Morals????

[SimonBrooke]

simon said Nevertheless, carving your neighbours up with a machete during a genocide harms people. Therefore, it is an issue about morals. Getting naked on a nude beach doesn't harm anyone. Therefore it is not an issue about morals.

i don't know if you saw our other thread about psycholgist Haidt, but limiting 'moral' issues, or the scope of 'morality' to what harms others, is not exactly standard in the West, nor in Jewish or Xian thought. for example, your having sex with your sister (using 'protection' or even if she's sterile).

It's important to be clear about the distinction between acts that are wrong and acts that are impolitic. If you choose to apply 'immoral' to acts which are merely impolitic, you blur that distinction, and that's something which hegemonists have sought to do throughout human history.

For example, say you're a male tourist visiting Saudi Arabia. You shouldn't kill a man to steal his watch, because that's immoral. You would be unwise to have sex with a man, because that offends against local custom and might get you stoned. You shouldn't eat a pork chop that's been lying on the butcher's counter all day, because in that climate it's likely to make you ill.

i know it's not exactly the same sphere, but legal codes too, generally embrace more than 'non harm' issus [i'm assuming there is a fair overlap of moral and legal codes; and that most people find most of what's against a legal code, esp. in criminal law, to be against one's moral code, though not vice versa.]

I deny there is in general a 'fair overlap' between moral and legal codes. In my example, eating the chop, having sex with the second man, and killing the first man are all illegal under local law. It isn't wise to offend against local law: si fueris Rōmae, Rōmānō vīvitō mōre. However there's a qualitative difference between not doing something because it is against the law or local custom, and one may be punished for it, and not doing something because it is wrong. In any country of the world, the fit between law and morality is very poor.

In the modern West, usury is not merely not a crime, it's actively encouraged. Withholding food from the starving is not merely not a crime, it's a practice protected by the largest body of law of all - how many people have been punished, in the US and in Europe, for stealing food when destitute?

WR The problem is that some inhibtions are important. If this was just a theoritical problem I wouldn't bother mentioning it. But look at what has happened in Bosnia, Rawanda, Darfur, DR Congo, Liberia -- you can add your own entries to the list. For that matter gang warfare in the US.

i do see a kind of parallel, in that going nude as well as killing [e.g. by soldeirs in their platoon] can be behaviors induced or enforced by group pressures, depending on the circumstances and context, as specified. i'm not sure i'd call it simple 'loosening of inhibitions'. in groups (e.g., crowds and lynch mobs), there is a kind of 'group mind' that can take over; each individual's impulses--e.g. murderous-- are drawn upon, evoked, and channeled.

I don't - in the least - disagree with this. You're absolutely right. Groups can have feedback dynamics which lead to normal people engaging in horribly abnormal behaviours, as in former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda and Liberia in our lifetimes (I'd argue that the Darfur and Congolese problems are a slightly different class, because essentially they are inter- rather than intra- communal conflicts; but the Lord's Resistance Army is another case of horrific intra- communal violence).

Groups can motivate people to do all sorts of things. Some of them are good, some bad, some neutral. To say these are all manifestations of group behaviour is true. To say that they are therefore of the same class as one another seems to me wholly false.

isn't it odd that 'group pressures' seem both to generate portions of 'morality' AND to generate some of the grossest violations of it, e.g in Ruanda.

I don't believe - at all - that group pressures ever 'generate portions of morality'.

it's well known that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" [KJV], in fact and in context, meant "Thou shalt not murder," and thus expressly excluded battlefield behavior of soldiers.

That is such a perversion of the truth as to border on the lie. It has been argued that Moses' prohibition was not against killing but against murder; of that I am not qualified to judge. But Jesus is perfectly clear and unambiguous (Matthew 5, 21-24; Matthew 5, 38-48). No-one - no-one ever - can be both a Christian and a soldier.

Mind you, of course, in the same passage (Matthew 5, 28) Jesus also condemns the appreciation of beautiful women, and that is one of the three reasons I am not a Christian - I not only can't obey that rule, I don't wish to obey that rule, and, more, I think it would be wrong to obey that rule.

But when it comes to the matter of killing, I'm wholly in agreement with Jesus. Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; if we all lived by that rule, the world would indeed be a better place.

 

[Pure]

reply to simon

simon,

your posts are generally excellent and contribute a lot, here. further there is a large measure of agreement between us, as to basics regarding morality; IMO you correctly emphasize humane treatment of others as the absolute core.

so in a friendly way, i will outline a few cavils regarding your position.

pure said earlier:

//it's well known that the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" [KJV], in fact and in context, meant "Thou shalt not murder," and thus expressly excluded battlefield behavior of soldiers. //

Simon said: That is such a perversion of the truth as to border on the lie. It has been argued that Moses' prohibition was not against killing but against murder; of that I am not qualified to judge. But Jesus is perfectly clear and unambiguous (Matthew 5, 21-24; Matthew 5, 38-48). No-one - no-one ever - can be both a Christian and a soldier

==


Pure replies now : I spoke of the 6th commandment in its context: As a Jewish commandment. It's not just 'argument', I'm making [as to its limitation to murder], it's supported by the best English translations in the Tanakh, e.g., of the Jewish Publication Society (Philadelphia, 1986) at Ex 20:13

"You shall not murder."

Further the most recent Protestant translation the NRSV (Anglicized, OUP, Oxford 1989, 1995) at Ex 20:13

You shall not murder ('kill' is mentioned in a note as a secondary reading).

Now, as to early Xian readings of Jesus' teaching, i mostly agree with you, being of quaker persuasion.

the early Xian church, for the first four centuries was pretty united, as you say, towards pacifism. BUT it's crucial to note that it was a question of *serving in the Roman army*. Xtian thinkers opposed it: See, for example, Justinus, Irenaeus, Clement, Origen:

[[http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/content.../ecvowams.htm; Early Christian View of War and Military Service]]

The same writer, however notes the mainstream deviation, carried forward by Luther and Calvin:
IV. PACIFIST PRINCIPLES RETAINED ONLY BY RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AFTER THRID CENTURY A.D.

You are surely aware that the pacifist interpretation of Jesus' teaching is NOT that of most Roman Catholic or Protestant churches today, though a minority of individuals in both fit the bill.


As to the passage you cite, reading in NRSV, Jesus expressly says, "You have heard it was said in ancient times, 'you shall not murder.'...." (which is also Jesus reading at 19:18), which supports my reading, above. He continues "if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment".. and asserts that if you say "thou fool" you may be subject to "the hell of fire" (22).

at 28, looking at a woman with lust is equated to having 'committed adultery with her in [the] heart'

Further 5:38 "You have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth' but i say to you,
Do not resist an evil doer. But if anyone strike you on the right cheek, turn the other one also."

These passages arguably refer to a certain inner spirit (peace, non-agression, non-retaliation). And they reek of hyperbole if understood as requirements for acting morally; at very least they state an ideal not approachable by any human being. For in practice morality has to concentrate on acts. [ADDED: It might be mentioned that not harboring feeling of vengefulness, not carrying grudges, and forgiving, are concept in the Jewish life of Jesus' time and before; nor strictly speaking was 'an eye for an eye' a common Jewish practice of the time.]


---

The essential point is that as circumstances change, some xian doctrines, had to. Once xians are involved in governing, certain adaptations have to be made, while keeping the core. Pennsylvania was set up as an examplary quaker community, and necessarily had police, a justice system, etc. If a xian can be a policeman or sherriff or judge, the leap to 'soldier' is NOT out of the question or crystal clear.

 

[WRJames]

To Pure --

There is a lot of controversy in today's church about the compromises made for Constantine -- when Christianity went from being pacifist to embracing the concept of "just war." This is surely an example of the slippery slope at its most treacherous.

To Verdad --

What is the point of concocting some stupid scenario and debunking it? There are enough real world situations that confront us? Sure you can tear down your own strawman -- but tell me a little more about what you think about events in the real world where rape and murder become the social norm?


And to all --

My training as a mathematician is to look at a problem by examining "boundary conditions." A logical proposition may look fine within a certain range, but it may break down miserably at the boundaries. And you are just wasting your time claiming something is true if it can be easily refuted by looking at the boundary cases. I hope that makes it a bit clearer why I might mention exremes in the same breath.

 

[Stella_Omega]

AS far as I know james, it's actually pretty difficult to get a society to the point of genocide. Africa? It's been more than two hundred years since the Europeans showed up and began to dismantled the ecology-- natural, social, and political. Eastern Europe? take hundreds of small tribes and tell them they all are now one country. Add a half-century of deprivation, and through two monotheistic religions at each other's faces.

These places make it seem as if genocide is easy to induce-- but you are forgetting the hundreds of years of miserable history that makes the people there so susceptible.

Treating problems of morality by looking at the boundary cases is really useless. That's what morality is-- estabishing boundaries.

For one thing, you are still correlating nudity with murder-- one is a tactile preference, the other is an extreme action which entails a shitload of energy one way or another. The two are not in the same class.
You aren't taking into consideration the varied motivations for various behaviors.

 

[Verdad]

To Pure --


To Verdad --

What is the point of concocting some stupid scenario and debunking it? There are enough real world situations that confront us? Sure you can tear down your own strawman -- but tell me a little more about what you think about events in the real world where rape and murder become the social norm?

See, I told you it would be a waste of time. Do you know how I knew? You never state a position in the first place. You didn't do it before and you don't it now.

"Genocide is bad and we should be wary of nudity." Is that a position? No, it's not. That's two unrelated thoughts, randomly connected with an "and". The opponents are supposed to bust themselves deciphering where the hell that came from, to which you then smugly say, "No, that's not what I meant!" and retreat into some other topic.

So how about you make your statement? What is it? "Nudity is bad?" "Nudism is bad?" "Nudity, while not bad per se, fosters sexual license?" "Nudity, while not bad per se, fosters violence?" Something else?

If you just want to say that wartime atrocities are horrible, I doubt you'll find anyone to disagree with you. If, however, you want to establish a connection between nudity and wartime atrocities, you're going to have to present some coherent thought and some evidence. Until then, a good day to you too.

 

[Verdad]

So as to inject some reality in this highly 'logical' discussion, I might as well add that I, while not a nudist myself, worked in a nudist camp. If my experience was representative, and I've no reason to think otherwise, someone going to a nudist camp with hopes of rowdy and bawdy behavior would be, if anything, sorely disappointed.

What the people did in their tents and campers, I don't know, don't care, and it's no one else's business either. What I do know is how they acted in public. Which was exactly as any other group of tourists, only tidier and quieter.

They were mostly family people. There was no 'licentious behavior' on the beach or in other facilities. There were never any complaints about noise, let alone theft or violence, and when a group would leave, they'd leave the place cleaner than it was, with nary a scrap of paper in sight. The next group would be the same.

This is not a coincidence, as nudists tend to be deeply conscientious about environment. Rather than cast uninvited leers at other people's spouses or ambush them on the way out of the showers, they come to enjoy the peace and quiet and feel one with nature.

Not much by way of a Lit story material, but then, neither do most cops accept blowjobs in exchange for revoking a speeding ticket.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Genocide is actually very easy to incite. In the 20th Century we had Russia under Stalin (maybe 20 million exterminated), Germany under Hitler, America probably killed 2 million in Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.

Our own Civil War killed 690,000.

 

[WRJames]

AS far as I know james, it's actually pretty difficult to get a society to the point of genocide. Africa? It's been more than two hundred years since the Europeans showed up and began to dismantled the ecology-- natural, social, and political. Eastern Europe? take hundreds of small tribes and tell them they all are now one country. Add a half-century of deprivation, and through two monotheistic religions at each other's faces.

Well, yes, quite true.

These places make it seem as if genocide is easy to induce-- but you are forgetting the hundreds of years of miserable history that makes the people there so susceptible.
.

Ah -- here I beg to differ. First, a vast number of the people on this planet have hundreds of years of miserable history, not to mention a miserable present. And remember -- I was talking about the murder/rape bit, with genocide as a side issue.

Treating problems of morality by looking at the boundary cases is really useless. That's what morality is-- estabishing boundaries.

Oh dear -- this reminds me of an experience my wife had when she was teaching at Wellesley. They put her on some sort of faculty symposium doing some sort of ethical something, and at one point she made a remark that this didn't have much to do with what she was teaching in the Calculus course. So that aksed her -- what did you teach, and she said it was the limit theorem. So the response was that -- well at least you are teaching them that there are limits.

A word can mean something very different in different contexts. When I am talking about boundary conditions, this is not the same thing as ethical boundaries. More, extremes of experience.

For one thing, you are still correlating nudity with murder-- one is a tactile preference, the other is an extreme action which entails a shitload of energy one way or another. The two are not in the same class.
You aren't taking into consideration the varied motivations for various behaviors.

I am not and never was correlating them. Still, I would argue that public nudity is not a simple tactile preference. See my previous post on nude beach behavior issues.

 

[WRJames]

See, I told you it would be a waste of time. Do you know how I knew? You never state a position in the first place. You didn't do it before and you don't it now..

Well yes -- that is quite true. I was merely raising some points for discussion.

"Genocide is bad and we should be wary of nudity." Is that a position? No, it's not. That's two unrelated thoughts, randomly connected with an "and". The opponents are supposed to bust themselves deciphering where the hell that came from, to which you then smugly say, "No, that's not what I meant!" and retreat into some other topic...

Well, really, no one asked you to jump in as an "opponent" -- and really you seem to be eager to set up something that you can then demolish with glee.

"So how about you make your statement? What is it? "Nudity is bad?" "Nudism is bad?" "Nudity, while not bad per se, fosters sexual license?" "Nudity, while not bad per se, fosters violence?" Something else?

Oh -- not at all. I'm all in favor of nudity. I thought that was fairly obvious.

If you just want to say that wartime atrocities are horrible, I doubt you'll find anyone to disagree with you. If, however, you want to establish a connection between nudity and wartime atrocities, you're going to have to present some coherent thought and some evidence. Until then, a good day to you too.

I though the train of thought was fairly obvious to begin with, but let's spell it out again in small words and simple sentences.

We begin with -- what is morality and why do we even need it.

Next -- some "moral" restricitions seem pretty stupid. For example, having to wear clothes at the beach.

However -- watch out. The history of the twentieth and twenty first century makes it all to obvious that people can indulge is some really bad behavior at the drop of a hat.

 

[WRJames]

So as to inject some reality in this highly 'logical' discussion, I might as well add that I, while not a nudist myself, worked in a nudist camp. If my experience was representative, and I've no reason to think otherwise, someone going to a nudist camp with hopes of rowdy and bawdy behavior would be, if anything, sorely disappointed.

What the people did in their tents and campers, I don't know, don't care, and it's no one else's business either. What I do know is how they acted in public. Which was exactly as any other group of tourists, only tidier and quieter.

They were mostly family people. There was no 'licentious behavior' on the beach or in other facilities. There were never any complaints about noise, let alone theft or violence, and when a group would leave, they'd leave the place cleaner than it was, with nary a scrap of paper in sight. The next group would be the same.

This is not a coincidence, as nudists tend to be deeply conscientious about environment. Rather than cast uninvited leers at other people's spouses or ambush them on the way out of the showers, they come to enjoy the peace and quiet and feel one with nature.

Not much by way of a Lit story material, but then, neither do most cops accept blowjobs in exchange for revoking a speeding ticket.

There certainly is this brand of nudist. However, when I was going to Hippie Hollow, there was enough public sex going on to make it rather interesting. This was a while ago, and the place may be much tamer now.

The brand of nudist you describing can be more uptight and inhibited than folks who have their clothes on.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There certainly is this brand of nudist. However, when I was going to Hippie Hollow, there was enough public sex going on to make it rather interesting. This was a while ago, and the place may be much tamer now.

The brand of nudist you describing can be more uptight and inhibited than folks who have their clothes on.

Was this "Hippie Hollow in Golden Gate Park in SF? I sometimes went there, but not very often, and I never saw any public sex. I certainly would have noticed, and wanted to join in. That was over forty years ago.

 

[WRJames]

Was this "Hippie Hollow in Golden Gate Park in SF? I sometimes went there, but not very often, and I never saw any public sex. I certainly would have noticed, and wanted to join in. That was over forty years ago.

No -- in Austin, Texas of all places.

 

[Verdad]

Well yes -- that is quite true. I was merely raising some points for discussion.



Well, really, no one asked you to jump in as an "opponent" -- and really you seem to be eager to set up something that you can then demolish with glee.



Oh -- not at all. I'm all in favor of nudity. I thought that was fairly obvious.



I though the train of thought was fairly obvious to begin with, but let's spell it out again in small words and simple sentences.

We begin with -- what is morality and why do we even need it.

Next -- some "moral" restricitions seem pretty stupid. For example, having to wear clothes at the beach.

However -- watch out. The history of the twentieth and twenty first century makes it all to obvious that people can indulge is some really bad behavior at the drop of a hat.

Well, WR, I recall beginning in an entirely neutral tone and even deciding to let drop what might have been just a slip of your mind. I also recall you responded with condescension. If you want to sneer at people, it don't do to call them mean when you miscalculate.

That said, I've made no estimates of your character or intelligence in my posts. I've merely addressed your 'position', which seems to me to remain the same hodge-podge of digressions and non sequiturs it was in the beginning. I'm not interested in debunking it again, though, and won't. I do choose to respond to the outrageousness of this question:

but tell me a little more about what you think about events in the real world where rape and murder become the social norm?

Murder and rape are never a 'social norm'. Earlier on this thread, JBJ told a story of one of the worst known societies, and not even there were these behaviors the 'norm'. To imagine that's what they were in say, Bosnia, would be just breathtakingly ignorant.

If I were looking for a cheap shot, I might say, "Wanna know what did it in Yugoslavia? Religion did." But no. Religion was no more the cause than some esoteric 'loosening of inhibitions'.

The people of Yugoslavia lived side by side quite peacefully, married each other, mixed with each other, and observed the same social norms as the rest of the western world. The economy wasn't all that rosy, though, and the interests groups that would have profited from the federation's disintegration gained political power and revived religion and nationality to use them as levers to mobilize the masses. Which, one might add, is always the case. A civil war broke out—not unlike in another federation some time ago—and then, at certain points of the war, the things got uglier than at others and spruced up the war crimes and the attempted genocide.

That's about as simplistic a break down as is needed for this occasion, but it illustrates quite well the point about 'norms'. Murder and rape only become 'norms' in the insanity of wars and riots, and are always directed at the members of some other group, some ominous 'them' which get to be perceived as less than human or dangerous for one's own group's survival.

The factors that lead to this are many; power and monetary gain are always in the background; religion or patriotism are often the tools. The thing you're not likely to find to contribute one way or the other, though, are relaxed attitudes toward sexuality.

Peace,
Verdad

 

[Stella_Omega]

Next -- some "moral" restricitions seem pretty stupid. For example, having to wear clothes at the beach.

However -- watch out. The history of the twentieth and twenty first century makes it all to obvious that people can indulge is some really bad behavior at the drop of a hat.

This still sounds as if you're correlating nudity with genocide. "Seem" pretty stupid implies that there might be an underlying reason that makes the prohibition righteous-- and your next sentence implies that the reason is to prevent global bloodshed or something.

Come on James, you're a writer-- get your words under your control, and communicate more exactly!

 

[NoJo]

This still sounds as if you're correlating nudity with genocide. "Seem" pretty stupid implies that there might be an underlying reason that makes the prohibition righteous-- and your next sentence implies that the reason is to prevent global bloodshed or something.

Come on James, you're a writer-- get your words under your control, and communicate more exactly!

My words are never under fucking control, who knows where they'll take me -- probably into a deserted bus terminal in an anonymous Finnish seaport

 

[SimonBrooke]

Next -- some "moral" restricitions seem pretty stupid. For example, having to wear clothes at the beach.

I'm really having trouble understanding this. Are you saying there's something 'moral' about a dress code? How could there be? It's at best a social convention, at worst a shibboleth.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My words are never under fucking control, who knows where they'll take me -- probably into a deserted bus terminal in an anonymous Finnish seaport

If they take you to my door, remember to knock twice and whistle so I know it's you.

 

[oggbashan]

...If I were looking for a cheap shot, I might say, "Wanna know what did it in Yugoslavia? Religion did." But no. Religion was no more the cause than some esoteric 'loosening of inhibitions'.

The people of Yugoslavia lived side by side quite peacefully, married each other, mixed with each other, and observed the same social norms as the rest of the western world. The economy wasn't all that rosy, though, and the interests groups that would have profited from the federation's disintegration gained political power and revived religion and nationality to use them as levers to mobilize the masses. Which, one might add, is always the case. A civil war broke out—not unlike in another federation some time ago—and then, at certain points of the war, the things got uglier than at others and spruced up the war crimes and the attempted genocide.
...
Peace,
Verdad

I travelled in Yugoslavia for a while in the early 1960s. The tensions were visible then, left over from the Second World War when some Yugoslavs fought for the Nazis and some fought against them, and their fellow Yugoslavs...


Og

 

[NoJo]

If they take you to my door, remember to knock twice and whistle so I know it's you.

Yes but that's just what you'd be expecting

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes but that's just what you'd be expecting

I'll have your martini ready, is all I'm saying...

 

[NoJo]

I'll have your martini ready, is all I'm saying...

Okay, I'll get a job in advertising in the 1960's. Make sure you're wearing Dior

 

[Stella_Omega]

Okay, I'll get a job in advertising in the 1960's. Make sure you're wearing Dior

I'll get my hair cut by Sassoon and wear white eyeliner and lipstick.

 

[WRJames]

I'm really having trouble understanding this. Are you saying there's something 'moral' about a dress code? How could there be? It's at best a social convention, at worst a shibboleth.

Well, if you look back to how SeaCat launched this thread, nudity is the first thing mentioned.

I would like to agree with you and have done with it -- personally I would like to be able to go naked whenever and wherever. I do that a lot anyway, but at some risk.

A couple of caveats though. Islam has a specific prohibition against public nudity.

The other problems I outlined in a previous post. It's tempting to say that nudity has nothing to do sexuality -- the "nude but not lewd" concept. But that simply is not true. Of course, clothing can also have a sexual impact, sometimes more so that complete lack of clothing.

 

[WRJames]

That's about as simplistic a break down as is needed for this occasion, but it illustrates quite well the point about 'norms'. Murder and rape only become 'norms' in the insanity of wars and riots, and are always directed at the members of some other group, some ominous 'them' which get to be perceived as less than human or dangerous for one's own group's survival.

Okay -- this is probably where we differ sharply. You are maintaining that killing are raping are ABERRANT behaviors which only occur under extreme circumstances.

I would counter with the observation that pillage and rape have been more or less constant activities throughout all human cultures. We would like to think that we have moved beyond this, but look at the Japanese in China, Germans in Russia, Russians in Germany, and, of course, Darfur, Liberia, DR Congo, Uganda. In Chile, soon after the Allende regime was overthrown by a CIA plot, rape and torture centers were set up to process his constituents. This happened within weeks. In Mexico, drug gangs are kinapping people and torturing them to death just for the fun of it.

So this is probably the issue we have been dancing around -- are people innately good, and moral codes just an inconvenience? Or do we have some not so pleasant habits that need to be recognized?

 

[The_Fool]

I'll get my hair cut by Sassoon and wear white eyeliner and lipstick.

Why do I get the feeling that you did that already.