a take on morality

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

i posted this a while back in a different forum, but saved it cuz i liked it.

“Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind “<br>
i rather like this quote, cuz it kinda starts off my own little philosophy on morals, which is also fairly relevant, i think, to this thread, so let's begin shall we?

first, we'll define a moral code. morality can be(safely i think) defined as a code or definition of how to act in order to the "good" out of every situation. now there's that little word "good" in there. what is "good"? good can be defined, in this context, as anything that is beneficial to the acting person at the time. as long as said person sees more benefits than punishments/pain/injury, it can be seen as "good".

now, how does a person come to define their moral code? i don't see how we can be born with a moral code, honestly this does not make sense to me. how is it we can have an inborn code of what is good, and yet see so many differences between societies in today's world, let alone historical civilizations. however, there are certain things that are common throughout, though few, one general thing is a societies accepted moral of "killing = bad" there are variations, like Indian moral "killing has levels of badness, depending on the caste of the killee" or whatever the case may be. i see these consistancies as a basic human need for companionship, a need for humans to gather, and that is not possible if people within the group are killing without a thought. but i see so much variation i believe that this need for companionship is the limit of our instincts.

ok, if it's not born within, it must be learned. but when? and how? there are so many different kinds of people out there, and there are people with totally different family backgrounds with very similar morals? how the hell?

well, let's take an infant, first thing he or she will do is discover his/her surroundings. what will and will not hurt, cause pain, or injure said infant. then, what's next is what matters. how far can this infant push it's authority figures to get what it wants and do what it wants before it's punished. now we go back to the definition of the moral code, when does it become bad to do something. said infant learns these limits, can rules set by the adults be stretched? can they be broken? if i'm caught twice, will the punishment be the same? or can i sweet talk my way out of it..."oooh, oops, sorry, i know i told you i wouldn't, but i promise this time, i won't ever do it again" gg no punishment = good = no lesson learned = moral code adjusted.

so, from the perspective of this, i do believe that the THREAT of violence is probbly the best thing that can happen to a child, as long as you show that you are willing to use it whenever the child does something against the rules, and even more so were the rules brokent he second time. pain is a very primitive emotion, and a human, will do almost anything to avoid it. pain is injury, injury is bad, very bad. that's about as basic as you can get i think.

anyway, that's my take on this situation, enjoy :-)

however, reading this, i really should define "good" better, but it's late, and i'm just putting up a couple posts right now.

[kc]

(this is what you get for putting this in IM where I can find it)

Do you think people can learn morals by identifying with other people? Imagine this thought process:

"I am a person. That is also a person. I don't think I would like it if somebody killed me. I doubt they would like it either, so I probably shouldn't kill them."

Rather than relying on the threat of punishment, it relies on the (admittedly more complicated, but perhaps also more durable) acknowledgment of the other person's personhood (and an assumption that the other person deserves this kind of nice treatment, which mutual understanding can be considered to be the basis of the social contract).

There's also the whole thing where if you want to convince other people your morals are good ones (ie they shouldn't kill you) it is best to also follow your own morals. So.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

the problem is, KC, with that outlook, not everyone can identify with other people, the sociopaths, the serial killers, often just have no empathy for their fellow man, no realization that what they're doing is wrong. They just don't empathize with others, realize that what they're doing is hurtful. and a situation where you rely on someone like that to not kill simply because you don't, or because they wouldn't want you to kill them, simply will lead to...well, not good circumstances.

we talked about a philosopher named Carol Gilligan in my ethics class last semester, she'd written an essay on abortion, but the basic gist of her argument stands even here. there is a difference between killing, and unjust killing...i wish i could find my notes so i could get a direct quote, but alas, i lose, i'll post it in the next day or two after i find 'em.

[Asaeroth]

But Ben, if you think about it, would that not be a reasonable explanation as to why a person is as they are? If they cannot identify with others, and they are simply unable to do so, what is to keep them from being a sociopath, or psychotic? Would it be possible that KC is right, and that -all- there is wrong with the person is that they do not understand the others of their race as the majority of the people in this world do?

(Note the lack of 'right' or 'wrong'. I will not say which position is the best.)

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

my point is, for those people that CAN'T understand that those other pink things walking around are living breathing people with feelings etc, wouldn't it be safer to all of us to get rid of them?

[Arcadian]

Yes.