Re: MD Polls and morality

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 04:27:14 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD quality religion (Quakerism)"

    On 7 Jun 2004 at 17:49, johnny moral wrote:

    Let's digress into the morality of polling, a subject that interests
    me greatly. I've long championed the original and still to my mind
    correct definition of morality as being "whatever most people do".
    As in "the mores" of a society. ... There's usually no conflict
    between what we think is good and what is moral, though these days a
    cynicism pervades which regularly insists that most people would not
    do what is good, an attitude which in itself is a contributing factor
    to a lowered standard of ethical behavior.

    msh asks:
    So, IYO, this cynicism, if it exists, is unwarranted, even self-
    contradictory, given your definition of morality. Do you think this
    is Pirsig's sense of morality, as developed in Lila?

    jm:
    How this relates to polling is very interesting, because in reality,
    what we feel is moral is not necessarily an accurate sampling of what
    most people do, but is only what we think most people do. Our
    standards of morality are usually a notch or two above what actually
    happens, because we usually never hear about unethical behavior. It
    used to be that if a student cheated, he kept it to himself. Now,
    because of the prevelance of polling, we all "know" that 90% of
    students cheat, or whatevr the number is. If we think most people
    cheat, then we think it is moral, it is the expected behavior, and we
    are MUCH more likely to cheat ourselves. The ethics and good are
    subjective, after all, what matters is fitting in and doing what is
    expected, not being an ethical fool.

    msh asks:
    Then what ethical judgment is in play for the few who would not
    cheat, even if they know that 90% do? In other words, who's this
    "we", and what makes the others different?

    jm:
    This polling-pushing-immoral-behavior phenomenon also is responsible
    for todays sexual attitudes, a la Kinsey's (flawed) "sex studies" of
    the fifties, which ushered in a new morality of sexual behavior.
    Even if they weren't flawed, they would have had a similar effect
    over time, because the very nature of anonymous polling pretty much
    breaks the mechanism of maintaining morality. People aren't supposed
    to admit to immoral behavior, but these days there is exactly the
    opposite exhortation - people are encouraged to be "honest" and admit
    to all their transgressions, on Jerry Springer and in newspapers.
    People do have a need to confess their sins, but there was a reason
    that sins were confessed only to the priest in private, and the
    priest did not reveal them to the whole congregation.

    msh asks:
    What is this reason?

    jm:
    To digress even further, this is exactly what is "liberal" about the
    media. By its very nature, the media only reports the "news", the
    transgressions, the anomolies, the titilating, and the interesting.
    A truly 'conservative" media would not report the news at all, the
    television shows would be very boring, showing characters going about
    their public-faced lives, not admitting to any affairs or ethical
    lapses on camera.

    msh says:
    Of couse no one uses the terms "liberal" and "conservative" in this
    way in regards to the media, except you, here. What purpose is
    served my changing the meanings of these words? And do you see any
    connection between profit-maximization in the commercial media and
    what they offer for public consumption?

    jm:
    Putting "DQ" on a pedestal and excoriating existing patterns of
    course is also immoral, though those here who believe that DQ is the
    source of morality and all that is good will of course object. And
    they aren't immoral in being totally wrong about that, btw, most
    people believe that "moral" is something that only a few enlightened
    people understand.

    msh asks:
    So, by your own definition of morality, the moral thing to believe is
    that only a few enlightened people understand morality?

    Thanks for any thoughtful answers to my questions.

    Best,
    msh

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything."  -- Henri Poincare'
    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 : Tue Jun 08 2004 - 04:23:48 BST