alt.education

"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
news:b6uhr3ps0k9j1oqo2jv906v4jfvfbv95ds@4ax.com...
> "Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
>>news:rcefr31tjhnvsrno1mq8csjd0jr7momf7u@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> How are they different?
>>>>
>>>>Reciprocity is a kind of mutual exchange. Morality is what one 'ought'
>>>>to
>>>>do not for self interest, or what one is inclined to do.
>>>
>>> Isn't that simply concocting a definition whereby it is impossible for
>>> morality to be instinctive, since instinct is what we are inclined to
>>> do?
>>
>>Its not concocting a definition ... morality is what we 'ought' to do
>>ignoring our self interest and inclinations.
>
> Morality *is* our self interest.

Over all and the big picture, yes, in individual situations no.

>>> And why is it not morality if done for self-interest? Those who act
>>> morally in order to go to heaven are doing so.
>>
>>Our works are necessary,
>
> Then you are doing them for self-interest.
>
>> but our works alone will not get us into heaven.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that you are doing them for self-interest, if
> you think they are "necessary".
>
>>> And who says that what we "ought" to do is anything OTHER than to act
>>> in our self interest, or to do what we are inclined to do?
>>
>>Its a conscience effort to act against ones self interest. What self
>>interest did the man who jumped into the Potomac river to save the
>>stewardess in the Air Florida plane crash years ago? The bank was lined
>>with rescue/emergency workers and a helicopter above ... he was the only
>>one
>>who took immediate action to save the stewardess. Do you believe he was
>>thinking this action if successful will get me into heaven?
>
> Actually, it is arguable that he wasn't "thinking" at all. He was
> reacting. Much as an animal does. That his behavior differed from
> that of a typical animal just means that his programming was
> different. But as you say, he also acted different from everyone else
> on the bank.

Altruism ... acting against his and all on the bank self-interest.

>>Why do you think he did it?
>
> I have no idea, and it is useless to speculate.
>
> Certainly not out of conscious consideration of the moral thing to do.
> And probably not from any nagging conscience either.
>
>>>>I guess it could, but it leaves out the 'ought'.
>>>
>>> "ought" is a rationalization for the behavior that we consider doing
>>> out of some sense of obligation. That feeling of obligation can
>>> result from reciprocity, from inclination, or from self-interest.
>>
>>Its not what it results from, its that it happens.
>
> The point is that animals may feel "ought" as well.

Animals, IMO act on instinct more than morality. If that was a cat in the
Potomac I don't think other cats would have jumped in to save it. I don't
even think cats would have lined the bank to try and rescue.

>>>>> Maybe there is no reason "why".
>>>>
>>>> Maybe not reason, just an 'ought' because its the right thing.
>>>
>>> If there isn't a reason, it probably isn't the right thing.
>>
>>They were rescue men/women all along the bank of the Potomac River and a
>>helicopter above ... they all reasoned that it wasn't a good idea to jump
>>into the river and save the stewardess ... One man reasoned that she may
>>die
>>if someone doesn't do something immediately
>
> How do you know that he "reasoned"?

I don't, I just know he took action.
>
>>>>No there can be a standard, say 'what is right.' Just because one
>>>>doesn't
>>>>do what is right doesn't mean the standard is irrelevant
>>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>>
>>>>... the standard should urge us to do what is right.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because we should do what is right rather than whaat is wrong.
>
> What is "right" is defined by what the standard says. What your
> standard says is "right" is almost certainly different from what mine
> says, and both of ours are quite different from what a typical Hindu
> believes is "right".

I think our thoughs of what is right are similar. With Hindus, the mores,
will probably have some effect ... don't really know though.
>
> Hitler probably though he was doing "right" too. We just think that
> his standard of right was wrong.

If so, he must have wondered why so many people thought he was wrong.

>>> Some people feel an obligation to follow standards. Other people feel
>>> an obligation to challenge standards. Give one a standard of "right"
>>> and they will be more likely to do right. Give the other the same
>>> standards, and they are more likely to do the opposite
>>
>>Thats is why some standards are reenforced by laws ... they will probably
>>always be people who challenge standards.
>
> There will always be people who challenge laws too. But laws don't
> exist to reinforce standards. They exist to declare societal
> standards.

Generally don't you believe laws reflect morality at least in the US. "As
traditionally conceived, the police powers of governments of general
jurisdiction extend to teh protection and advancement of pulbic health,
safety, and morals." The Clash of Orthodoxies, Robert P George.

>>> Teenagers are noted for challenging standards; it is probably
>>> instinctual that they do so, and its a VERY strong instinct. That
>>> doesn't make them inherently immoral.
>>
>>Of course it doesn't, but they must be disciplined
>
> They will challenge even if they are disciplined.

That is why parents are so important ... to face down the challeges.
>
>>... the more immoral a society becomes the less free it becomes because of
>>the restrictions/laws
>>put on it.
>
> Nonsense. An immoral society wouldn't bother to put restrictions/laws
> against immoral behavior.

Lots of people would disagree with you ... abortion issue ... after 30+
years it hasn't been settled. IMO, the issue would have been settled years
ago, if the decision would have been left to the State govts.

>>>>> A standard is meaningless without force. And with force, it destroys
>>>>> freedom.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think so. A society with strong morals need fewer
>>>>laws/standards.
>>>
>>> The morals ARE part of the laws/standards.
>>
>>They may be part of them, but a lack of morals means more laws.
>
> No. Anarchy is the ultimate in an amoral society.

It takes more laws in an immoral society
>
>>> And I disagree. The reason for a larger number of laws is generally
>>> that society has become more complex.
>>
>>We cannot excuse immoral behavior of the complexity of society
>
> Who is "excusing" anything?

If you are not, sorry. I thought you implied that.
>
> In "real life" situations come up where "rights" come into conflict.
> Most laws exist to rationally resolve those situations by thinking
> them, out in advance, rather than ad hoc.
>
>>... if that were the case eventually society may become so complex that
>>there will be
>>nothing but immorality, complete oppression by laws.
>
> Complexity is not immorality, and laws are not immorality.

Laws can be immoral.

>>> "Laws" are mostly an agreement
>>> by society to work out in advance how to deal with complex ambiguous
>>> cases of conflict between the instinctive behaviors of individuals.
>>
>>Shouldn't that be done in the family?
>
> No. This isn't the Mafia. Families don't make laws. And they have
> minimal power to enforce any decisions that are made, because at most
> they control only that which belongs to the family.

The family is where people begin to be socialized and obey restrictions.

> Even if it wanted to, "the family" cannot by itself resolve a conflict
> between what is "right" for the family, and what is "right" for some
> other family.

I wasn't talking about between different families.
>
>>> A society with only one law "do as we say or we will kill you" is
>>> probably the least free society that there is. And probably the least
>>> moral as well.
>>
>>"Do as we say" denotes more than one law
>
> No. It is a single law.

Sure it is, it covers all behavior that 'do as we say' encompasses ... rise
at 6:00am a law subject to death ... eat breakfast at 7:00am a law subject
to death ... ergo anything 'said' is a law that must be obeyed under penalty
of death ... one penalty, but many laws.
>
>>>>Isn't it general knowledge that man is both good and evil?
>>>
>>> That is an assumption of Biblical Christianity.
>>
>>Its reality
>
> Only by your assumption.

By reality.

> ... not just in countries where Christianity is common, but all
>>countries ... I don't know of any country where it is moral to murder and
>>steal etc.
>
> Not the same question. They may not consider it moral. But they may
> not label things "good" or "evil". The world doesn't necessarily
> think in terms of black and white like the rabid fundamentalist does.

They can label it anything they please, its still evil. Its not rabid to
recognize good and evil even if its not labeled so. Its seems like you
think everything is poll driven ... because some in the world may not
think/see murder as evil then its not except for the rabid fundamentalist.

>>>>They believe what they believe and have standards they believe or
>>>>disbelieve.
>>>
>>> They may not have standards. Or if they have them, they may not rely
>>> on any sort of belief.
>>
>>How can you have a religion with no belief?
>
> You can have a standard with no belief.

The standard itself is a belief or it wouldn't be a standard.

>>> Two religious people could have very different moral beliefs whether
>>> they believe in a Creator or not.
>>
>>Like what?
>
> Suffice it to say that I have very different moral beliefs than any
> fundamentalist.
>
>>Are you sure you mean moral beliefs and not mores ... to me a
>>more is what 'is', a moral is what 'ought.'
>
> I believe different "oughts" than most fundies.
>
>>Christianity has many what you may call branches/sects etc
>
> Yep, and many of them differ on questions of morality.

True.

> Southern Baptists split off specifically over the question of whether
> slavery was moral. They believed that it was, a decision about
> morality that was only revoked in 1995, by my understanding.

My understanding also ...
>
>>> Hindu or Buddhist moral beliefs are not the same as Christian moral
>>> beliefs. Nor are Jewish moral beliefs the same.
>>
>>Like what ... they all believe murder is wrong,
>
> For one thing, they may define "murder" differently.

Murder is murder is murder.

>>stealing is wrong ...
>
> Let me give an example. One of the ten commandments says "thou shalt
> not covet". By many interpretations, capitalism is therefore immoral.
> (no, I don't want to argue the question - I merely point out that some
> believe this).
>
> Christians for a LONG time considered loaning money with interest to
> be immoral. That was why they left it to the Jews to be moneylenders.
> They recognized that the Jews had a different set of moral standards.

Wasn't loans to other Jews and charging interest, immoral? I'm not sure but
I think it was. I get your point.
>
> Jews, on the other hand, consider violating the dietary laws to be
> immoral, along with the other 600+ commandments - to the Jews there
> aren't just 10 commandments. Most Christians don't consider the
> dietary laws to be part of morality. They also ignore most of the
> other commandments of the Torah, picking and choosing based on what is
> important to their sect.

Yes, I know.
>
>>From
>>what I know, which isn't much, about major religions is that they all
>>agree
>>with most of the commandments, maybe not in that form.
>
> The Jews have over 600, and your 10 are no more nor less important
> than the other 600.

Well, the NT let us bail on some of the dietary laws. ;)
>
> There are a couple of the ten which all the religious AND
> NON-RELIGIOUS agree on, which means that they have nothing to do with
> religion. Of course they may define what falls within the bounds of
> the standard differently. A Pacifist Quaker understands "thou shalt
> not kill" differently from most other Christians.

If they agree on the few they must have something to do with religion. It
cannot be part of the 'agreement of religions' and not be part of the
religions, IMO.
>
> Most of the rest are NOT standards for most religions.
>
>>> Human beings are quite irrational in my experience. And since they
>>> behave immorally, even by their own chosen standards at times, they
>>> aren't moral.
>>
>>True somewhat, and our Creator recognized this
>
> He made us this way.
>
>>>>Conscience, Conscience informs us as to what is right/wrong, good/evil.
>>>
>>> Different people's consciences inform them differently.
>>
>>I think you nit pic ... murder, stealing is wrong etc. ... there is
>>agreement on this.
>
> Did we murder thousands of people in Iraq?

No. Where misconduct (murder) was found out people were held accountable.
>
> There is no agreement, even among Christians. Believe me.

I do believe that ... that also is reality.
>
> lojbab