Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
What we value comes from a variety of sources, not just "the herd." It comes from family, friends, community, religious upbringing (various herds), as well as personal experience, and some of it I believe is actually innate. Value for life is a great example - for all things, their own existence is (normally) perceived as a good.
What we value is the bedrock for our moral reasoning. From that we reason to moral/immoral actions. There is a significant difference between having our value-base influenced (in art) by our environment (including the herd), and deciding to abandon moral reasoning to align our moral decisions to "what the herd thinks."
So a healthy moral reasoning process is: My value-base -> reasoning -> my moral decisions.
An unhealthy one is: Someone else's moral decisions -> my moral decisions
The first can be (and usually is) influenced by the herd. The second is complete subjection to the herd.
Assuming they have reasoned properly, and the conclusion is based on what they value, they will have achieved "greater moral insight" for themselves. That does not mean they have achieved "greater moral insight" for anyone else.
Unless, of course, you are trying to achieve "greater moral insight" in an "absolute" sense, in which case your argument is (again) that "relative/subjective morality does not produce absolute/objective results." I already have agreed with that. I know that. I don't claim it does. I never have. You still haven't answered "so what?" All you do is keep repeating the mantra.
I do not - which is why I will see their moral decision as inferior. They will, of course, see mine as inferior. That's how it works. I see your stance against homosexuality as
"immoral." You see my acceptance of a gay lifestyle as "perfectly normal" as "immoral." Opposing conclusions happen all the time. And you will note they happen in both the relative/subjective framework and the absolute/objective framework. The only difference is WHY they are opposite.
For someone doing actual moral reasoning, they can be opposite because they are rooted in different basic valuing, or because someone is not reasoning properly (invalid reasoning).
For someone "following the herd," the can be opposite because they are following different herds, or because the "herd" they are following is actually a long-dead herd and all that remains is the fragments of copies of their writings from anther culture and tongue - so their are different interpretations of what "the herd" thought was "moral."
It is an obviously more mature way of reasoning morally.
Of course it does.
It's a simple question, Seer. Which do you think is a more mature/adult way for a human being to function:
1) Think for yourself
2) Try to figure out what others think and blindly follow it
I suspect most people would take 1). I suspect part of you knows 1) is a more mature way to function. But the fact is that absolute/objective moralizers who are "biblically-based" are actually doing 2).
It's no more complex than that. There is no claim that 1) will arrive at common conclusions (we have other ways of dealing with that). There is no claim that 2) can't result in moral choices I (and/or others) would find "good." There is no claim to perfection in either approach. Intuitively, someone who is "thinking for themselves" is simply engaging in morality in a more mature way than someone that is "following the herd."
The herd-follower will blindly go wherever the herd goes. Their only question is, "what does the herd think?" If the herd says "kill the Jews," they will kill the Jews. If the herd says "save the babies," they will save the babies. If the herd says "reject the homosexuals" they will reject the homosexuals. There is no avenue for reasoning. Someone would have to convince the entire herd to change. And when the herd has been dead for centuries - the only option is to convince them that they have misunderstood the intention of the herd. Look how successful THAT has been.
The self-actualized moralizer may indeed come to a "bad" conclusion (to me) as well, but because that conclusion is based on consideration of what is valued and a reasoning process, there is an avenue for conversation. I can attempt to influence what they value. If we value the same, I can attempt to show them errors in their reasoning. If I cannot do either, and I still disagree with their conclusions, then other steps are taken to protect my moral framework.
This is not that complex.
As for being a point of pride - of course it is. Everyone finds the things they have selected fr their lives to be "better" in some fashion - or they would chose something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to be proud of my accomplishments. Aren't you proud that you "obey your god?" Don't you think it's the "right thing to do?" Isn't it a point of pride to you to lord your grasp of "absolute/objective" moral norms over those poor pitiful fools that think morality is relative/subjective? If you don't - then you should reconsider your choice of words. You come across (to me) as equally proud of your moral backbone.
What we value is the bedrock for our moral reasoning. From that we reason to moral/immoral actions. There is a significant difference between having our value-base influenced (in art) by our environment (including the herd), and deciding to abandon moral reasoning to align our moral decisions to "what the herd thinks."
So a healthy moral reasoning process is: My value-base -> reasoning -> my moral decisions.
An unhealthy one is: Someone else's moral decisions -> my moral decisions
The first can be (and usually is) influenced by the herd. The second is complete subjection to the herd.
Assuming they have reasoned properly, and the conclusion is based on what they value, they will have achieved "greater moral insight" for themselves. That does not mean they have achieved "greater moral insight" for anyone else.
Unless, of course, you are trying to achieve "greater moral insight" in an "absolute" sense, in which case your argument is (again) that "relative/subjective morality does not produce absolute/objective results." I already have agreed with that. I know that. I don't claim it does. I never have. You still haven't answered "so what?" All you do is keep repeating the mantra.
I do not - which is why I will see their moral decision as inferior. They will, of course, see mine as inferior. That's how it works. I see your stance against homosexuality as
"immoral." You see my acceptance of a gay lifestyle as "perfectly normal" as "immoral." Opposing conclusions happen all the time. And you will note they happen in both the relative/subjective framework and the absolute/objective framework. The only difference is WHY they are opposite.
For someone doing actual moral reasoning, they can be opposite because they are rooted in different basic valuing, or because someone is not reasoning properly (invalid reasoning).
For someone "following the herd," the can be opposite because they are following different herds, or because the "herd" they are following is actually a long-dead herd and all that remains is the fragments of copies of their writings from anther culture and tongue - so their are different interpretations of what "the herd" thought was "moral."
It is an obviously more mature way of reasoning morally.
Of course it does.
It's a simple question, Seer. Which do you think is a more mature/adult way for a human being to function:
1) Think for yourself
2) Try to figure out what others think and blindly follow it
I suspect most people would take 1). I suspect part of you knows 1) is a more mature way to function. But the fact is that absolute/objective moralizers who are "biblically-based" are actually doing 2).
It's no more complex than that. There is no claim that 1) will arrive at common conclusions (we have other ways of dealing with that). There is no claim that 2) can't result in moral choices I (and/or others) would find "good." There is no claim to perfection in either approach. Intuitively, someone who is "thinking for themselves" is simply engaging in morality in a more mature way than someone that is "following the herd."
The herd-follower will blindly go wherever the herd goes. Their only question is, "what does the herd think?" If the herd says "kill the Jews," they will kill the Jews. If the herd says "save the babies," they will save the babies. If the herd says "reject the homosexuals" they will reject the homosexuals. There is no avenue for reasoning. Someone would have to convince the entire herd to change. And when the herd has been dead for centuries - the only option is to convince them that they have misunderstood the intention of the herd. Look how successful THAT has been.
The self-actualized moralizer may indeed come to a "bad" conclusion (to me) as well, but because that conclusion is based on consideration of what is valued and a reasoning process, there is an avenue for conversation. I can attempt to influence what they value. If we value the same, I can attempt to show them errors in their reasoning. If I cannot do either, and I still disagree with their conclusions, then other steps are taken to protect my moral framework.
This is not that complex.
As for being a point of pride - of course it is. Everyone finds the things they have selected fr their lives to be "better" in some fashion - or they would chose something else. I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to be proud of my accomplishments. Aren't you proud that you "obey your god?" Don't you think it's the "right thing to do?" Isn't it a point of pride to you to lord your grasp of "absolute/objective" moral norms over those poor pitiful fools that think morality is relative/subjective? If you don't - then you should reconsider your choice of words. You come across (to me) as equally proud of your moral backbone.
Comment