21 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressEmpathy with unknown victims is a subconscious fear that it could happen to someone we care about or ourselves.
[b]Im saying morals do not exist, only your personal desire for happiness. Thats why I would base my choices on what makes me happy. You could say that this is very egoistic, but if you think about if ever moral rule we ever made up is egoistic.
This is not exactly true. In the dark ages something like 70% of all women in Europe were raped b ...[text shortened]... piness.
Making moral decisions sometimes means putting another’s happiness ahead of our own.[/b]
Individuals morals exists as defined by each individual and society's morals exist as defined by the aggregate morality.
Arrow's theorem regarding aggregated preferences can be easily and perhaps even more correctly applied to morality.
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaEmpathy with unknown victims is a subconscious fear that it could happen to someone we care about or ourselves.
Empathy with unknown victims is a subconscious fear that it could happen to someone we care about or ourselves.
Individuals morals exists as defined by each individual and society's morals exist as defined by the aggregate morality.
Arrow's theorem regarding aggregated preferences can be easily and perhaps even more correctly applied to morality.
I’m not sure I can agree with this. Personally, the reason why I don’t rape women has nothing to do with the fear that someone I care about may be raped. I care about the feelings of the woman.
Jesus: Love thy neighbor as thy self.
Though I don’t think religion is necessary to feel this way.
Individuals morals exists as defined by each individual and society's morals exist as defined by the aggregate morality.
Arrow's theorem regarding aggregated preferences can be easily and perhaps even more correctly applied to morality.
Perhaps you could explain what Arrow’s theorem is. I’ve never heard of it.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI didn't say that it had anything to do with you commiting the act or not, but with you feeling empathy or not.
[b]Empathy with unknown victims is a subconscious fear that it could happen to someone we care about or ourselves.
I’m not sure I can agree with this. Personally, the reason why I don’t rape women has nothing to do with the fear that someone I care about may be raped. I care about the feelings of the woman.
Jesus: Love thy neighbor as th ...[text shortened]... ed to morality.[/b]
Perhaps you could explain what Arrow’s theorem is. I’ve never hard of it.[/b]
Do you care more if you read that a woman you don't know and never met was raped on the newspapers or if you find out the woman you don't know but cross frequently when going to work was raped?
I'm not saying it explains all, but I believe there's something to it.
Arrow's theorem is a statement done by an economist that says that if you try to aggregate preferences of 3 or more agents, then you will be facing dictatorial preferences.
Basically, it translates to the idea that any majority is harmful to the minority.
21 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI didn't say that it had anything to do with you committing the act or not, but with you feeling empathy or not.
I didn't say that it had anything to do with you commiting the act or not, but with you feeling empathy or not.
Do you care more if you read that a woman you don't know and never met was raped on the newspapers or if you find out the woman you don't know but cross frequently when going to work was raped?
I'm not saying it explains all, but I believe t ...[text shortened]... eferences.
Basically, it translates to the idea that any majority is harmful to the minority.[/b]
I can agree with this a little more, but still not totally. Every time I hear about more of our troops dying in Iraq my heart goes out to them and their families. Since I don’t personally know anybody in Iraq, I don’t believe that anybody I care about will die there.
Example: The chance of a friend of mine getting blown up by a roadside bomb is almost 0%
On the other hand, I feel empathy for them based on how I would feel under the same circumstances, so there probably is some truth to what you said.
Do you care more if you read that a woman you don't know and never met was raped on the newspapers or if you find out the woman you don't know but cross frequently when going to work was raped?
If a loved one fell victim to a crime it would hit harder than if we’re talking about a stranger.
I'm not saying it explains all, but I believe there's something to it.
Ok, I’ll buy this. I would say that empathy comes more from putting ourselves in another’s position as opposed to putting somebody we care about in that position.
Arrow's theorem is a statement done by an economist that says that if you try to aggregate preferences of 3 or more agents, then you will be facing dictatorial preferences.
Basically, it translates to the idea that any majority is harmful to the minority.
Individuals morals exists as defined by each individual and society's morals exist as defined by the aggregate morality.
Sounds a lot like cultural relativism. Is this what you’re referring to or does Arrow’s theorem differ in some ways?
21 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressEvery time I hear about more of our troops dying in Iraq my heart goes out to them and their families. Since I don’t personally know anybody in Iraq, I don’t believe that anybody I care about will die there.
[b]I didn't say that it had anything to do with you committing the act or not, but with you feeling empathy or not.
I can agree with this a little more, but still not totally. Every time I hear about more of our troops dying in Iraq my heart goes out to them and their families. Since I don’t personally know anybody in Iraq, I don’t believe ...[text shortened]... ltural relativism. Is this what you’re referring to or does Arrow’s theorem differ in some ways?[/b]
Yet you still care more for American soldiers than other soldiers since they are closer to you, even if all of them are complete strangers. But the closer they are, the more empathy one feels. (Please don't take this as an accusation, quite the contrary, I'm saying it's normal to feel that way.)
Sounds a lot like cultural relativism. Is this what you’re referring to or does Arrow’s theorem differ in some ways?
No, not at all, it's a way of saying that almost every majority decision is unjust and my assertion was that the majority's morals (on aggregate) are dictated upon the minority.
It's more about the problem of establishing moral pluralism than a moral relativism of sorts...
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressRape may make the rapist happy, but not the victim. Only with empathy does it make us unhappy to rape another because of the victims feelings.
[b]Im saying morals do not exist, only your personal desire for happiness. Thats why I would base my choices on what makes me happy. You could say that this is very egoistic, but if you think about if ever moral rule we ever made up is egoistic.
This is not exactly true. In the dark ages something like 70% of all women in Europe were raped b ...[text shortened]... piness.
Making moral decisions sometimes means putting another’s happiness ahead of our own.[/b]
Yes I think we agree on this but I think that even trusting on my empathy is egoistic, because when I trust on my empathy I know it will ease my conscience and make me more happy. So in the end I only trust on my empathy because I know this will make me happy.
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by rwingettA just law is an interesting concept, if you cannot come up with a
Substantive changes in moral conventions are slow processes that tend to happen incrementally over generations. As moral codes are socially reinforcing they tend to resist change, with it requiring a great deal of input to overcome such inertia. So the scenario you are trying to paint - of morality being higgeldy piggeldy, with attitudes changing back and f ...[text shortened]... just. They can try to influence the evolution of those beliefs, but they can never dictate them.
standard of morals that suit everyone the same way at the same
time, how do you do the 'just' thing?
Kelly
22 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardFeeling happy for doing good is not a crime. A good action affects everybody involved.
[b]Rape may make the rapist happy, but not the victim. Only with empathy does it make us unhappy to rape another because of the victims feelings.
Yes I think we agree on this but I think that even trusting on my empathy is egoistic, because when I trust on my empathy I know it will ease my conscience and make me more happy. So in the end I only trust on my empathy because I know this will make me happy.[/b]
If it makes us happy to help another, there is nothing wrong with this. Isn’t Buddhism about loosing the ego? To label this as egoistic means that you should spend the rest of your life in suspended animation, and even this would affect those who care about you.
It's ok to be happy. Who enters a religion or conforms to a way of life to be unhappy?
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOf course when you lose your ego you are no longer egoistic but I mean that even striving to lose it is motivated by egoism. (the desire for permanent happiness)
Feeling happy for doing good is not a crime. A good action affects everybody involved.
If it makes us happy to help another, there is nothing wrong with this. Isn’t Buddhism about loosing the ego? To label this as egoistic means that you should spend the rest of your life in suspended animation, and even this would affect those who care about you.
It's ok to be happy. Who enters a religion or conforms to a way of life to be unhappy?
22 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardYou think ego drives everything within a person? I believe it is our
Of course when you lose your ego you are no longer egoistic but I mean that even striving to lose it is motivated by egoism. (the desire for permanent happiness)
spiritual make up that does that, we act according to our nature. We
do our best to deflect our short comings by creating excuses for all
we do when we know we are doing wrong, such as, "I was tired", "I
couldn't pay him back when I said because..", "He insulted me so
I ...", and so on. The truth is we act and say those things, because
it is our heart to behave that way, the universe around us simply
reveals what is within the heart of man, and it isn't always pretty.
Kelly
22 Nov 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardBut you would agree that one who has lost their ego is happy? This is what the four nobel truths are about right? Loose desire/attachment to end suffering.
Of course when you lose your ego you are no longer egoistic but I mean that even striving to lose it is motivated by egoism. (the desire for permanent happiness)
22 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThe truth is we act and say those things, because
You think ego drives everything within a person? I believe it is our
spiritual make up that does that, we act according to our nature. We
do our best to deflect our short comings by creating excuses for all
we do when we know we are doing wrong, such as, "I was tired", "I
couldn't pay him back when I said because..", "He insulted me so
I ...", a e around us simply
reveals what is within the heart of man, and it isn't always pretty.
Kelly[/b]
it is our heart to behave that way, the universe around us simply
reveals what is within the heart of man, and it isn't always pretty.
Isn’t this just a kind of spiritual laziness? If our hearts aren’t right then perhaps we should make them right with God's help.
Jesus commanded Christians to be perfect as God is perfect. This commandment is often dismissed because it raises the bar so high, but perhaps it shouldn’t be. What it doesn’t mean is that we should confirm our flaws and live with them. I don’t believe that there is such a thing as a “hopeless sinner.”
One thing that I admire about Buddhists is there willingness to actively improve themselves through prayer/meditation rather than simply accept the notion that we should let God do the work.
I discuss this point in my “Grace vs. Self-Effort” thread.