Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 9:52pm

I felt frustrated when you posted before, because I need more understanding about what you were expressing.  Morals and values are a personal interest of mine at the moment.  I wasn't schooled on them as a child - as such - although I think I had a lot of subtle indoctrination of them - which wasn't always useful - I was controlled using fear, guilt and shame - which I resented at the time and felt angry about later.  I dont' profess to be either reasonable or ethical - and if you think that makes me a lesser person - I'd like to understand why - because I feel hurt when told I am a lesser person because I need equal respect with other humans.  I see everyone as fully caused in their actions including myself - and so when I do regret things that I've said or done, I forgive myself as I forgive others the same.

 

I am very willing to address your points one by one - although so much is said that I have addressed the points most pressing to me personally - please put a point forward that you wish me to address?

 

After an upbringing that didn't include the words moral, and only included the word ethics in terms of what adults do when at work - it is a new topic for me - and I hadn't thought much on the matter until reading Harris' book the moral landscape a few weeks ago.  So I'm interested to understand more.

 

Also I have a question for you - a question of moral actions:

 

Yesterday my kids asked me to buy them chocolate biscuits at the shops.  I did although I don't often buy them sweet things.  Later that evening our 4 year old asked for one - we have been having trouble with him eating properly at dinner - so we said that he could have one once he ate his dinner.  He didn't, and so we left the biscuits unopened on the shelf for another day.  The next day my 4 year old asked again for a biscuit.  I said yes, so long as he ate all his eggs on toast.  He did and so I got the biscuits down.  They had been opened.  I suspected that my husband and 9 year old had had one the night before.  I asked my 9 year old if he had already had one.  He said no.  I didn't believe him and asked him again and asked him to be honest with me.  He said no repeatedly.  He's not one to lie - so I left it and gave them all a biscuit.  It's important to me that I am fare with all my children - so that they feel fairly treated and I hope it reduced sibling rivalry, arguments and hurt feelings.  Later I asked my husband if they had indeed had the biscuits - he said they had both had one and that he had told our 9 year old not to tell the younger children.  When I had ask my 9 year old it had been in front of the other children.

 

So what next?  What is the moral thing to do in this situation?  Should the 9 year old be told off for lying?  Was it OK to lie, because he was keeping a promise he made to his father?  Was it morally wrong for my husband to tell him not to tell his siblings?  Have I acted in a morally wrong way in this situation?

 

I'm really curious to hear your views - given your claims to superior* moral and ethical standing based on your readings on the matter.

 

* Said with tongue in cheek...

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 11:02pm

I try to be succinct in an effort to avoid misunderstanding. Notice that I did not write that I felt you were a lesser person, I asked why you would assume I would think we are equals when you knew I believe ethics and reason are necessary for a stable society, and don't feel you are currently using either of them in a functional way.

Instead of reading that as I wrote it, you took it to be a statement, not a question. Once again reading something into the words used, rather than accepting them at face value.

You should have noticed by now that I am not shy, and I tell you what I think. That means you need not read-into my words, you aren't psychic, and I try to make it easy to understand what I am thinking.

When you disagree with what I write, cool. When you disagree with your interpretation of words I did not write, not cool.

If by "fully caused" you mean causal determinism, I don't know whether or not you understand that causal determinism does not 'necessarily' imply "logical determinism." Minimally, I don't accept logical determinism.

Your relationship is your business, but in general, I think your husband placed your child in a no-win position by telling the child to lie.

The child either had to ignore your husband's direction, or lie when asked. I would ask my wife (divorced for ten years) to not ask our children to lie and to tell my child that in the future that we would not place them in that position again.

We raised three fine children that I am pleased to know as adults. They weren't robots, didn't always do the right thing, and we didn't expect them to. Same for me. Ethics/Morals are a constant struggle to avoid making decisions I know are wrong just because they are the easy solution. Constant evaluation and adjustments with the hope of achieving an outcome for which I can be proud.
It isn't easy for anyone, accept those who make it so pliable as to be non-existent.
When I find I'm arguing the "weasel-game" where the argument changes to avoid acceptance, I try a bit harder until it appears futile.

Like I told my children: "There is no fairness fairy in life." One does the best they can, assuming they continue to strive for excellence. Otherwise it's just a cheap platitude. I know all too many who say they are doing there best, when it seems they are really just doing the minimal.

Their life. Okay. But...if it is brought out in a public forum such as this, I feel it is best to say what you think, and back it up with the clearest logic and reasoning one has.

All you need to do is watch a good debate to realize that even the best of logic rarely if ever sways everyone.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 13, 2011 at 1:27am

We seem to have been caught in a playing the man and not the ball .....

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 12, 2011 at 9:16pm

Ethics are not based upon whether or not you find other people also in violation.

 

Actually they can be.  Ethically we can't lock people in prison.  However, if they violate laws, then ethically we can.

 

EDIT: I misread the preceding comment to yours.  Still the point holds, that situational ethics are at times called for.  It is one of the most difficult things any ethical system can do: provide for different situations on the same issue.

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 9:48pm

Your individual choices are not made ethical solely because you found someone else with your ethical makeup.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 13, 2011 at 12:32pm

What are you talking about?  Have I said somewhere that since X does it, I'm ethical?  I support my positions.

Permalink Reply by Alice on July 12, 2011 at 10:00pm

good point Stephan

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 10:10pm

That isn't an argument. Few would doubt the lack of ethics found in indiscriminate incarceration of innocent people. Most everyone already understand that to be unethical, therefore, locking up criminals is not the opposite.  You have a faulty comparison.

Permalink Reply by The Secular One on July 13, 2011 at 12:35pm

therefore, locking up criminals is not the opposite.  You have a faulty comparison.

 

Of course they aren't OPPOSITES, they are the same action in different situations that are dependent on the actions, and hence ethics, of the people involved.

 

Nice to see you saying that since lots of people would agree with my points, they don't apply.  Perhaps I misread you though, what do you mean?

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 10:33am

When you fall to the point where you feel you may justify any action, no matter how insignificant, you no longer have ethics that the prevailing culture would recognize as such.

Turn your Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis? Obviously not, no matter what the law.

Deciding you don't like an online poll rules, deciding that you think you "know" the organizers mindset and that they intended out-of-state voters to cheat? You've lowered the bar on ethics so low that you have no ethics.. The word has no meaning when you can decide to cheat on anything with which you disagree.

Read anything by Professor A.C. Grayling, and rebut his stance. I've taken mine from him. Principled and reasoned ethics.

None of your justifications, nor demagoguery are rebuttals.

I'm not upset, just disgusted that supposedly ethical, reasoning atheists use the same poor logic as the religious whenever it suits their wishes.

Permalink Reply by Rudy V Kiist on July 12, 2011 at 11:42am

My point was, there is no ethical anything here. Online poll rules? Really? They don't work and it's a silly online poll...who cares? Is stealing a single (note the word "single") pencil at work the same same as robbing a bank? They may both be stealing, but come on..perspective here. If you're talking cheating on voting for government election is one thing, but... And for the record, I don't buy into the "Slippery slope" saying. Stealing a pencil won't lead to bank robbery and so on.

 

At any rate, not sure why I'm even discussing this as I don't really consider it an issue. Guess that's what happens when it rains and I can't do my farm work (^_^). Won't follow this anymore so continue as you like...

Permalink Reply by Richard H. McCargar on July 12, 2011 at 9:02pm

No ethical anything? Because you declare it so?  How about this perspective. You don't like it that I am showing a lack of ethics, or minimally 'convenient ethics' in our community, so you attempt to change the facts.

 

The facts are, that if you have to lie, delete cookies, etc., you are making a decision that is not ethical, irrespective of whether you wish to accept it.  You must have cared, or you wouldn't have gone this far.  Taking the last parting shot and declaring you won't follow it is not surprising by this juncture.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page