Morality: Open & Closed

Could you put that in the form of a question?

Joe

Why is the ideology of a person with a closed morality more important than for a person with an open morality?

A line from pirates of the carribean comes to mind. "The only rules that matter are these: What a man can do, and what a man can't do."

The ideology of the survivor is the only one that matters. Winners write history, not losers.

Re: Morality: Open & Closed

Twyvel

I do not know of an example of such an absurdity. Could you give me such an example?

Losers define winners and history. Winner (and loser) is a property of a relationship not a characteristic of a person. It takes two to tango, both matter.

morality all depends on the situation (as u ppl said circum..) , and i feel there is one more method to judge ur morality , which was devised by Mahatma Gandhi "Before doing anything , consider , whether ur action is equally acceptable by u, if someone other do that to u " ..

open or closed .. if there is no way , there will be no morality .. because , everything has some predence in our logic of morality , like at some position killing one enemy can be needed for saving our own fellow contrymen , here we cant go for a open morality ...

What do you suppose history would be like if Hitler completed his objective? We'd be speaking german here in Norway for one, and I doubt that we'd be learning of the heroics of the allied forces during the war. We'd be learning about how the blessed third reich blossomed and a vision of the great fuhrer came to life. Churchill would be remembered as a warcriminal, and Himmler, Goering, Goebles and that whole lot would be the heroes of the nation.

Losers don't define anything. They're at the mercy of the winners. This is not sports I'm talking about. Winner/loser is indeed a property of a relationship, but it is the winner that decides how that relationship will be remembered, as I explained above. As I said: Winners write history, and had the nazis won, for instance, history would be very different.

As far as any generalisation can be, it's true that winners tend to define history. Of course as a truism the winner of any contest to define history defines history. When it comes to other matters, the winner of a military or political triumph may or may not define the history of the affair but in general they will have an advantage in doing so.

Regarding the original post, do you have a point to make Coberst? If so I haven't been able to determine what you're getting at.

Sleeper

Of major importance is the importance of ideology for the one with closed morality. In the case of open morality ideology is not nearly as important because ideology does not control morality generally speaking anyway. If my moral behavior is controled by a cold-blooded rational principle then my hot blooded response will not generally dictate my behavior. Not so for the closed morality.

Because he is an idealist, and will therefore try to adjust the problem to his prefabricated answer.



Because the subject has the character to act based on his own decicions.



This leads me to conclude that a person dealing with "closed morality" is not really exerting his morals. He is hiding behind ideology, and his decicions are not made on a moral basis. Closed morality is not morality, in other words. It is just a fasade.

Morality is to make the best decicion for yourself and those you serve based on the information at hand in that particular situation. Thus, ideologies are for those without morals.