2
   

Morality: Open & Closed

 
 
coberst
 
Reply Sun 23 Oct, 2005 05:14 am
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,377 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 08:28 am
Could you put that in the form of a question?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Oct, 2005 11:13 am
Joe

Why is the ideology of a person with a closed morality more important than for a person with an open morality?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Oct, 2005 12:27 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 10:02 am
Re: Morality: Open & Closed
coberst wrote:
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner (open morality). Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon (closed morality).
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 10:08 am
Twyvel

I do not know of an example of such an absurdity. Could you give me such an example?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 10:08 am
Quote:
Cyracuz wrote:
The ideology of the survivor is the only one that matters. Winners write history, not losers.


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.
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Oct, 2005 10:21 am
0 Replies
 
boolean z
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 02:35 am
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 ...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Oct, 2005 04:25 am
Quote:
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.


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.
0 Replies
 
Sleeper World
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 01:01 am
Cyracuz wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 05:24 am
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.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:15 am
Quote:
Of major importance is the importance of ideology for the one with closed morality


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

Quote:
In the case of open morality ideology is not nearly as important


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

Quote:
because ideology does not control morality generally speaking anyway


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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Morality: Open & Closed
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 09:12:26