A city can be riun on the same prinicples where reason is a property of philosophers and spiritedness allows the body to reflect reason.Fooloso4 wrote:Nick_A:
You have not thought this through. According to this “theory” only the few who are ruled by reason can be just. There would not be three parts of the city if all were ruled by reason.The class of merchants, craftsmen, farmers, etc., are ruled by their appetites. The auxiliaries or guardians are ruled by their spiritedness. Since neither is ruled by their own reason they are not just in this restricted sense. Put differently, the city could not be just if all were just in this limited sense of the term. The just city is ruled by the philosophers, it is not a city of philosophers. In other words, justice cannot be fully defined as an internal condition or state or balance or harmony of the soul. There must be an external component. Justice is not just personal, it is political.When all the three agree that among them the reason alone should rule, there is justice within the individual.
However the human condition has made us upside down psychologically. We are governed by appetites. emotions serve to promote them and reason is limited to dualistic thought which rationalizes the desires of appetites. Under these conditions the experience of objective morality is limited to those willing and able to even temporarily become right side up through the practice of conscious attention. It is said in some circles that reality is only experienced when a person consciously senses, feels, and thinks the same thing. When a person experiences that they cannot sustain it and these parts go off in different directions, it becomes obvious why we are the Wretched Man as described by St. Paul. Only a few are willing and able to pursue experiential truth through efforts to experience life in a normal way. We are conditioned to prefer to live by imagination necessary to sustain absurdity from living upside down..
-
- Posts: 20
- Joined: January 7th, 2017, 5:51 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
Does anyone see the above as a possibility?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: October 26th, 2015, 9:05 pm
Re: An argument for a new normative theory (abridged version
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023