From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 20:18:03 BST
HI Rick,
>RICK
>Okay. So when you say "people should do what they should do"--- what you
>mean is "people morally ought to do what they probably can be expected to
>do". Is that about right?
Yes, and I hope I got across that both are contained in the word "should",
and also the words "expected" and "supposed to". Equal parts imperitive and
prediction.
>RICK
>But Johnny, you are a part of the empirically created reality the sets the
>expectation. In fact, you are it (tat tvam asi - thou art that). Knowing
>"the son", as you say, is knowing thyself and setting your own
>expectations.
>Knowing "the father" is then striving to live up to them.
Yes, but aren't you part of reality also? I think you are, therefore you
are.
>RICK
>We "pretty much" know what we morally should do? All of us? It's what all
>of us usually do? It's what most of us do? It's what we expect all/most
>people would do? I'm sorry but that just doesn't ring true for me Johnny.
It's what most of us do, most of the time, yes. It's what an anthropologist
would say was a more of the culture, impirically, scientifically observed.
I'm not saying the observation would be accurate, but we are all making
those observations all the time, and that's how we decide what we think we
should do.
>All of don't usually do the same things.
Sure we do. This is a culture we live in. 99.9% of our activities are
cultural, normal, moral activities, so normal we don't even notice them. I
suppose you're thinking, only 2% of us like to para-sail, or rock climb, or
some such modern individuating activity. And all along only a small
percentage were the clergy or doctors. We don't call the specific career
choice immoral because we recognize that people need to specialize, and we
expect everyone to find a place where they can take on some role in the
culture, and find something amusing to do, etc.
>We don't expect everyone to act
>the same all of the time. And expectations about human behavior change
>only
>slight less frequently than the tides. You think that it's always moral to
>follow expectations, and that trying to change the expectation is immoral,
>even if one thinks the expectation is immoral.
Yes. Sometimes we do immoral stuff, if we think it is where the greatest
good is.
> In your last post you even
>"confessed" that you were being immoral by trying to change what you
>perceive to be the expectations about marriage and divorce. But I expect
>that my expectations (and those of others) will change over the course of
>time. I expect that others will try to change my expectations... Does that
>mean that you are moral for fulfilling my expectations by trying to change
>them? Or immoral for fulfilling my expectations by trying to change them?
I don't think we expect that most people try to change our expectations, so
I guess it makes it immoral.
>Moreover, one of the things I expect is that people will behave immorally
>(yes, even me). Does that mean that those immoral expectations are moral
>when fulfilled solely by virtue of the fact that I expected them?
Yes, we expect that there will be immoral people, and even that moral people
will do immoral things from time to time, but on the whole, we expect
morality. Aren't you familiar with the use of expectation to mean "what is
expected of me?" We don't mean it specifically applied to a person who we
may indeed expect to be a bad, immoral person, we mean it culturally.
>Ultimately, I just think that there's not much of a point to this sort of
>jumbled double-talk.
I think you are jumbling it by mixing specific expectations with the general
expectation, which is indeed double-talk. Specific expectations fulfill the
moral order and are morality, but the general morality is what we mean by
"what should I do?" I may expect me to cheat at an exam or something, but I
know it is not expected OF me, because I know that I don't expect it of
others. It isn't "expected" in general. We aren't "supposed to" do that.
Thus I'd know I was being immoral if I did it. Oh, but when I learn that
"60% of students cheat" - then I expect it of others, and so I am much more
likely to do it also, it isn't immoral anymore. This is why it is also
immoral to be proud of sins, to admit to adultery, to take anonymous polls,
etc, because it lowers the bar - it pushes people further in that direction
by changing their idea of what is expected, and we end up with 70% of
students cheating in the next poll..
Some expectations are moral and some aren't. I expect
>that some people will treat others as themselves and I consider it moral
>when that expectation is fulfilled. I expect that some people will treat
>others like sh*t and I consider it immoral when that expectation is
>fulfilled. Nuff said on that I think.
Don't expect people to treat others like sh*t. We will start doing that.
Feel the power of your expectation, use the force! You are making that a
specific statement in a general way - which people do you expect to treat
others like sh*t? You don't say, so what you do say is that you expect
people to treat each other like sh*t. That's a bad thing to say. We
should have higher expectations.
>JOHNNY
> ...It is fine to ask, "what should we do?" (we are
> > expected to try and do what's right, after all) as long as we remain
> > grounded in morality. But the blasphemy comes in when we hate the
>created
> > world around us and think we have a better idea of how it should be,
>when
>we
> > reject emperical morality and say that it is unrelated to true morality,
>and
> > that our ethical morality is superior.
>
>RICK
>Trying to make the world better is blasphemy? I don't see much value in
>that conclusion. Besides, why bother pointing it out if any betterness the
>statement is aimed at generating is blasphemous?
I can't help pointing it out. Sorry G. But I think there are moral
precepts, not just current moral precepts but age-old wise ones (which we
weigh heavier in forming our expectations) to see the beauty in the world
and respond to that beauty with our own beautiful works and to try to
prevent beauty from being lost or forgotten. That's really all I'm trying
to do - prevent the world from getting worse.
>JOHNNY
> This assumes a direct line to a
> > ahistorical verities...
>
>RICK
>You mean ones like "people should always do what they should do"?
Morality is history, so that's not really fair. As I said, I posit that the
dual meaning of the word should was one meaning before history, and history
is the constant realizing of expectation. But the charge that "people
should do what they should do" is a historical fact, not an ahistorical
verity.
>JOHNNY
>... it removes ourselves from common history.
>
>RICK
>Individuals that shape and change our expectations are a part of our common
>history.
Certainly. I know it isn't possible for anyone to actually be removed from
history.
>JOHNNY
> > Many many people feel that static patterns should be thwarted because
>they
> > are repressive, morality itself is a big drag that we don't need
>anymore,
> > and has now been replaced by ethics. They celebrate change for its own
> > sake.
>
>RICK
>If they thwart static patterns because they are repressive then they aren't
>celebrating change for it's own sake!!! They are celebrating it because it
>marks the end of repression.
I guess the question "what is repression" comes into play here. All
patterns are repressive, they are patterns. They exert moral force on other
patterns to get them to do what the pattern wants them to do. The blasphemy
comes from hating patterns for this reason. Can't you see how that is
illogical - to hate static patterns because they repress other static
patterns?
>JOHNNY
> What is and isn't moral is indeed the question, but it has
>emperical
> > answers. I'm not saying it is easy to know what is moral, only that
>there
> > IS something that is moral, and that we should respect that.
>
>RICK
>You're NOT saying it is easy to know what is moral??? Just a few
>paragraphs
>ago you explicitly said: "The central point is that we do pretty much know
>what we should do." You can't have it both ways J.
The "pretty much" was my wiggle room there. We can't be sure exactly what
is expected of us in any specific situation, that's the drama of life. But
on the otherhand, it's usually not all murky and grey either. The less
murky the better, the more we can know what to do the better. Don't worry,
we'll never know exactly all the time, so we won't become robots, but we can
get close to moral order and live in comfort and serenity instead of angst
and chaos.
thanks Rick.
Take care,
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 20:18:22 BST