LuckyR wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2021, 4:21 ambaker wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 8:19 pm
LuckyR wrote: ↑February 25th, 2021, 10:12 pmIt is a mistake to assume we are islands operating separately from our environment.
So you're saying that whatever brings success in any particular environment, is moral?
Is that what you got out of what you quoted?
No, this is the salient point on which I wish to get clarity.
What I am actually pointing out is that morality, by definition is subjective. And IMO folks should be judged on this subjective scale by the standards of their era. That is, in relation to their peers, not in relation to folks raised in a different (better) milieu.
Then you shouldn't wonder why people vote for Trump. Or take issue with it. Here's to the third term!!!!!!!!
What I am actually pointing out is that morality, by definition is subjective. And IMO folks should be judged on this subjective scale by the standards of their era. That is, in relation to their peers
You're conflating "subjective" and "situational/culturally specific".
Secondly, it's not like there is such a thing as "standards of an era". This is an abstraction. In any actual given period of time, people display a whole range of beliefs about what is moral and what isn't. "Majority opinion" is also difficult or impossible to estimate, given that for the greater part of human history, there exist no empirical studies of it, and even if they did, we'd still need to account for the possibility that people in such a study gave socially desirable answers, and not their true opinion.
Thirdly, there's always the problem of the difference between what people believe is right, and what they actually do. Which one is more relevant to the estimation of morality? People's professed beliefs? People's tacitly held beliefs? Their actions and the moral basis they can be assumed to have?
In answer to the question you pose, the simple answer is no, moral is not interchangeable with successful, though I don't believe either of us proposed that idea.
Indeed, nobody suggested that morality was "interchangeable with being successful". But your reasoning has been along the lines that morality should be subservient to success, or that such subservience is morally acceptable.
Such as here:
LuckyR wrote: ↑February 16th, 2021, 2:30 pmBTW since the interviewer knows folks exaggerate (or worse) they take this into account and are not fooled by this reality, so if the interviewer isn't harmed by this skewed environment,
who is harmed by it? Interviewees who don't play the game.