Morals????

[Stella_Omega]

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

As a gawky pre-teen, and during the Mod Revival '79...

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?

What-- it's all one way or all the other? This is NOT a binary issue.

1)People are innately "good" in certain senses, because people are innately social. Even the drug mob members who are raping "for the fun of it" are doing so out of a spirit of cooperation-- only, not with us.

2)We have some not so pleasant habits that need to be recognised.

These facets of human behavior are not mutually incompatible.

3)Moral codes are necessary, but many things are misunderstood as "moral" when they are merely social constructs, and are, in fact, just an inconvenience. Is it possible to untangle the two categories? Yes.

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

Frankly, Seacat has that habit of connecting unrelated dots... You however, should not.

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.

Just as there's a difference between wearing jeans and mugging some stranger while wearing those jeans, there's an enormous difference between going nude and behaving badly while nude.

 

[WRJames]

As a gawky pre-teen, and during the Mod Revival '79...


What-- it's all one way or all the other? This is NOT a binary issue.

1)People are innately "good" in certain senses, because people are innately social. Even the drug mob members who are raping "for the fun of it" are doing so out of a spirit of cooperation-- only, not with us.

2)We have some not so pleasant habits that need to be recognised.

These facets of human behavior are not mutually incompatible.

3)Moral codes are necessary, but many things are misunderstood as "moral" when they are merely social constructs, and are, in fact, just an inconvenience. Is it possible to untangle the two categories? Yes.:

Well, fine, if you decide that anything inconvenient isn't really a moral prohibition, but only a "misunderstanding" then by definition I must be wrong or misinformed by holding up public nudity as a possible moral issue. The same for gay marriage, abortion, and a host of those other nagging little misunderstandings. Actually, I agree with you, but there is a large segment of the population that would not.

Just as there's a difference between wearing jeans and mugging some stranger while wearing those jeans, there's an enormous difference between going nude and behaving badly while nude.

I'd be interested in a more detailed response on my previous post on that topic. There are some nude venues with very strict rules of etiquette -- and others where just about anything goes. What would you consider "behaving badly?"

 

[amicus]

No Black and White, no right and wrong, no good or bad..my, oh, my, the cockroaches scurry when light floods in upon their habitat.

I therefore presume that cockroaches know the difference between light and dark, ahm, black & white, eh?

But not you folks, as you scurry from pillar to post and agonizingly contort to avoid the reality that nature presents you each and every day. are something to behold indeed.

Without the petty and infinite details, even a coarse macro view of existence informs one that the species survived because the accumulated choices made, were those that benefited human life.

The concept of morality/ethics, thus derived from those human actions that benefited the continuing survival of man.

All this chatter above individual or group actions, be it a single instance of rape or genocide, are of no lasting matter in a pursuit of basic premises concerning human morality. As if you could deduce from aberrant behavior, those aspects of human nature that could lead one to a conclusion; they merely reflect an unbalanced, insane human mind, the kind preserved in Literature, such as Marquis de Sade, and those mentally ill who write of Vampires and Werewolves, torture and misery.

This conversation, as it has developed, is more suitable to Medieval Europe, intellectually, than it is to the 21st Century.

This is not to insist that the 'black and white' of human actions, in terms or morals and ethics is 'settled law', it is by no means that; however, one might properly pursue the ethics and morality of 'cloning', gene manipulation, the creation of, 'boutique babies' and other such matters, as science and medicine truly push the envelope as man's knowledge has reached a point wherein human actions require strict and firm definitions.

Where is a good ethicist when we really need one? (defending same sex marriage?)

Such a deal.

Amicus


An afterthought before I even post this...Can it really be, that to defend abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, promiscuity, a whole list of 'moral conditions' set by religion, can it really be that this displayed confusion over moral issues is merely to defend your loss of faith and inability to conceive of an objective ethical system?

If so, one can understand the outpouring of hatred the majority here directs towards anyone espousing a firm position on any issue.

That is sad. It is also a waste of time. Certainly you can find other venues to gossip and social network among like minded individuals?

The modern contemporary world sorely needs those who can address moral and ethical issues on a rational basis, yet you fritter it away on nonsense.

***

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, fine, if you decide that anything inconvenient isn't really a moral prohibition, but only a "misunderstanding" then by definition I must be wrong or misinformed by holding up public nudity as a possible moral issue.

Yes, you are.

But don't misunderstand me. "Inconvenience" is a often enough a justifiable reason to prohibit a behavior in public-- that's what's called "public nuisance." it isn't immoral to play your rap music at level eleven, but it's so fucking irritating to the neighbors that it's worth making it illegal.

Nudity, in our society, has considerable nuisance value. That's fucked up, but time and a ton of reeducation will have to happen before we see any changes. Untill it does, we do have to apply common sense to the issue, I.E. cater to the lowest common denominator.

The same for gay marriage, abortion, and a host of those other nagging little misunderstandings. Actually, I agree with you, but there is a large segment of the population that would not.

That's because they are morally illiterate. I blame the churches.

I'd be interested in a more detailed response on my previous post on that topic. There are some nude venues with very strict rules of etiquette -- and others where just about anything goes. What would you consider "behaving badly?"

are you talking about this;

But, even the nude beaches have gradations of morality. Is it okay to walk around and gawk? How about getting an erection? How about public sex?
What about having children present at the nude beach -- is it a problem if they are naked?

Why shouldn't you gawk? I people-watch all the time, in public. can do this with some basic decorum? sure you can. If you act like an asshole, you'll get the same treatment any other asshole gets, clothed or not. It's not a matter of legality or morality.

Why shouldn't men get erections? men do. Should they shove it in the nearest female? Once more, refer to the above re: being a rapist at worst/ asshole at best, and basic decorum.

Public sex on a nude beach? We tend to avoid sex in public. Just because you're naked doesn't mean sex. If it does-- you need to get used to being naked more often.

And yes, absolutely, children should be present at public nude venues. They are part of the public. They're better at being naked than any of the rest of us.

 

[Pure]

note to ami,

thanks for that link,

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000292.php

Why Ayn Rand Matters: Metaphysics, Morals and Liberty

Posted by Elaine Sternberg

Philosopher Dr Elaine Sternberg explains why she believes that the writings of Ayn Rand remain important.

Ayn Rand deserves to be taken seriously, because she was right about three things of immense importance: metaphysics, morals and individual liberty.

---

This is a nice summary of the basic points of Ayn Rand, and i encourage interested persons to read it.

 

[amicus]

note to ami,
thanks for that link,

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/...ves/000292.php

You're welcome.

 

[Pure]

What *is* the thread about, now. Reply to WR.

I've been trying to wrap my head around the basic issue that is still 'hot', here, and it's evolved a little more broadly than cant's original, 'who says we can't go nude; who makes the rules?'

WR [partly quoted below] seems to want to consider a general grab bag of 'aberrant' behavior, and maintain that its darker and socially widespread manifestations pop up rather easily and often ("at the drop of a hat", in his words). Presumably then, he believes morality and law are designed to suppress such poppings up.

Verdad asks us to compare the normal with the insane situations; this point is interpreted by WR as follows: she believes, WR claims (in his words) // You are maintaining that killing are raping are ABERRANT behaviors which only occur under extreme circumstances.

I think this is a misunderstanding. i said above that the range of 'aberrant' behaviors is rather vast; in fact, it has both qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Some are merely unusual: Jill does not wear a bra, in visiting the Saturday farmer's market. Others are not uncommon and break certain moral codes: Jill commits adultery with her co worker. Then we arrive at breaches of the law: Joe goes through a red light on his way to work, late. Fred, Jill's boss embezzles $100,000 from customers' accounts. And of course things get rowdy on Sat night: Joe goes a little overboard in a bar fight and his bottle injures the head of the other combatant. Jill, as patron at a local bar, does a partial strip on the bar table.

There are other perfectly legal 'aberrations': Joe and his gay pals visit a secluded area, and lie about on the 'nude beach', and the cops [we'll say] turn a blind eye, since no neighboring homes are in the area.

There are wide disparities in the nature of the above acts. Disparities of consequence. They may in some-ham handed way, be lumped together as 'aberrant'; they are 'minor' breaches of norms, and in some cases, laws. Yes they show something about basic human nature, as it normally manifests.

WR, however wishes to go much further:

WR asks us to consider the [WR] "constant activities" of rape and pillage. WR is correct, in one sense: history books do not report on Joe, Jill, and Fred, but on the XYZ platoon attacking the village of ABC in the 123 War. And by God, Joe kills, and maybe with his buddies, rapes a local Jill they have come across.

Is Joes's murderous nature just 'popping out'? No. Joe been trained to kill on orders, and his unit viewed the video, "Kill the Enemy; Bring Freedom and American Way" to get them ready for battle, and the platoon was assured, by the chaplain. "God's on your side; the chaff goes into the fire." At the group suffered casualties. Joe saw his buddies bleeding. Well, yes, WR, these are 'aberrations' and they are indeed, common in the history books, the catalogs of 'war and pillage.'

At the same time 1) they aren’t comparable to the 'aberrant', but normal, events I described earlier, and, most importantly, 2) it is simply false that the set of them [WR] //makes it all to obvious that people can indulge is some really bad behavior at the drop of a hat.//

Realist war movies, e.g. "Platoon," make it quite clear that "hat" takes quite a while to drop. Stresses abound. The killings, in Iraq, of an entire Iraqi family by marines were similarly not 'drop' of a hat: the unit had lost men, was in the stress of battle, etc. Yes, they raped the girl and killed her family. But this was NOT a facile popping up of human inner darkness, 'at the drop of a hat.' See this url, for a bit of the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/09/soldiers.charged/index.html

================


WR said
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{my bold, P}.

Originally Posted by Verdad in reply:
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.

WRJ added: 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.

 

[SimonBrooke]

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?

People are innately social creatures, but the size of society to which people are innately adapted is quite small - a few hundreds, at most a very few thousand individuals. Within our societies we're innately co-operative; between them, we're innately competitive. Outgroup conflict strengthens the group, both by making it more cohesive and, if successful, winning it more resources. Lewis Coser's The Functions of Social Conflict is an excellent book for starting to understand this apparent contradiction.

The problem is that the size of the group to which we are adapted maps poorly onto modern societies. A village, a sports club, a (small) company, a school - all these provide us with pseudo-societies with which we can identify, of a size to which we are adapted. Within these units, many people are able to identify and to become team players. But others - perhaps most of us - are overwhelmed by the complexity of modern societies and become alienated, unable to fully engage in any group. What we see as 'normal' modern human behaviour is actually extreme stress behaviour, similar to what you get when you overcrowd rats in a cage. Unable to engage properly in group behaviour, the alienated individual becomes sociopathic, competing solely for his or her self.

None of this is either 'good' or 'bad' - it merely describes the functioning of human society as a system. The gliders in a cellular automaton are not 'being good' or even 'being sociable', they are just behaving as they are programmed to behave.

And while we are looking at people solely as components in a system, many aspects of human sexual behaviour are systemic, too, related to our evolutionary context. For example, if a female has offspring by a dominant male, those offspring are more likely to survive and thrive. There's a systematic evolutionary benefit to a female pairing with a powerful and aggressive male, no matter how he behaves towards her. Similarly, there's a systematic evolutionary benefit to rape - a male who rapes many females whom he does not have to provide for has more offspring than a male who services only those females who bond with him. And there's a systematic evolutionary benefit to out-group sex, because small closed societies will tend to suffer from inbreeding, and out-group sex leads to offspring with hybrid vigour.

None of this behaviour is 'good' or 'bad', it's merely a description of the mechanics of the system. Of course, it helps us to understand the roots of behaviour which we see as 'bad', but once we start to assign moral values to behaviours we're moving to a new and different plane of argument.

The systems of innate behaviour can be exploited, of course, and perverted. Military training builds on inherent human social behaviour, encouraging recruits to see the company, or the regiment, as their ingroup; encouraging their innate conflict behaviour towards outgroups. Of course solders rape. It's what you do to a dominated outgroup; it not only symbolises your domination but it also increases your own breeding success at the expense of the males of the outgroup. Considered at a systems level this is not merely explicable but inevitable. Gang behaviour is another expression of the same thing.

Morality is (almost by definition) not innate. Morality is conscious behaviour - is the self conscious individual thinking reflexively 'how should I behave', rather than merely following innate drives. Morality is therefore necessarily synthetic (and probably necessarily a fairly thin skin over more basic behaviour). And therefore, of course (and contra to what I have implied above) morality cannot be absolute, there cannot be one morality handed down from God on tablets of stone (unless, of course, there happened actually to be a God - a possibility so improbable that for the sake of this argument I shall ignore it). Nevertheless, if you form a morality reflexively by considering that other people appear to be much as you are, appear to dislike having similar things done to them as you do, you can form a morality on the basis of 'do as you would be done by'; and that leads to a morality in which the highest commandment is surely 'thou shall not inflict suffering on others'.

But it says (as far as I can see) nothing whatever about wearing clothes, either on a nude beach or otherwhere.

 

[amicus]

And here I thought Behaviorism passed on with B.F. Skinner; if not, it should have.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/behaviorism/

If any passive observer can wade through this without upchucking; you win a medal!

Amicus

 

[Verdad]

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

Murder and rape are aberrant behaviors, by just about any definition of the word. Morally, psychologically, socially, statistically, you name it.

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.

You counter my statement that murder and rape on a large scale happen in wars and riots, by citing more wars and riots?

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?

Others have covered this, so you may as well read them, particularly Simon.

And this—

Even the drug mob members who are raping "for the fun of it" are doing so out of a spirit of cooperation-- only, not with us.

I feel guilty for laughing, but that's exactly it. That is the dynamic. Stella found a perfect way to make the point.

Well, fine, if you decide that anything inconvenient isn't really a moral prohibition, but only a "misunderstanding" then by definition I must be wrong or misinformed by holding up public nudity as a possible moral issue.

I refer you to another Simon's post, where he explains immoral vs. impolitic.

What would you consider "behaving badly?"

In a similar venue, behaving 'badly' comprises a range of behaviors, from wiping your nose on your sleeve to clubbing your neighbor to death. Are they under the same umbrella?

 

[NoJo]

Okay so I have sucked

Cat

So have I. So did Bill Clinton, in his student days. So has Monica Lewinsky. It's no biggie, Cat

 

[amicus]

By insisting that morality is the function of the 'group', and not the individual, Simon Brooke, et al, are sentencing themselves to a pre ordained demise.

Impose and enforced, 'group morality', has brought you the inhumane ethics of every branch of Religion from Zoroaster to Branch Davidian, the Inquisition by the Catholics and Witch Burnings in Boston; lovely.

"The Greater Good" advocates, describe them as Dictatorial in any flavor you wish, Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Warlords all, who rule by force and impose arbitrary ethics to suit their needs, have done even worse than Religion.

What must be difficult to comprehend, for the innocent bystander and Lurker to these threads, is the unanimous opposition to any suggestion of an universal, natural, reason based code of ethics applicable to all humans at all time.

They are afraid, my silent friends, for their actions, were they to be judged objectively, would be found to be immoral and unethical.

And thas the truth!

Amicus

 

[Pure]

to simon

SB None of this is either 'good' or 'bad' - it merely describes the functioning of human society as a system. The gliders in a cellular automaton are not 'being good' or even 'being sociable', they are just behaving as they are programmed to behave.

beautiful. kudos. nice analogy as well.

(fellow c.a. freak)

 

[Boxlicker101]

By insisting that morality is the function of the 'group', and not the individual, Simon Brooke, et al, are sentencing themselves to a pre ordained demise.

Impose and enforced, 'group morality', has brought you the inhumane ethics of every branch of Religion from Zoroaster to Branch Davidian, the Inquisition by the Catholics and Witch Burnings in Boston; lovely.

"The Greater Good" advocates, describe them as Dictatorial in any flavor you wish, Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Warlords all, who rule by force and impose arbitrary ethics to suit their needs, have done even worse than Religion.

What must be difficult to comprehend, for the innocent bystander and Lurker to these threads, is the unanimous opposition to any suggestion of an universal, natural, reason based code of ethics applicable to all humans at all time.


They are afraid, my silent friends, for their actions, were they to be judged objectively, would be found to be immoral and unethical.

And thas the truth!

Amicus

I'm sure you are aware that some of the greatest evil in History has resulted from allowing religious leaders to dictate public policy. And, some of the greatest good probably has also.

As to what you cite, The Branch Dravidians were mostly the child of David Koresh. Personally, I think they have gotten a bad rap because of Clinton's and Janet Reno's spinmeisters, but I'm not going to say anything much about them. Jonestown was the creation of Jim Jones.

The Inquisition was mostly the work of a few influential priests, who were supported by various kings and emperors who thought they would benefit from them. The blame for the Salem "Witch" Burnings can mostly be placed at the feet of Cotton Mather, another prominent clergyman.

Beyond that, some of the greatest evils have been brought about by individuals who had too much power. Some of these were clergymen and some were not. I include Hitler, Mao, Oliver Cromwell, Stalin, Nero, Caligula, and some others that I will probably think of after I submit this post.

 

[amicus]

Not much to quarrel with there, Box, and it is true that faith has many good examples along with the bad.

I am going to try to hone my specific point a little more as you somewhat confirmed my assertion that religion and command societies have brought much harm to man over time.

I understand the fear, the unspoken fear, that most seem to exhibit concerning any form of absolute morality. I would join in that were it a religious or a social imposition of a morality and a code of ethics determined by either.

It also does not surprise me, that most choose an ambivalent, simultaneous and contradictory thoughts or feelings, to define their morality as it does not require an absolute stand on any issue.

We, in America, unique in all the world and in all of history, prior to the beginning of the 20th Century, lived under laws that acted only to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens, not to force upon them a moral or ethical code.

With the mostly successful separation of Church and State and the diminishing influence of formal religion on American society, there was an upsurge of thinkers who set forth to define human actions in terms of the 'rightness', or 'wrongness' of each action.

As the American founding documents, the constitution and bill of rights set the guidelines for human behavior, so too did the emergence of Ayn Rand and Objectivist ethics, determine a rational means of pursuing knowledge that was independent of a peer group or any specific religion.

Questions of right and wrong, good and bad, have troubled men since they began to consider such issues. It is a valid field of study and should be, but has been virtually ignored by those institutions that should be pursuing knowledge.

Instead, the intellectual community begins with an assumed premise, that there are no absolute truths concerning human actions, and that basically, anything goes. If it feels good, do it. Using pleasure as a measure of the moral value of any action.

If a majority agrees that abortion is moral, then it is. If a majority agrees that abortion is immoral, then it is.

My contention is and always has been, that reality is the arbiter of truth, not a majority opinion. Abortion, as just one example, is either right or wrong independent of the opinion of others.

Thus my conclusion that human life is the fundamental premise and value of any system of morality or ethics and exists independent of any opinion.

From that axiomatic, self evident foundation, which need not be proven, as it is self evident; (no values exist without human life), then to take an innocent human life for no cause is unjustifiable and thus wrong, bad and immoral.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS et al

I have no idea why anyone is troubled by correct conduct if their minds are working. Pissing on an electric fence is a bad idea. Playing Russian Roulette is a bad idea. Huffing Freon 12 gas is a bad idea. Jumping off your roof is a bad idea. Tugging on Superman's cape is a bad idea. Dipping your wick in an AIDS encrusted colon is a bad idea.

The things God controls will kill your ass, he doesnt do 2nd chances very often. God approves of capital punishment for a whole lot of screwups.

For some of it people roll the dice and take their chances with an unfavorable outcome. Maybe you'll eat lion and not be eaten.

And the rest is a matter of communal preferences. Societies determine what goes and what doesnt.

 

[amicus]

That is an interesting disclosure, JBJ, at least to me, as I had inferred from your previous commentary, rough and ready that it may be, that you were a non believer.

I have no problem with others believing in a God of their choice, in this country at least, in Iran, I would not.

I remain:

Amicus

 

[Pure]

?

ami, i'm very puzzled by what's below. in our discussion of torture you expressly said it was ok to preserve the US from islamic terrorists; that means, we tortured a suspect for the 'greater good'. his [KSM's]
info, you and others said, prevented attacks. IOW the US as a whole benefited. the greater good was served.

indeed, if you, like Rand, are dedicated to human flourishing, this is the 'greater good' by which you justify, for example, free markets, minimal gov't and so on. on the way to this goal, one preserves individual rights, of course, as in the BR, but as you and others have said, for national security, the greater good, certain rights may be termporarily breached, as they were by Lincoln, FDR, etc.

===========================

ami said, By insisting that morality is the function of the 'group', and not the individual, Simon Brooke, et al, are sentencing themselves to a pre ordained demise.

Impose and enforced, 'group morality', has brought you the inhumane ethics of every branch of Religion from Zoroaster to Branch Davidian, the Inquisition by the Catholics and Witch Burnings in Boston; lovely.

"The Greater Good" advocates, describe them as Dictatorial in any flavor you wish, Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, Warlords all, who rule by force and impose arbitrary ethics to suit their needs, have done even worse than Religion.

 

[amicus]

Pure, regardless of how many times to repeat it, I do not consider, nor do the courts, those methods of interrogation as, 'torture'. That is your definition and I know full well why you keep trying to pin it on me.

Those methods, including 'Waterboarding', are certainly not pleasant, but they are neither lethal nor inflict long term suffering.

Thus, without the buzzword of torture, you simply have no case to make?

Your confusion over collective rights of socialists and fascists and other brutal, dictatorial systems, and the collective 'free will', of a Democratic nation, is understandable, I guess, but not really, besides that, without your belief in such collectivized ethics, what would you have left?

Amicus

 

[WRJames]

Back when I was in college -- which was a LONG time ago -- there was a distinction between morals and ethics. Admittedly it was a fuzzy -- but morals were more concerned with social convention, ethics with "fundamental" virtue, whatever that is.

Something like observing marriage customs might fall into the category of morality. Things like honesty which are more universal might be ethics.

 

[amicus]

WRJames.... this may confuse more than clarify:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html

http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm#SH2a


http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm

Rand’s philosophy is in the Aristotelian tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon metaphysical naturalism, empirical reason in epistemology, and self-realization in ethics. Objectivism is rational self-interest and self-responsibility – the idea that no man is any other man’s slave. The virtues of her philosophy are principled policies based on rational assessment: rationality, productiveness, honesty (in order to rationally make the best decisions we must be privy to the facts), integrity, independence, justice, and pride.

Her political philosophy is in the classical liberal tradition, with that tradition’s emphasis upon individualism, the constitutional protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and property, and limited government.

~~~

It has also been more years than I care to confess since college and formal studies; don't feel all alone...

Ami

 

[Pure]

note to ami

Hi ami,
i've reproduced your statements, below.

sorry, i didn't mean to debate torture, and for the sake of argument, "enhanced interrogation methods" is fine. the point is, you're in favor of them (as was the US congress and executive), on folks like KSM, folks planning terror attacks. in short that's for the 'greater good', isn't it? and i think you'd favor his execution (as enemy of Americans) as well, after a one minute trial, for that same goal.

you call it "collective free will." this means, i suppose, that the SOCIETY agreed on it [through republican government]. the PEOPLE ratified the constitution and elected representatives. these decided on laws and methods of interrogation. fine. but the laws are designed to further the flourishing of this republic, this group; to further its welfare, while of course protecting individual rights.

i realize this is NOT like Staline saying the "collective good" is to do what *I* say. IOW we do NOT have a dictator defining the 'national interest' as what's in his personal interest.

the US constitution speaks of the legitimate goal of promoting the "general welfare." the welfare of the whole. if an individual, say, sells atomic secrets, he offends against the republic, the whole; the crime is treason, and he pays the prescribed penalty. correct?

i say the penalty is for the 'greater good', you call it "collective free will", the constitution calls it "general welfare"; the executive calls it "national security." the point is, it's a benefit NOT to any one American but to the American republic, American society as a whole.

with "collective free will", Americans look out for the good of the whole, the American republic, a key feature of which is individual rights. however, it's a society which does have to subordinate these rights, in wartime, as you've said (if i read you correctly). the extraordinary powers of the exec are to ensure he *does what it takes* [e.g., suspend habeus corpus] for the national interest, the welfare of the nation. [exercizes powers under the patriot act, etc.]


i'd like to know what, if anything is objectionable about the above formulations.

================


Pure, regardless of how many times to repeat it, I do not consider, nor do the courts, those methods of interrogation as, 'torture'. That is your definition and I know full well why you keep trying to pin it on me.

Those methods, including 'Waterboarding', are certainly not pleasant, but they are neither lethal nor inflict long term suffering.

Thus, without the buzzword of torture, you simply have no case to make?

Your confusion over collective rights of socialists and fascists and other brutal, dictatorial systems, and the collective 'free will',{pure's bolding} of a Democratic nation, is understandable, I guess, but not really, besides that, without your belief in such collectivized ethics, what would you have left?

 

[amicus]

One of the reasons I remain and participate in this forum is the intense wrangling that goes on from time to time that challenges my comprehension and permits me to sharpen my memory and expand my own understanding by being required to defend assorted and sundry issues from my POV.

I often write these posts extemporaneously, without specific research, depending on memory and logic to address a point or issue.

I am reconsidering my usage of, "Collective Free Will", as I have the impression it suits you more than I wish and leaves itself open to an interpretation not intended by me.

It is for that reason that I question:

"...with "collective free will", Americans look out for the good of the whole, the American republic, a key feature of which is individual rights. however, it's a society which does have to subordinate these rights,..."

Were I writing for accuracy, I would insist that individual freedom is the essential defining characteristic, not, "...a key feature..."

For those who do not wish to plough through the articles and links, know that the, '[general welfare clause) has been an issue of conflict since the time of Madison and Hamilton, with each taking a different position.

Secondly, it was during the term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret the meaning of the clause in reference to the Social Security legislation. Since Court approval widened the interpretation to a point that practically any legislation can be said to be for the general welfare.

This interpretation disappoints many who feel the increased power of government under this clause has far exceeded both the letter and spirit of the founding documents.


http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare-clause

".Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States." Since the late eighteenth century this language has prompted debate over the extent to which it grants powers to Congress that exceed those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The precise meaning of the clause has never been clear, in large part due to its peculiar wording and placement in the Constitution..."

At the time the Constitution was adopted, some interpreted the clause as granting Congress a broad power to pass any legislation it pleased, so long as its asserted purpose was promotion of the general welfare. One of the Constitution's drafters, James Madison, objected to this reading of the clause, arguing that it was inconsistent with the concept of a government of limited powers and that it rendered the list of enumerated powers redundant. He argued that the General Welfare clause granted Congress no additional powers other than those enumerated. Thus, in their view the words themselves served no practical purpose.

The U. S. Supreme Court first interpreted the clause in United States v. Butler (1936). There, Justice Owen Roberts, in his majority opinion, agreed with Hamilton's view and held that the general welfare language in the taxing-and-spending clause constituted a separate grant of power to Congress to spend in areas over which it was not granted direct regulatory control. Nevertheless, the Court stated that this power to tax and spend was limited to spending for matters affecting the national, as opposed to the local, welfare. He also wrote that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of what was in fact in the national welfare. In the Butler decision, however, the Court shed no light on what it considered to be in the national—as opposed to local—interest, because it struck down the statute at issue on Tenth Amendment grounds.

The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance.

~~~

http://www.answers.com/topic/general-welfare

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html

Here are pulled together some facts and thoughts on 10 clauses in the U.S. constitution that have been ignored, misunderstood or misapplied. Some people merely want the correct meaning to be restored by educating the judiciary, others wish to amend the constitution so as to correct the way the constitution is applied (to repeal or correct the problem clauses), and yet others would like an entirely new constitution. The focus here will be on one of the 10 troubling constitutional clauses:

1. The commerce clause
2. The contracts clause
3. The due process clause (amend 5 and 14)
4. The privileges or immunities clause
5. The equal protection of the laws clause
6. The general welfare clause
7. The necessary and proper clause
8. The supremacy clause
9. The takings and tax clauses
10. The enumeration of rights clause (amend 9)

We have now come to the sixth of these clauses, The General Welfare Clause.

The General Welfare Clause.

The word "welfare" appears twice in the Constitution. Once in the preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8, as the introduction and purpose of the enumerated powers..

The preamble to the Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Article 1, Section 8 states:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

The preamble of the constitution establishes no powers or rights. It merely states the purpose of the constitution. No further development of what "general welfare" means can be made based on the mention of it in the preamble.

~~~

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/

(This contains the actual Section 8 wording in toto, and is a valuable tool with hundreds of links to specific case law examples)

War Powers is a separate discussion, as is conscription, which I consider to be an unconstitutional act.

And yes, Congress and the Executive Branch have the Constitutional authority to act to protect and defend American sovereignty by limiting individual rights and liberties during wartime.

Trust that is interesting to all who read.

Amicus

 

[SimonBrooke]

By insisting that morality is the function of the 'group', and not the individual, Simon Brooke, et al, are sentencing themselves to a pre ordained demise.

But I said no such thing. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite:

Morality is (almost by definition) not innate. Morality is conscious behaviour - is the self conscious individual thinking reflexively 'how should I behave', rather than merely following innate drives.

But hey, who expects Amicus to read, let alone understand, before he replies?

 

[WRJames]

WRJames.... this may confuse more than clarify:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html

http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm#SH2a


http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rand.htm



~~~

It has also been more years than I care to confess since college and formal studies; don't feel all alone...

Ami

Thanks. These references more or less confirm my notion that ethics are somehow on a higher plane than morals -- less objective, more universally accepted, and more important to the maintaining social order.

This thought was prompted by Stella's (and others) very vigorous assertion that nudity (at leat at a nude beach) was not even a "moral" issue.

Back in the 60's, when I was in college, we were struggling to break out of a very rigid moral code. We were trying to find a way of being "good" people while doing "immoral" things like having premarital sex and smoking pot.

Now, I know this sounds almost silly today, but at the time these were serious issues. This is the time frame where the concepts of mutual consent, and "as long as nobody gets hurt" became popular as the basis of a greatly modified moral code.

I wonder, in the discussion we've been having so far, if we should have been paying more attention to the distinction between ethics and morals -- or doesn't anyone care at this point?