Whose Morality is it anyway?

[Gmart]

Sure, you have every right to investigate whatever subject you wish.

In the same way I give very little thought to the concept of 'truth' beyond simple physical truth as I don't think it goes into the metaphysical.

But in the same way i would never stop anyone from discussing these things, I would simply excuse myself from that discussion and find one which I consider more relevant to me.

Anyway I don't see why this should be a problem.

I feel that consenting adults should be allowed to do what they like, and I see no problem with going to a swingers club, and no need to worry about whether anyone is feeling "hurt or betrayed" by the experience, as that is their business, not mine.

I would of course fight for the freedom of exit to anyone at any time.

So as has been noted we are still divided between the moralists who wish to tell people what to do because they are unhappy at their decisions and the liberals who feel that it is more important to ensure that consenting adults are respected rather than treated like children who need controlling for their own good...

 

[gorski]

What's "simple physical truth" about human relationships, like friendship?

However, allowing adults to smoke in public [for their own addiction-type "needs"] is wrong! They are doing damage to themselves, sure - but also to public service workers around them, to those who suffer from it, whether allergy sufferers or asthmatics or second hand inhalers generally etc. Besides, picking up the pieces of such behaviour, later on, when shit hits the fan, falls onto all, so why not have a say, as a society, on the subject? The smokers do cross the line, they are infringing on other's liberty by indulging in it, ergo...

These are issues that go beyond "simple physical truth", whatever that might be...

 

[zion]

On what is real and what is not...

...Good point throwing doubt on the notion of what is and is not physically true.

From the Screwtape Letters:

Probably the scenes [of the Blitz] he is now witnessing will not provide material for an intellectual attack on his faith—your previous failures have put that out of your power. But there is a sort of attack on the emotions which can still be tried.

It turns on making him feel, when first he sees human remains plastered on a wall, that this is "what the world is really like" and that all his religion has been a fantasy. You will notice that we have got them completely fogged about the meaning of the word "real"'. They tell each other, of some great spiritual experience, "All that really happened was that you heard some music in a lighted building"; here "Real" means the bare physical facts, separated from the other elements in the experience they actually had. On the other hand, they will also say "It's all very well discussing that high dive as you sit here in an armchair, but wait till you get up there and see what it's really like": here "real" is being used in the opposite sense to mean, not the physical facts (which they know already while discussing the matter in armchairs) but the emotional effect those facts will have on a human consciousness.

Either application of the word could be defended; but our business is to keep the two going at once so that the emotional value of the word "real" can be placed now on one side of the account, now on the other, as it happens to suit us. The general rule which we have now pretty well established among them is that in all experiences which can make them happier or better only the physical facts are "Real" while the spiritual elements are "subjective"; in all experiences which can discourage or corrupt them the spiritual elements are the main reality and to ignore them is to be an escapist.

Thus in birth the blood and pain are "real", the rejoicing a mere subjective point of view; in death, the terror and ugliness reveal what death "really means". The hatefulness of a hated person is "real"—in hatred you see men as they are, you are disillusioned; but the loveliness of a loved person is merely a subjective haze concealing a "real" core of sexual appetite or economic association. Wars and poverty are "really" horrible; peace and plenty are mere physical facts about which men happen to have certain sentiments. The creatures are always accusing one another of wanting "to eat the cake and have it"; but thanks to our labours they are more often in the predicament of paying for the cake and not eating it. Your patient, properly handled, will have no difficulty in regarding his emotion at the sight of human entrails as a revelation of Reality and his emotion at the sight of happy children or fair weather as mere sentiment,

Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

 

[Gmart]

As far as smoking goes, without being distracted, I feel that inside is fair enough but to ban them from smoking outside is going too far. Which is important as one person's freedom imposes on another so the right to smoke outside can clash with the desire to have perfectly clean air.

Meanwhile I appreciate the difference between the physical reality of my fist, when compared to the metaphysical reality of my emotions. I concern myself only with the former and consider the latter only when directly applicable, which is rare. I find that considering other people's emotions is riven with strife as one never really knows what others are thinking and often it is disrespectful to guess at the other's thoughts. Much better just to wait until the person decides to tell you.

 

[gorski]

Oh, really?

Which part of "How Hitler/Pinochet/Mugabe/Miloshevich felt" did you not understand from their actions?

You see, we have a "way into who other people are and how they feeeeeel"...

"Rashomon" anybody?!?

But that's beside the point: it is OK to stop people bearing arms and arming bears, as it were... It's bad for them and it's bad for everyone. However they may feel about it... Children get hold of those and kill each other, they kill other people and so forth... It's OK to at least try to reduce the needless deaths, yes!!! It's OK to exercise one's judgement and "challenge the prevailing values/mores/customs", if and when necessary...

And it's OK to stop the smokers from smoking because, when shit hits the fan, it's "everybody else" that has to "pay for it/pick up the pieces". I feel you are being disingenuous about it and hence you are avoiding it.

Just as we should prevent [and ARE preventing or at least actively trying to prevent] children from smoking - many people DO remain children all of their narcissistic lives...

We should look at the causes of it, of course...

 

[Gmart]

And it's OK to stop the smokers from smoking because, when shit hits the fan, it's "everybody else" that has to "pay for it/pick up the pieces". I feel you are being disingenuous about it and hence you are avoiding it.

Just as we should prevent [and ARE preventing or at least actively trying to prevent] children from smoking - many people DO remain children all of their narcissistic lives...

I don't understand what yr on about in the beginning of your post

But I DO understand that you feel that smokers are paid for by everyone else, and this is not strictly true. If they just smoke outside, the only cost they represent is in the hospitals and their taxes pay for that twice over.

You seem keen to treat them as children, but I would suggest that this is one of the problems of the elitist society we have. The elite, or those in power, decide that the 'proles' need to be controlled for their own good because they insist on making the 'wrong' choices. When actually it is those in power who should be accepting that it is they who should allow people to make their own decisions.

If you treat people like children then they will act like children, in the same way as if you trust people they become trustworthy.

Thus consenting adults must be respected in a free society over and above any moralism the government might get seduced by.

It is NOT the place of the government to take on the consciences of the population; it is down to the government to educate the population as to the risks involved only.

 

[gorski]

Actually, it is the elites that I am really worried about - and they abuse much more than ciggies and booze... With cocaine altered minds they perceive reality pretty badly and then make decisions that affect us all. So, much more worried about those arrogant educated barstewards - I would really like to "patronise" those much more, fank you very mooch...

As for those "helpful taxes" - I think it's time we say goodbye to those and believe you me and yourself: we can do much better without them and that which they will go towards, in terms of treatement...

It's like trying to wipe the floor with a cloth but never actually shut the tap, leave it running all the time, but the drainage system is blocked and sick...

Some see it better than others and those need to speak out and influence.

After all, the smokers, drinkers, druggies are also influencing, so WTF?!?

 

[Gmart]

So what's the conclusion?

Without a victim should consenting adults be free to deal with moral issues without the imposition of laws from the government?

Should I be allowed to decide what I put into my body, even if the government thinks that it might be a bad idea?

 

[gorski]

Victimless? Have you seen the effect of smoking on young children? Are we supposed to forget how the sociopathic CEOs of those MNC lied before the US legislature, how they knew what they were doing and they DIDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about anyone's health or life, except their profits?!? They are directing their products to the developing countries with no legislation precluding them from doing whatever they wanna do and they are going for the kids - OPENLY!!!

I think you need to re-think the "victimless" nonsense here, m8... Sorry but!

Equally with the prostitutes, for instance. No such thing as "victimless" stuff in any of it! All relational and when you go down to the nitty-gritty of it all... Well, shite, innit? Objectifying and using and abusing other people...

Now, as for adults going for some sex with multiple partners and so forth: their choice, of course. Who can say anything about that? Except, maybe, parishioners who don't want them exposing themselves to their sons and daughters and "putting ideas into their 'eads, innit"... Surely, you can understand their point of view, non? Just as the swingers have their own morality, so do their neighbours... What gives? And who knows: if forced to confront them as my next door neighbours - who knows what any of us would do, if we were trying to raise a young family, for instance...?

As "social scientists" [or Gawd forbid "philosophers"] it would be our job to think through all the issues in relation to it [as in where does the need for it come from etc.] and it ain't gonna be easy and quick, with a soundbite or three...

I am not going to try to impose my morality on them, as they are far away from me, if that's what you're asking. Not my intention. But I do want to understand where does the need for it come from.

Knowledge emancipates...

 

[Gmart]

Victimless? Have you seen the effect of smoking on young children?

I think you need to re-think the "victimless" nonsense here, m8... Sorry but!

Equally with the prostitutes, for instance. No such thing as "victimless" stuff in any of it!

I have stated that I don't want smoking in enclosed areas, but that I feel that to ban it outside is just too far. Sure the companies tried to get as many people as possible addicted, but so what? Dealing with addiction is part of life and you bringing children into it just shows your need to find extraordinary examples. No one, inc me, is suggesting legalising fags for kids, but I DO think that the smokers should be able to smoke outside, as then the only victim is themselves.

So I don't need to re-think my idea of victimless, I might suggest the same for you.

YOU might feel that you have the right to tell a consenting adult prostitute that they are a victim, even if they don't know it or feel it, but that attitude is by definition patronising and disrespectful. Why shouldn't an adult make the decision to sell his/her body for money given the alternatives? i would much rather if the alternative were (say) a call centre where one gets paid bog all for loads of soul-grinding hours.

You want to MORALISE FOR these people because you feel that they are making the 'WRONG' decision. You are bunging them all together into one group and tarring them with the same brush EVEN when they are stating quite clearly that they are of sound mind, you disregard that for no other reason than you feel that YOU know best.

How much more elitist and patronising an attitude could you get?

 

[dylanredefined]

Actually children whose parents smoke are more prone to illness so its is relevant.

 

[Gmart]

Actually children whose parents smoke are more prone to illness so its is relevant.

And that is the choice of the parents. Though one can make a case for care in any case, one might suggest that religion is injurious, and so take the children away from the fundamentalists, but in the end it seems obvious that parenting is not perfect but one cannot use that as a reason to trample on their right to bring their children as they wish.

The key thing here is to maintain rights for the individual despite any imperfections. One doesn't get rid of free speech just because someone can shout 'fire!' into a crowded theatre...

 

[gorski]

On the issue of harm...

You really haven't seen a proper victim, being totally disorientated and not knowing whether s/he is coming or going, have you?

You have no idea just how messed up and irrational people can be and in such circumstances they might need help.

Otherwise they do harm themselves and go against their best interests - sometimes quite badly...

But you don't care, do you?

 

[gorski]

You want to MORALISE FOR these people because...

You have no idea that you are also moralising here, btw... But yours is "natural", whereas mine is "moralising", "patronising" and whatnot...

Oh, well...

 

[Gmart]

But you don't care, do you?

Bollox, you're just using extreme examples to justify authoritarianism.

How classic

How conservative

 

[gorski]

Absolutely not: to illustrate that your position ends up where it ends up - empty, cold, uncaring, alienated... under a thin veneer of "liberal morality" that somehow isn't but a morality. Actually, it is THE morality and all else is "moralising"... Talk about elitism...

 

[Gmart]

Actually, it is THE morality and all else is "moralising"... Talk about elitism...

So empowering the people with the right to make their own decisions is moralising eh?

 

[gorski]

Let's put things into context, shall we?

You just don't get it, m8. Yep, you too have a moral that you are spreading about. Can't get out of it.

Besides, that is the really divisive thing between the Liberals and the Left.

The Libs initially swore by not only Liberty but also Egality and Fraternity. Only to drop those in a heartbeat, as soon as they won the power and turned on their yesterday's allies, the proletariat, and yesterday's revolutionary force for the good [Libs] turned counter-revolutionary, washing their hands of any further concern... "That's it, we build a better, fairer society [true], now it's none of our concern, everybody for themselves" [not true, they got the crucial support without which the whole project wouldn't have succeeded; they won it on the back of Fraternity and Egality in the Tricolour Flag, under which they marched together, under which they died together!!!].

From then on they did not show any recognition and respect to the proletariat, and the struggle had to continue. And it did. Bit by bit the universal suffrage and so on was won. Not because but in spite of the liberals and their "we have nothing to do with what's gonna happen from now on", as if they hadn't constructed the Human Relations in Modernity themselves.

Of course, they established their dominion and this is what they always wanted - Lordship/Herrschaft/Rule, based in their economic power and they got it. Now, it was on the proletariat to move the general interests of Emancipation further, with their little, dirty interests...

All of a sudden, we have this morality, Liberal morality, "nothing to do with me, Gov, I don't wanna know, they all have what they deserve", as if there's an equality of differential life chances everywhere around us, if only we wish it.

And there isn't. The Rowntree Report on social immobility, anyone? Education as the vehicle for it all? The UK being the worst in the world, the US just a little less horrible...

So we have to care beyond that "liberal" bullshit, sure!!! Well, if we care about our Humanity, then we should care about out poor, vulnerable, weak, meek, uneducated, down and outs, those who can not help themselves, yes!!!

Otherwise, it's all so machine like, crude and calculating. "I'm all right, Jack!" is the hymn! "So long as it's not me." But it could be...

Then what? What would you "think" tomorrow, if that happens?

Any semi-decent "morality" starts only AFTER WE RECOGNISE EACH OTHER, after we demonstrate we care, we take the other into consideration, after we show some respect. If we do not - we do not deserve any respect, any recognition, any acknowledgement.

Simple. But difficult!!

Chew on it...

 

[zion]

I think you may have...

...gone overboard a little here.

I have, unlike Gmarthews, no problem at all with moralizing (within, of course, a debate about morality on a philosophy forum - I feel that gives me permission).

Any semi-decent "morality" starts only AFTER WE RECOGNISE EACH OTHER, after we demonstrate we care, we take the other into consideration, after we show some respect. If we do not - we do not deserve any respect, any recognition, any acknowledgement.

No, any semi-decent "morality" starts EVEN BEFORE WE KNOW WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH, before they demonstrate they care, before they take us into consideration, before they show us respect. Even if they do not, we should show them respect, recognition, acknowledgement, love. Why? Because, even if they're conservative, even if they're only merely liberal, even if we disagree with every scrap of what they have said and thought throughout their lives, they are still human. There are no exemptions from our common humanity.

I don't have to know the full pain of someone else's life before I can be moral to them. All I need to do (all! ) is to treat them lovingly as a fellow member of the human race.

 

[gorski]

That's slave's/knavish/subservient mentality/consciousness, as Hegel would put it.

Be your own guest - not on my list of favs, thanx...

 

[Gmart]

No, any semi-decent "morality" starts EVEN BEFORE WE KNOW WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH, before they demonstrate they care, before they take us into consideration, before they show us respect. Even if they do not, we should show them respect, recognition, acknowledgement, love. Why? Because, even if they're conservative, even if they're only merely liberal, even if we disagree with every scrap of what they have said and thought throughout their lives, they are still human. There are no exemptions from our common humanity.

I agree, but there is no need to concern ourselves with those who meet this criteria, beyond direct physical contact/knowledge. SO if I met anyone I would be polite and respectful automatically because of the reasons you give, but anyone who is beyond my physical space and who is not known to me personally, I ignore. Why would I think about them if I have no contact with them and I don't know them? What a waste of time it would be if I did!!

 

[gorski]

Because you are in relation with them, whether you want and/or realise it or not?

Besides, you are mixing apples and pears, as per usual: in this case minimal civility/courtesy with morals... Fromm calls it the culture of correctness. Empty, instrumental, cold...

Zion, you know that state [one's "community"] requires a certain level of adherence to the laws emotionally, as well as rationally, otherwise the state couldn't function, which point goes towards the heart of the matter: if I am heavily exploited, trodden upon, utterly disregarded, barely surviving - what obliges me to be "moral"? Or stick to the legal framework, even? What obliges me to stay out of that person's larder, stuffed to the ceiling, while my family is starving?

So, a minimal bourgeois morality begins and ends with a minimal mutual recognition. If it isn't there...

Never mind, eh...

 

[Gmart]

Because you are in relation with them, whether you want and/or realise it or not?

No I'm not, I am in relation to those who I know and those who I physically meet only.

If I needed to consider all the people who I didn't meet as well, then I would need to consider 6 billion people every moment of the day. Not very realistic that.

I would much rather make sure that i treat everyone I meet and know with respect, rather than have to consider 6 billion people and forget those who are actually around me, coz I'm so busy thinking about the Chinese...

You could state this as a local first attitude, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[gorski]

Strawman "argument" - never interesting...

 

[Gmart]

Strawman "argument" - never interesting...

I thought you might claim that, but it's not because I am merely pointing out that one needs to draw a line somewhere, and I have stated specifically where mine is, whereas you haven't.

So, come on then, where do YOU draw the line?

 

[zion]

If I am heavily exploited, trodden upon, utterly disregarded, barely surviving - what obliges me to be "moral"? Or stick to the legal framework, even? What obliges me to stay out of that person's larder, stuffed to the ceiling, while my family is starving?

This is a bit like the "ticking timebomb" argument for torture. Extreme cases, as the lawyers say, make bad law.

Yes, fine, if your family is starving, and you steal a loaf of bread to feed them with, then you can be all Jean Valjean and it wouldn't be immoral for you to do. Jesus makes the same argument when he allows his hungry disciples to glean ears of wheat on the Sabbath. Speaking as someone who used to run an anti-poverty agency, I'm well aware of the poverty and desperation some people do live in, but in practice people in the developed world are not generally faced with a stark moral choice to steal or to starve.

 

[gorski]

Hmmm...

 

[Gmart]

Hmmm...

Didn't think you'd be keen to answer

If you claim to think about everyone that must take up so much of your time!!

How do you manage

No one is arguing against consideration or respect (they are of course different), however we are programmed for small tribes who only concern themselves with those people in the immediate vicinity, often blaming 'them' (ie any identifiable group) for all problems. Heck we still get this now, with the conservatives blaming Europe for everything, when Europe couldn't care less most of the time.

Go to any other country and it is amazing how they are naturally obsessed with their own problems which are often down to Johnny Foreigner.

When i went to Italy I was surprised at how little they think about the UK, but to be honest we rarely spare a thought for them...

It is thus natural to stop one's consideration at the local. If I were to consider everyone, I would be constantly worrying about Darfur, Zimbabwe every waking hour, thus paralysing myself from actually getting on and living life to the full.

 

[gorski]

We are not programmed and we do think of others, not just of ourselves and not just of immediate vicinity, hence the aid and development programs around the world. EU is quite good at it, as some 55% of all the world funds come from EU.

But that's higher maths for you, obviously - so why do I bother?

Hmmm was not addressed to you. You are way to self-centred...

Not worth it, really...

 

[Gmart]

We are not programmed and we do think of others, not just of ourselves and not just of immediate vicinity, hence the aid and development programs around the world. EU is quite good at it, as some 55% of all the world funds come from EU.

Yep! Maintaining ruling Elites is an expensive game, and the money sure comes in useful putting down the people.

Not programmed? i don't think so.

But that's higher maths for you, obviously - so why do I bother?

Hmmm was not addressed to you. You are way to self-centred...

Not worth it, really...

Insults rather than answering the question eh?

Let me restate it since you seem so keen to forget it. You claim to consider and respect everyone. A wild claim if ever I saw one, so I challenged you stating that considering 6 billion people must take a lot of brain power etc, and you decided that this was an exaggeration (strawman), which I expected and so I asked you to state how you draw your line. Note, of course, that you had insulted me when I stated my line, saying that I didn't care etc. But of course you have a line too, but you can't state it because then the moralists would jump on you as being uncaring.

Bummer of a position, I am not surprised that you preferred to fall back onto insults, much safer than actually having the guts to say something.

Meanwhile the issue here is morality, and whether it should be left to the individual to listen to their conscience, or whether the government should step in with authoritarianism and force people to be moral.

The prostitute example, as ever, has been ignored. There would seem to be a certain number, probably in the majority, of prostitutes who have decided that the pay is good enough to do that job rather than a more 'moral' job which pays like s**t.

The moralists are naturally unhappy with this moral decision, and want more authoritarianism as ever, cue the Swedish model of further criminalisation. (see here for the petition against and further info)

But of course the informed opinions of the workers don't fit with the moralist agenda, and so they are ignored.

These workers should get equal rights with any other worker. To turn round to them and tell them that they are a victim, which they refute, is disrespectful to them.

Morality is a personal issue, NOT something for the government to get involved with, and it should know better than to listen to the moralist, busybodies who should learn to mind their own business.

The same goes for drugs. Smoking cannabis has happened for thousands of years, and it is a personal decision which could be informed by the government, but should not be legislated against.

Funny isn't it how the moralists consider their own right to make these decisions themselves as paramount, yet do not extend this right to other people beyond their own locality.