Logic & Morality

[gauchecritic]

You use a hammer to kill a rabbit, hit it on the head. Chickens you use a hatchet, place their heads on a wood block and they flop around spurting blood, headless in the dirt.

I will say no more. We 'neck' them both where I come from.

And yes, I think the ability to function more or less by either, is a gender thing. It used to be well accepted that women were more emotional than men, now it is politically incorrect to think that way.

amicus....

Being 'well accepted' doesn't make it true. Being 'politically correct' doesn't make it false.
By your own 'logic' it is now 'well accepted' that there is no dividing line between the sexes, only a sliding scale on both sides.

Petards, ergo and ipso facto are some of the words that spring to mind.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=lucky-E-leven]Not true. Some people simply lack emotion. The ever present question for this type of thing seems to be whether or not nature or nurture plays a bigger role in such an outcome. The term in psychology for this behavior is Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). The majority of things I've read on the subject lead me to believe that a genetic predisposition is the strongest predictor, though several environmental factors have been documented in twin studies as playing an important role. Either way, logic is perfectly capable of functioning without any identifiable piece of moral input. This lack of emotion is reported as being the reason why so many self-destructive (alcoholism, cutting, etc.) and self-harming behaviors are committed by the person suffering such deficits in their brain. The logical understanding that they lack the emotions they see in everyone else often leads them to dangerous and violent behavior directed at the self or others.[/QUOTE]

`~~~

Hello Lucky..."Some people simply lack emotion..." Some people are born blind or deaf, or with other infirmities and for many reasons, inherited or not, drug addicted parents or not.

These individuals are not the 'norm' upon which my conclusions are drawn. One does not make a general statement on dysfunctional individuals and apply it to the norm as a factor.

This forum is predominantly of the opinion that emotions are part of the genetic inheritance each new human carries. I debate that by stating that we are not born with any emotions but rather acquire them as we live.

That these emotions, learned feelings, become automatic and form the personality of each individual in highly personal and unique ways.

A normally functioning human being will have emotions of all kinds and they happen almost serendipitously, just by living and growing and surviving. Logic and reason on the other hand do not happen automatically, but rather must be focused upon with all the tools the human mind has to offer.

Few people ever question why they 'believe' as they do about anything, their emotional content is taken as a given that they never question.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=gauchecritic]I will say no more. We 'neck' them both where I come from.



Being 'well accepted' doesn't make it true. Being 'politically correct' doesn't make it false.
By your own 'logic' it is now 'well accepted' that there is no dividing line between the sexes, only a sliding scale on both sides.

Petards, ergo and ipso facto are some of the words that spring to mind.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I am sure I did not coin the term or phrase, but the 'sliding scale' concept was part of a lecture I delivered at a college about thirty years ago.

In normative terms, the reproductive systems of men and women, do not exist on a sliding scale, nor do the associated functions of the male and the female, men don't have an uterus and women do not manufacture spermatazoa.

Men don't make breast milk, lactate and women don't fart.

ahem...lil levity there...

That 'sliding scale' analogy works only of that portion on the psyche that is open to nurture and there is ample debate on just how expansive or limited that is.

There are 'absolute' gender differences and those differences engender an entirely different lifestyle and outlook for male and female alike.

There are many 'absolute' dividing lines between male and female regardless of how many would like to think otherwise.

My quest is and has always been but to understand the basic nature of each and both and how they can best relate to each other and to the nature of man and his associations with others, with community and with the wider world.

It is not always pleasant to be the only one expressing one side of a discussion, but I see that changing almost daily now as time goes by.

There are actually some real questions popping up on thread after thread and that is comforting to me.

amicus...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

These individuals are not the 'norm' upon which my conclusions are drawn. One does not make a general statement on dysfunctional individuals and apply it to the norm as a factor.

I never said it was the norm, nor did I read the published article to say that folks affected in this way to be the majority either.

This forum is predominantly of the opinion that emotions are part of the genetic inheritance each new human carries. I debate that by stating that we are not born with any emotions but rather acquire them as we live.

I've been a member of this forum for several years now, and I would not conclude that the masses have such an opinion on the genesis of emotions. All I was trying to say is that it's damn hard to have the 'socially correct' emotions that become our sense of morality without the proper hardware in our heads to produce such a response, be it right or wrong.

That these emotions, learned feelings, become automatic and form the personality of each individual in highly personal and unique ways.

A normally functioning human being will have emotions of all kinds and they happen almost serendipitously, just by living and growing and surviving. Logic and reason on the other hand do not happen automatically, but rather must be focused upon with all the tools the human mind has to offer.

Few people ever question why they 'believe' as they do about anything, their emotional content is taken as a given that they never question.

amicus...

I agree that many emotions require a fair amount of cognizant awareness to have the kind of impact that evokes a 'felt' response, but I also believe some are innate and quite without a logical explanation.

I think the analogy of killing farm animals for use by a family (food, warmth, etc.) is quite a different situation than targeting another human being simply because they mean to do harm to a population of people. The only time I've ever imagined I could intervene in a situation like that is where I am directly responsible for those in danger (i.e. protecting my family from an intruder, protecting my class of toddlers from a very drugged and enraged father, etc.)