From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Jun 08 2004 - 18:19:20 BST
Hi Johhny, thanks for responding.
>On 7 Jun 2004 at 17:49, johnny moral wrote:
>
>I've long championed the original and still to my mind
>correct definition of morality as being "whatever most people do".
>msh asked:
>So, IYO, this cynicism, if it exists, is unwarranted, even self-
>contradictory, given your definition of morality.
On 8 Jun 2004 at 6:54, johnny moral wrote:
It's not self-contradictory, it's just cynical. It might even be
correct, but it isn't good. It's good to believe that most people
are good.
msh says:
But if your definition of morality is correct, as you say you believe
it is, then you must believe the cynic is wrong, not just cynical.
Given your idea of cynicism, "that most people would not
do what is good," it's hard not to agree. But isn't it more
realistic to say that most people will do what is good if they know
what is good? If your definition of good is correct, then all that
is necessary to know what is good is to look around in your society
and see what everybody else is doing. No?
Also, if "It's good to believe that most people are good." then
there must be some relationship between what is "good" and what is
"true." (Geeze, I'm sounding like Socrates. Sorry.) What do you
see this relationship to be?
msh asked:
> Do you think this is Pirsig's sense of morality, as developed in
Lila?
pm:
I'm not sure if Pirisg ever said that morality is what most people
do, or connected with the mores of a culture. But he did equate
morality with patterns and reality and experience, and that can only
mean a probability of what will happen based on experience and
reality and patterns, if you think about it.
msh asks:
Ok, I'll think about it. Meantime, do you see any value in Pirsig's
hierarchy of morality, as developed in Lila?
jm:
>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 asked:
>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:
Well, not everyone is moral all the time. They may not cheat for any
number of reasons, maybe they don't believe that it is moral to
cheat...
msh asks:
But, using your definition, they would be wrong in thinking cheating
is immoral. No?
jm:
The "we" is any one of us, you and me and our family and neighbors,
our classmates, everyone. Speaking for myself, I am much more likely
to cheat if I think most people cheat, but I am not speaking for
myself, you are much more likely to cheat also.
msh says:
Well, I won't speak for you, or for anyone else. Speaking for
myself, I am more likely to cheat if I think that doing so will
produce, for me, a more desirable result. This might be simple
selfishness, sometimes; but it might also involve a belief that the
test is rigged to restrict options for certain people. So, if I want
to renew my driver's license, in order to get to work, feed my
family, I might cheat on the written exam because I see no
relationship between knowing whether I should put on my turn signal
100 or 150 feet before turning, and my proven ability to drive a car,
safely, for years and years. Whether or not others are cheating is
irrelevant to me.
jm asked:
Do you acknowledge cultural attitudes, or culture in general? How
does it form, if not from people behaving according to the culture's
standards?
msh says:
Of course I do. But I don't believe that one can always determine
what is right or wrong, good or bad, by cultural reflection alone.
Do you?
jm said:
>... 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 asked:
>What is this reason?
jm replied:
Because the priests realized that a civil society, where people
didn't breach the law and try to be good people, requires a stern
exageration of how rare such breaches were, and how good most people
were and how bad it was to be bad. ... Everyone being good is a lie,
a fabrication, but it is a good lie, as it is so fabricated to be.
msh says:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. From what did the priests'
realization derive? It can't be from examining the behavior of most
people in their uncivilized society, can it? In other words, what
drove the development of the good lie?
>msh asked:
>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?
jm responded:
You've never heard of the "liberal media?" I don't think I've
changed any meaning of those words, I'm just trying to show that it
isn't just political bias, but rather is intrinsic to media. Pushing
for change and promoting deviance is liberal, isnt it?
msh says:
In one sense of the word. This is not the sense in use when people
talk about the "liberal media." But maybe we can pursue this
digression at another time. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>msh asked:
>So, by your own definition of morality, the moral thing to believe
is
>that only a few enlightened people understand morality?
jm:
Yeah, that paragraph had some bad logic in it, but you got it. The
moral thing is what you think most people would do. I think most
people believe that most other people don't understand morality and
are stupid, and they are the among the few who know what is moral.
So it is moral to think that understanding morality is not very
common.
msh says:
Well, it's nice that you think I get it, but I'm not so sure I do.
Are you among the "most" who think "most" don't understand morality
and are stupid? If not, then by your own definition, you are
immoral. No?
jm:
What are your thoughts about polls pushing immoral behavior and
consequently chaiging morality?
msh says:
I think polls can inspire immoral behavior among people who look to
the behavior of the majority for guidance on how to behave. Sure.
But since I believe the results of polls can be easily pre-
determined, they can also be used to inspire MORAL behavior among the
same people, for the same reasons. This is related to the "lie" of
the good priests.
jm:
Do you agree or disagree that morality is what most people do? (Or,
more generally, that morality is what we expect?)
msh says:
I think history is full of examples of large groups of people (entire
societies, almost) doing things that cannot in any sane way be said
to be moral. So I think your definition of morality is probably not
sufficient, as it stands.
Thanks,
Mark
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 - 18:17:11 BST