Destroy My Belief System, Please!

@Fil Albuquerque,

I do feel guilty at times. And other feelings too, such as the occasional pride. Feelings are important, they are a form of intelligence, a moral sense, literally.

I don't disagree with you about selves, individuals, persons or egos, however you call what we are. They (we) must evidently exist, for a human society to exist. We must exist for any discourse about society and persons to exist in the first place.

Society is a system and the elements of an existing system must exist... :-) The right question is: what is their role, their importance. What is "decided" (ie determined) at their level, and what gets determined at another level, either higher (society) or lower (biology).

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I do feel guilty at times. And other feelings too, such as the occasional pride. Feelings are important, they are a form of intelligence, a moral sense, literally.

You must be a sweet heart. That makes me feel I want to tell you I love you in hopes you understanding in a mature manner.

1 Reply

@anonymously99,

I love you too sweetie.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I'm surprised you believe in morals...I would've thought you more of a moral relativist.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You are seeing past dualities. Good: Society and the individuals that comprise it constitute a unity; they build from each other, like the classically interdependent yin and yang.
And, as I've repeated ad naseum I AM my experiences; they do not happen to a separate me (the distinction between subject and predicate serves some purposes, but it serves no useful philosophical function that I can see).

1 Reply

@Germlat,

My morals are perhaps not the tightest on here, especially on sexual matters but I go by a few rules, like trying not to hurt too many people.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Actually you're miles away from some posters...some don't even believe morals exist.

1 Reply

@Germlat,

Germlat wrote:

Actually you're miles away from some posters...some don't even believe morals exist.

Morals don't exist subjectively. They have to be taught. You are not born knowing right from wrong despite what some religions might try to suggest. You are taught it by your parents and society. Some individuals don't actually learn the necessary lessons which is why they may lack some levels of empathy and do things which we might consider to be immoral.

Really when it comes down to it, morality is just a way for social animals like us to function in a way where the rest of the group can relax and not have to worry if the person standing next to you is going to strangle you to death to take your ipod.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Well, yes but the same can be said for language, science, the arts, and the entire cultural sphere.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Well, yes but the same can be said for language, science, the arts, and the entire cultural sphere.

I agree with you, but I guess I didn't go into my point enough. I think those who try to push the idea that morality is a subjective thing that magically sprinkles on top of you when you are born is just nonsense. There really is no external objective source where morality comes from other than US. We decide what the rules should be, some object to those rules and over time the rules may get adjusted here and there. But over all we are taught morality. It is imposed upon us. We either accept it or reject it and pay the consequences of either.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I suppose you mean that morals are not "objective". That's fine, although an argument can be made that there is a natural substrate for it.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I would like to hear such an argument. The only one I can imagine at the moment is one based on a functionist insistence that societies could not persist without rules against murder regarding members of one's own group. Strangers are sometimes fairgame for things like head hunting. I do feel, however, that the development of compassion (a predisposition for empathy) may be widespread if not universal. We seem to be laying the basis for cultural relativism.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I would like to hear such an argument. The only one I can imagine at the moment is one based on a functionist insistence that societies could not persist without rules against murder regarding members of one's own group. Strangers are sometimes fairgame for things like head hunting. I do feel, however, that the development of compassion (a predisposition for empathy) may be widespread if not universal. We seem to be laying the basis for cultural relativism.

Not sure what Olivier has in mind, but I've discussed this in several threads over the years.

The “instinct” for self-preservation may be at the heart of all morality…the “natural substrate” as Olivier suggests.

Consider that “instinct” in the context of the “golden rule”…and that becomes a more likely prospect.

If I deem it inappropriate for me to kill you…I set up the mechanics for making the notion “thou shalt not kill” an appropriate one. Each individual coming to that same conclusion…makes the notion an agreed upon idea (subjective), but the underlying “I’m interested in self-preservation” is central to it...and may well be objective.

The notions leading to “thou shalt not steal (or thou shalt not covet) are not difficult to see as derivations from that theme.

Lying, adultery, pride, lust, and many of the others may come from that.

Not saying that is the way things are…but the argument, as was suggested, can be made…and has been on many occasions.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

as I've repeated ad naseum I AM my experiences; they do not happen to a separate me (the distinction between subject and predicate serves some purposes, but it serves no useful philosophical function that I can see).

it serves the purpose if putting your experience under one 'roof', in one common set that can be analysed as a set. You can learn from your experience much better when you have a self that remembers the stuff that happened to it, as opposed to having separated, disconnected experiences never being compared of benchmarked, remaining at the atomic level...

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I do feel, however, that the development of compassion (a predisposition for empathy) may be widespread if not universal

Empathy is pretty universal. The people who are said to lack it are more often than not "hardening their heart": they voluntarily close themselves to empathy, just like one can decide to ignore one's fear, at least for a while. There might be clinical cases, such as in autism, where empathy is just missing, but in general, even the worse arsehole or bitch has a "heart", i.e. a capacity for empathy, to which one can occasionally reach out. And even the people who are used to suppress their empathy can one day be caught by surprise by it. See the end of Fellini's Strada, when Zampano breaks down in tears on the beach.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Good points, but while most people can feel some empathy for some people as a minimum condition the capacity of some individuals to feel compassion for virtually everyone (and maybe every sentient being) is a rarer and more significant capacity. But while it may be too rare to function as a substrate for moral and ethical systems it may reflect those who may be considered a society's ethical leaders, Jesus and Siddartha being the most prominent among them.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Jesus never talked about respecting animals, and the extent to which his compassion went beyond the tribe is disputed. There is the good Samaritan story, but there are also passages where Jesus is pretty condescending towards non-Jews.

I agree that we should try and be compassionate with everybody and all living organism, in principle, but of course that principle will collide with another, as generally the case in moral issues. Too high a level of empathy would be paralyzing. You couldn't kill a mosquito that can potentially kill your baby through malaria for instance... or cut some grass to cover your mud house.

The dose makes the poison, for everything, even empathy. There is an optimal somewhere, beyond which having more of it becomes a drawback, a "poison". One can have too much empathy, IMO.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

An excellent post. You show that even in the case of what I consider to be a valid general principle we must take into consideration the danger of oversimplification. But it may also be possible that for some issues the dose can never be excessive. What about love which is what I mean by compassion?

Destroy My Belief System, Please!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know