Morality

[elsol]

I think you may have gotten something backwards, there.

Roxanne shifted the question to a child you know... her own.

The moral question is a child 'you don't know' and my assumption is that you won't know him/her afterwards so you can't split the profit. You therefore will not be able to tell the child "It was for your own good.". You have no control of how the child will take it or how his/her parents will explain it.

So imagine yourself as a child, you get walked into this room, probably with white walls, there's a person standing in front of you and from the loudspeaker comes

$20 Dollars
$40 Dollars
$50 Dollars

Then the person in front of you jabs your palm.

No explanation. No nothing. You're just led out of the room.

I know that a lot of what I believe and think come from singular occurences in my life... so I wonder what the child will learn from this experience.

 

[WRJames]

Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on, and constrained by, a handful of evolved psychological systems. Liberals rely mainly on two of these, involving emotional sensitivity to harm and fairness. Conservatives draw on these two, plus three more: sensitivity to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.

“We all start off with the same evolved moral capacities,” said Haidt, “but then we each learn only a subset of the available human virtues and values. We often end up demonizing people with different political ideologies because of our inability to appreciate the moral motives operating on the other side of a conflict.

I admit I haven't read the rest of the paper, but this little snippet seems so mired in our little disagreements within contemporary Western culture. These may seem enormous to us, and we get really worked up about them, but if you start to look a little further afield, either in time or geographically, the spectrum of human behavior that is considered, or has been considered, "moral" by one culture or another, at one time or another, is so enormous that the concept of an instinctive, innate morality becomes hard to sustain.

One of the most frustrating experiences I had in college was a course in ethics, taught in the philosophy department. This was during a phase in my life when I was not at all religious, and I was just discovering the riches of Western culture. I was sure that this course would be devoted to explaining how to handle ethical issues, how to be a "good" person, based on purely rational and verifiable precepts. Instead, it just tore down one ethical system after another as being a sham.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It is a word game. Besides, no one said it was your child, in the example it's "a child." There are other ways to pay for a child's college. Either way, playing with the the wording seems to be an "acceptable" way to get around answering a question, or defining a position.

The example is one that I spelled out in detail in earlier posts.

"There are other ways to pay for a child's college."

You're dodging. I told you - the other way is I take a second job and deprive the child of my personal care for several hours a day. That's it, that's the only way this child will ever get to go to college. The judgement that it is greatly in the best of interest of the child to obtain a college education has been reviewed and found sound. Now choose.

Do you refuse to choose? That's what I was talking about in post 20, post 28 and post 29 on this thread.

 

[cloudy]

The example is one that I spelled out in detail in earlier posts.

"There are other ways to pay for a child's college."

You're dodging. I told you - the other way is I take a second job and deprive the child of my personal care for several hours a day. That's it, that's the only way this child will ever get to go to college. The judgement that it is greatly in the best of interest of the child to obtain a college education has been reviewed and found sound. Now choose.

Do you refuse to choose? That's what I was talking about in post 20, post 28 and post 29 on this thread.

Read elsol's post where he clarifies, and then maybe we'll talk about it. I won't hurt a child, not for any money.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." ~ Freewill, Rush.

 

[S-Des]

In the example, the alternative to the finger prick is that I will take a second job to provide for a college fund, depriving the child my personal attention for hours each day. Who is prepared to declare that this choice is really as unambiguous as some are asserting here?

How 'bout if we change the question....If aliens came down and offered to make you king of the world, if only you'd let them anal probe you...

Where's Elsol with one of his well-timed *burps*????

 

[rgraham666]

Old story.

A philosopher goes up to a young woman at a party and asks her, "Would you got to bed with me for a million dollars?"

After thinking a moment she replies, "Yes, I would."

He then asks, "Would you got to bed with me for fifty dollars?"

She's quite put out. "What do you think I am? A whore?"

"We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I see the item in the OP is reported in my daily paper today.

There's one thing I think we can all like about this. It's removing discussions of "morality" from conventional religious terms, like illicit sex and all that rot, and returning it to the proper sphere of humanistic pro-social behavior.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

How 'bout if we change the question....If aliens came down and offered to make you king of the world, if only you'd let them anal probe you...

Where's Elsol with one of his well-timed *burps*????

I was waiting for that.

Well OK, I've spun the example into a rather elaborate scenario, but the OP started it. And the supposed "moral question" it posed - would you hurt a child for money for yourself - is such a no brainer that it's boring. My alternative is interesting and somewhat challenging - look at my last response to Cloudy and tell me what you would choose, S-Des.

 

[Guest]

Old story.

A philosopher goes up to a young woman at a party and asks her, "Would you got to bed with me for a million dollars?"

After thinking a moment she replies, "Yes, I would."

He then asks, "Would you got to bed with me for fifty dollars?"

She's quite put out. "What do you think I am? A whore?"

"We've already determined that. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Excellent.

 

[WRJames]

I see the item in the OP is reported in my daily paper today.

There's one thing I think we can all like about this. It's removing discussions of "morality" from conventional religious terms, like illicit sex and all that rot, and returning it to the proper sphere of humanistic pro-social behavior.

To think that there would be any agreement that morality consists of "humanistic pro-social behavior" is to ignore most of the human experience. Here is a little example of "morality" from the Koran

[4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Well, you're probably thinking, that's not MY tradition -- so try this one from the Bible -- Numbers 31 --

1
1 The LORD said to Moses,
2
"Avenge the Israelites on the Midianites, and then you shall be taken to your people."
3
So Moses told the people, "Select men from your midst and arm them for war, to attack the Midianites and execute the LORD'S vengeance on them.
4
From each of the tribes of Israel you shall send a band of one thousand men to war."
5
From the clans of Israel, therefore, a thousand men of each tribe were levied, so that there were twelve thousand men armed for war.
6
Moses sent them out on the campaign, a thousand from each tribe, with Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the priest for the campaign, who had with him the sacred vessels and the trumpets for sounding the alarm.
7
They waged war against the Midianites, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male among them.
8
2 Besides those slain in battle, they killed the five Midianite kings: Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba; and they also executed Balaam, son of Beor, with the sword.
9
But the Israelites kept the women of the Midianites with their little ones as captives, and all their herds and flocks and wealth as spoil,
10
while they set on fire all the towns where they had settled and all their encampments.
11
Then they took all the booty, with the people and beasts they had captured, and brought the captives, together with the spoils and booty,
12
to Moses and the priest Eleazar and to the Israelite community at their camp on the plains of Moab, along the Jericho stretch of the Jordan.
13
When Moses and the priest Eleazar, with all the princes of the community, went outside the camp to meet them,
14
Moses became angry with the officers of the army, the clan and company commanders, who were returning from combat.
15
"So you have spared all the women!" he exclaimed.
16
"Why, they are the very ones who on Balaam's advice prompted the unfaithfulness of the Israelites toward the LORD in the Peor affair, which began the slaughter of the LORD'S community.
17
3 Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man.
18
But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man.

And you can just imagine what other acts these "moral" precepts have inspired through the ages.

 

[S-Des]

I was waiting for that.

Well OK, I've spun the example into a rather elaborate scenario, but the OP started it. And the supposed "moral question" it posed - would you hurt a child for money for yourself - is such a no brainer that it's boring. My alternative is interesting and somewhat challenging - look at my last response to Cloudy and tell me what you would choose, S-Des.

I already answered it in my first post here. I had the choice of making more money or spending time with my daughter and chose her (quite the no-brainer). Injuring her to get some of that money wouldn't even enter my mind (and might cause intense pain to the person who made the proposal). The pin-prick thing is too much of a hypothetical because it could never happen. Reality would be, Would you let me do whatever I wanted with your child for an hour? or Would you service me in exchange for drugs? These are such a 'slap in the face' of reality that I can't imagine anyone here agreeing to anything remotely like them. Tougher ones might be, Would you turn your child in for a crime they committed? or Would you testify against them or offer a bogus alibi? Maybe, Would you rather know if your spouse cheated on you or live in blissful ignorance?

Those would be the types of questions that could honestly show a split in how people perceive morality.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Read elsol's post where he clarifies, and then maybe we'll talk about it. I won't hurt a child, not for any money.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." ~ Freewill, Rush.

You mean El Sol's post No. 51? It's a no brainer - of course that's immoral. It's such a no brainer that I wonder why the subjects of the OP even raised it.

"I won't hurt a child, not for any money." Any money for yourself - I believe you. I can't imagine a single person on this web site or IRL who would do that.

OK I answered El Sol, so lets talk about it - back to posts 45 and 53.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I already answered it in my first post here. I had the choice of making more money or spending time with my daughter and chose her (quite the no-brainer). Injuring her to get some of that money wouldn't even enter my mind (and might cause intense pain to the person who made the proposal). The pin-prick thing is too much of a hypothetical because it could never happen. Reality would be, Would you let me do whatever I wanted with your child for an hour? or Would you service me in exchange for drugs? These are such a 'slap in the face' of reality that I can't imagine anyone here agreeing to anything remotely like them. Tougher ones might be, Would you turn your child in for a crime they committed? or Would you testify against them or offer a bogus alibi? Maybe, Would you rather know if your spouse cheated on you or live in blissful ignorance?

Those would be the types of questions that could honestly show a split in how people perceive morality.

Oh, I think my example though artificial is perhaps not so much showing a split but capable of generating some genuine soul searching. It's outside people's comfort zone, and not one on which they can make easy pronouncements. Like those you've made here, with respect.

So no more dodging - I'm offering your two year old a college savings account with an initial investment of $20,000 if you go prick his finger the same way a nurse would when drawing blood.

 

[Guest]

Oh, I think my example though artificial is perhaps not so much showing a split but capable of generating some genuine soul searching. It's outside people's comfort zone, and not one on which they can make easy pronouncements. Like those you've made here, with respect.

So no more dodging - I'm offering your two year old a college savings account with an initial investment of $20,000 if you go prick his finger the same way a nurse would when drawing blood.

No.

...

 

[WRJames]

You mean El Sol's post No. 51? It's a no brainer - of course that's immoral. It's such a no brainer that I wonder why the subjects of the OP even raised it.

"I won't hurt a child, not for any money." Any money for yourself - I believe you. I can't imagine a single person on this web site or IRL who would do that.

OK I answered El Sol, so lets talk about it - back to posts 45 and 53.

Well, suppose the child "needs" to be "punished" -- for some reason which you believe to be valid. I spanked my children, once or twice, for reasons which I do not remember now, but I'm sure they do. Suppose someone explains to you the reason for the punishment, and offers you some amount of money to administer it.

I only bring this up to raise the issue of "justified" violence. Could you be convinced, under any circumstances, that pricking the child with the pin, to deliberately cause pain, could be justified (as a punishment for some transgression on the part of the child)?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

No.

...

Fair enough.

How much will you pay me to not tell him about it when he's 18?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, suppose the child "needs" to be "punished" -- for some reason which you believe to be valid. I spanked my children, once or twice, for reasons which I do not remember now, but I'm sure they do. Suppose someone explains to you the reason for the punishment, and offers you some amount of money to administer it.

I only bring this up to raise the issue of "justified" violence. Could you be convinced, under any circumstances, that pricking the child with the pin, to deliberately cause pain, could be justified (as a punishment for some transgression on the part of the child)?

Is that what you do when you bring the two year old for blood test? Does anyone imagine that "for your health" means any more to the child that "for your future college opportunities?"

Here's what would mean something.

"Awww, I'm sorry that hurt, honey. Let me kiss it and make it better. Let mama give you a big hug. All done, all better now. Poor baby. Give me a hug and a kiss. Do you think you'd rather go to State or Tech?"

(OK, not that last, but I couldn't resist.)

 

[WRJames]

Is that what you do when you bring the two year old for blood test? Does anyone imagine that "for your health" means any more to the child that "for your future college opportunities?"

Here's what would mean something.

"Awww, I'm sorry that hurt, honey. Let me kiss it and make it better. Let mama give you a big hug. All done, all better now. Poor baby. Give me a hug and a kiss. Do you think you'd rather go to State or Tech?"

(OK, not that last, but I couldn't resist.)

I was thinking more in terms of "take that, you little brat, that will teach you a lesson."

 

[elsol]

How 'bout if we change the question....If aliens came down and offered to make you king of the world, if only you'd let them anal probe you...

Where's Elsol with one of his well-timed *burps*????

*burp*

Define 'king of the world' and how they're going to enforce it.

See I can imagine a problem with this, they announce to the world "ElSol is now the boss of all of you... You're interesting race but we got what we came for... toodles!"

This would leave me in a bit of awkward situation.

I would possibly negotiate to a smaller more material reward for the probing.

 

[S-Des]

*burp*

Define 'king of the world' and how they're going to enforce it.

See I can imagine a problem with this, they announce to the world "ElSol is now the boss of all of you... You're interesting race but we got what we came for... toodles!"

This would leave me in a bit of awkward situation.

I would possibly negotiate to a smaller more material reward for the probing.

Thank you, it's about time. That's a chug for me (or was it 4 swigs? ).

That's a good point, I may have to consider the validity of my alien abduction theory....

 

[elsol]

Anybody else think these moral questions are bullshit?

Seriously: 100K cash money(tax-free), a needle, and a kid.

Who is betting that the person given the choice/opportunity isn't going to do it?

This shit is so much more about intellectual morality than on-the-spot, make a decision NOT to be a selfish bastard morality. Hasn't anybody watched reality television... jab a kid with a needle *passhuh* that's fucking small potatoes for what we would do with money or 15 minutes of fame on the line.

 

[cumallday]

I'm probably wrong

Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on and constrained by several evolved psychological systems and that we all start off with the same evolved moral capacities. I always believed it was the other way around. I always believed morality was innate and that our capacity is built on and constrained by psycho-social systems, i.e. ideologies - of which he seems to equate with morality, a point I disagree with.

I prefer Soren Kierkegaard's idea that morality is linked to protecting in each person the power to become fully themselves. Kierkegaard argues that this power needs safeguarding if each of us is to have the means to develop our own authentic identity, which includes an innate sense of morality. I see in his idea a universal moral core we must identify in ourselves as both individuals and societies, and that it may vary from culture to culture, but it nonetheless accomodates a shared moral base from which we are given the capacity to recognize and respect the Other to whom we do unto as we would like them to do unto ourselves.

Haidt also seems to champion cool dispassionate reasoning. That raised red flags for me.

As for sticking the pin in the child's hand - it sounds like an episode of Jackass. Slapping my father, my real life father, is the equivalent of digging my own psycho-social grave.

 

[cumallday]

How 'bout if we change the question....If aliens came down and offered to make you king of the world, if only you'd let them anal probe you...

Where's Elsol with one of his well-timed *burps*????

I'd do it for Sultan of Brunei.

 

[rgraham666]

Haidt argues that morality is a cultural construct built on and constrained by several evolved psychological systems and that we all start off with the same evolved moral capacities. I always believed it was the other way around. I always believed morality was innate and that our capacity is built on and constrained by psycho-social systems, i.e. ideologies - of which he seems to equate with morality, a point I disagree with.

I prefer Soren Kierkegaard's idea that morality is linked to protecting in each person the power to become fully themselves. Kierkegaard argues that this power needs safeguarding if each of us is to have the means to develop our own authentic identity, which includes an innate sense of morality. I see in his idea a universal moral core we must identify in ourselves as both individuals and societies, and that it may vary from culture to culture, but it nonetheless accomodates a shared moral base from which we are given the capacity to recognize and respect the Other to whom we do unto as we would like them to do unto ourselves.

Haidt also seems to champion cool dispassionate reasoning. That raised red flags for me.

As for sticking the pin in the child's hand - it sounds like an episode of Jackass. Slapping my father, my real life father, is the equivalent of digging my own psycho-social grave.

I think that Kierkegaard expresses my thoughts about morality and its foundation very well. Morality is a respect for The Other, those people who aren't part of the troop.

People without morals are never concerned with the welfare of others, only themselves and people just like them.

 

[neonlyte]

Ok... here's a real morality issue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm

A Dutch TV company is making a show where a kidney is offered to one of three deserving individuals all of whom require a kidney transplant. After uproar, calls are being made for the show to be cancelled, one wonders if on grounds of taste, morality or ethics.