From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jun 09 2004 - 22:48:33 BST
HI Wim,
>Dear Johnny,
>
>You wrote 7 Jun 2004 17:49:49 +0000:
>'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. ... Morality's relation to ethics or objectively good behavior is
>thus only tangential, predicated on a shared belief that most of us are
>good
>and ethical. ... 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. ... 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. ... 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. ... 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.'
>This is logically untenable and inconsistent with the MoQ as I understand
>it.
>
>It is logically untenable because of an implied paradox: How can it be
>immoral that most people cheat if morality is defined as "whatever most
>people do"??
But I was saying that if we think most people cheat, we think it is moral.
I didn't say it was immoral. Cheating is moral now, and that's why most
people do it (it reinforces itself).
>Implicitly you are applying another definition that you say you
>do! And putting "DQ" highest is what most people do on this list, than
>THAT's the moral thing to do (according to your definition, but not to
>you)...
You are correct here, I slipped up. First of all, I think it is moral to
put DQ, or Right, on a pedestal, as that is what most people do, and indeed,
I agree that it is a good thing for people to have an ideal, a sense of
Right, in common day to day living. But as philosophers and metaphysicists,
I think we have to have an immoral approach to morality, a degenerative
approach, to understanding and talking about morality. It is dangerous. We
can't mix it up with how we talk about politics or art. For us, being
immoral is moral, at least as far as how we think about this stuff goes.
>Explanation of its inconsistence with the MoQ (at least my version of it)
>requires a discussion of definitions of morality:
>
>The original definition of morality is a definition of intellectual
>patterns
>of value that describe the social patterns of value that keep together
>society. It is indeed derives from "mores", "what most people do": the
>pattern of 'normal' and thus 'normative' behaviour. Originally such
>intellectual patterns of value (the 'moralities' of societies) supported
>societies that were threatened with degeneration, because relatively few
>people were NOT doing anymore what others had always done, i.e. were
>breaking those social patterns of value.
>
>The original definition is not the correct definition any more. It has
>become "ideas about what people should do" (regardless of what most people
>do). It is a definition of intellectual patterns of value that do not
>necessarily describe social patterns of value, but that rather prescribes
>them, that tries to change them. It is a definition of a 4th level
>phenomenon.
yes, but should means what is expected as well as "ought". The connection
between the description and the prescription can not be broken in this one
single word. Nor can it in other words such as "supposed to" and "expected
to". Those aren't words that are used in two different ways, sometimes
describing, sometimes prescribing, they are always whole and doing both. If
we want to use only the description, we should say "probably" and if we want
to use only the prescription, we should use "ought". We *ought* not use the
other words if we don't mean both meanings.
>The definition of morality in the MoQ is broader than that in normal
>parlance. It is broadened to include 'morality' at the inorganic,
>biological, social and intellectual levels, instead of only at the
>intellectual level.
yes, and in this way, it shows how the victorian defintion of morality
above, that you say is now the "correct" definition (and most would agree),
is in fact inconisistent with the other levels and incorrect (sort of). No
one says that a rock "ought" to role down a hill, or that a salmon "ought"
to swim up the river to spawn. And yet, they do that because they are
expected to, because it is morally correct. They do do it because there is
moral imperitive to do what is expected, and we would say they ought to, if
there was any chance that they wouldn't.
>Given the lack of logic in your post and its inconsistency with the MoQ I
>find it impossible to comment on your idea that polls produce stimulate
>immorality and are thus immoral themselves (if I understood it correctly).
The inconsistency is in the MoQ itself, and I sympathize, as I clearly have
trouble being consistent myself. It recognizes that morality is the force
doing all the holding together of everything, based on repeating conscious
patterns formed from experience, but uses a different narrower defintion
when describing the morality of societies and behavior.
I realized as I was describing the Victorian idea of morality, that it is
really a slow democratization from from the priest's "lie" I was describing
to MarkSH, and as the number of people doing the "oughting" grew, the
knowledge of morality being a carefully nurtured lie grew also, and people
started resenting the facades and the tension between the "old" and the
"new" defintion just sort of broke morality down completely.
I see the MoQ's promotion of morality being reality as a way to restore an
understanding of how description and prescription are both necessary aspects
of morality, that they can't be broken apart, they will always affect each
other, as they are the same.
>With friendly greetings,
>
>Wim
Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
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 : Wed Jun 09 2004 - 23:18:47 BST