I know that not many follow threads they do not participate on but I was hoping someone would notice something very revealing as to our conceptions of morality.
This day and age is heavily influenced by PC thought meaning that it is morally acceptable to either praise or condemn what one facet of society is doing while taking the exact opposite position for the same action from another facet.
I’ve become hardened to these things over the years so I do not write this to complain but just to point out what we often unknowingly do and allow to be done around us.
Suppose another were Jewish and supported Plato’s contention that we are asleep as in a cave and it is through this condition that the obvious absurdity of war is not recognized and just reappears as cyclical events. Suppose they had family killed during the Jewish Holocaust making the idea even more important to them. Can you imagine the outrage at such a post copied above. So many Jews that gather each year reminding themselves and others of the horrors in the hope that it would not be repeated. what do you think the PC reaction would be if they were told that their concerns for man’s collective ignorance were just some sort of “psychological state” wondering “How can this issue be so important to you?” What would the reaction be? Why not just forget and think “wonderful thoughts?” What would be your reaction to such an assertion in relation to the Jewish Holocaust?
This is the horrible result of PC thought. It has sanctioned “selective morality.” We can call ourselves moral even though doing the opposite because it is now accepted as PC. There has appeared a difference of importance between the Jewish and Armenian Holocausts because of fashionable PC thought. The deaths of one side have become more acceptable for one than the other. Its results, as in my case, can be ignored and demeaned in ways impossible for another not because the horrors are more or less objectively justifiable but through selective morality
Oh how true. How easily the psychological determination of relative value in human life is established through selective morality.
Some would suggest that there is no such thing as ‘morality’ that isn’t PC of the time in which it is engendered. Morality is social force of will and nothing more. Disparate groups, even whole cultures define what is moral - or not. Consider: Burning ‘heretics’ at the stake was considered both moral and doing God’s work as late as the 17th century. Slavery was considered moral in the U.S. 150 years ago. Indeed, the practice of slavery is still widely accepted as ‘moral’ in many parts of the world today. There may be such a thing as right and wrong, but they have nothing to do with morality. All morality is PC.
Not a matter of morality, but of fact. We didn't stop burning witches because we decided they didn't deserve burning- we simply stopped believing in witches. We didn't stop sacrificing virgins to help the crops because we decided that virgins were more important than crops, rather, we decided that sacrificing virgins wouldn't actually help.
The issue of politically correct morality is that it confuses message with methodology. At some point we decided that they best way to teach people to be good (with all that entails- temperance, piety, charity, ettiquette, so on and so forth) was to let people learn their own lessons, to be tolerant of odd views, and to let people reason things out for themselves in an atmosphere of open, liberal exchange. But somewhere along the way, the good was lost, and the [i]approach[/i] was considered as good in itself. Now, tolerance is the good, regardless of what it tolerates. Being polite is good, even in the face of atrocity. Allowing people the freedom to reason is good, even and especially if their reason is taking them over a cliff. That's why PC stuff sometimes seems rediculous, it's a case of elevating a process in an attempt to replace a lack of destination.
I partly agree…
Morality is deciding what is good or what is right. And that works great for an individual. Is it moral to go 5 miles per hour over the speed limit? How about 20? Those are decisions each individual has to make whenever they get into a car. But the politically correct answer will always be to go the speed limit. The benefit of this is that it can be applied to every single person, regardless of morallity.
You see, when you talk about this stuff, about what is good and right, you also have to discuss what is possible because we live in a world of limits. The simple truth is governments can not save the entire world, they must pick and choose what to pursue. Their choices are usually: do nothing, save the people most in need, or save the people who can help us the most once they are saved. In the world of middle-of-the-road politics, the last option will always be picked as it splits the difference between the good and the greedy.
(As to the Jewish Holocaust, remember the United States, England, and all the winners of the war, did not even know that it was going on during the course of the war. They entered the conflict for their own PC reasons, notably Pearl Harbor for the United States.)
(Note: my response ignores those more complex moral decisions like homosexuality. How can you discuss political correctness when you can’t even decide on morality?)
Yup sure yup. The process is elevated over what? The process is the definition - and that is my point. Not that the consequences of the process make sense, but that the final ‘morality’ becomes consensus, and thus , from my POV, negates what might be moral and is simply social engineering. Morality in this sense, is an illusion. It is more akin to mob rule.
The only other form of social morality is by that of external authority through religion, government policy and practice, and is almost always a form of authority for which there is no appeal. It is, and there are no exceptions.
Whether PC process or authority, it is coerced behavior. One may judge this to be good or bad, but it denies the possibility of intrinsic knowing of good and evil and acting accordingly. In short, what is commonly called morality assumes that we are children who must be told how to behave.
For some reason, I reject this as morality. Call it what ever you want, but in my book, it isn’t true morality.
Tentative-
I’ll be politically correct here and say, I think we all appreciate your arguments, but they will best be saved for one of the millions of “what is morality” threads that get posted. The original post to this thread is trying to understand the huge divide between moral and politically correct. You would do best to just adopt a simple definition for morality like “what is good and right,” use your observations of political actions to discern what is politically correct, and then go from there.
-wdmc
I agree with Tentative but from a different perspective. Morality and PC thoughts are natural devolutions from out acceptance of Cave life.
The following link is an essay you could copy for a paper to hand in but it is taken almost verbatim from the writings of Simone Weil which they do not tell you. However, to hand it in and the Prof says “Ah, I see you’ve read Simone Weil” and you say "Who?, it may lead to bad consequences.
So from Plato’s perspective, morality is “internal.” It would be normal for us if we had the perspective that linked the world of forms with the visible world. As it is we value it selectively as I described in my initial post.
Objective morality would then be common sense from the point of view that links the world of forms with the visible and we have the capacity for internally by experiencing this wholeness with the balanced whole of ourselves. But lacking this awareness, morality has become as Tentative has described and will continue to change forms in accordance with nature’s cyclic influences that invariably will result again in war for very moral and PC reasons of the times.
That is a very good way of putting it. I believe that Plato was aware of just this question and it is through his perspective that we can contemplate the possibility of objective morality rather than limit it to a subjective shell of itself easily manipulated by PC thought.
thought comes from belief. Belief comes about at random, is changing, and is temporary.
Deny belief.
The physical body can see, by belief in what it can see – but there are unseen things that go on ignored.
Compassion is higher then love.
Wanting pleasure brings suffering, because when one takes away, another is at a loss.
Wanting compassion stops suffering, but one must want compassion instead of pleasure, instead of love.
The human spirit does not want to die. The human spirit wants its own existence. Once its life is taken away from it – through belief – it becomes a slave, and is left without itself. The human spirit then does not understand itself, it does not feel anything for itself other then what it was told to believe. As it does not have want it needs most, it goes on searching for things other then its own body, it tries to gain and take other bodies – but it still keeps on suffering.
Higher beings are capable of compassion.
Lower life forms are incapable of compassion.
Killing lower lifeforms is not a sin, it is a virtue, thus your body has an immune system.
Morality need not be complex.
Stop suffering. Stop believing. Regain yourself – by replacing your belief with your true self.
Human opinion is not truth.
Your self image was put into you – by human opinion alone.
Instead, train your soul as to see your own body clearly.
It is a collection of parts, and the body has a few simple requests:
“Feed and protect me.”
^
These are virtue.
What is less then this, is put above this, which then brings both lower down into suffering.
I think that the politically correct methodology is a fine one, when aimed at the good. The problem is that without an underlying sense of right and wrong, the whole system is subject to unlimited 'drift', like art drifts. The more controversial and hence difficult moral issues, sexual ones being a good example, are where this is most easily seen, where change happens the fastest, but no side of morality is immune.
Tentative:
Tentative, the main thrust of what you’ve said is that there is no ‘real’ morality, and that it’s all social convention- but somehow, people who are absolutist about their morals are doing ‘fake morality’ worse than the rest of us. This underlines the point I would like to make very nicely.
The reason why morality as social contract doesn't work is that it doesn't really address what we mean when we say 'moral', and worse, nobody believes it.
When you are confronted by, say, a raper and killer of children, are your thoughts on this man and his actions best surmised by saying "This is a man who has violated the social agreements of our times, and who has refused to bow under mob rule"? You'd practically be making him a hero of free thought to say so. No, morality is something else altogether. All I have to do is ask you "What's wrong with violating social contracts?" and you have no choice but to acknowledge that morality is something other than what we agree it to be in the moment- one of the things morality governs is the devotion we pay to our agreements. There is a circularity here- morality can only be understood as people honoring a social contract if we take it for granted that there is something good in honoring any contract. Without that unchallenged moral precept, there would be no societal agreements, and no motivation to condemn someone who didn't live up to them.
And here I am confused. Is there such a thing as this knowing, or not? It seems like you opened your post by saying that there were no such things as good and evil to know.
Absolutely! This is my objection to the term morality. For me, true morality springs from empathy, the abiltiy to see others as ourselves, and in that, act in compassion not driven by coercion, but being compelled by that indefinable inner affective … whatever it is that surprises us when we reach out to others. If this sounds fuzzy it is because it is. I never have managed to find words to explain without the words screwing up the explanation. Hopefully, you can get a sense of what I’m not so successfully trying to say.
Again, what is called morality is social engineering, and the only reason we honor this is enculturation. Perhaps a single precept, reinforced at every level of society, can be calledv ‘moral’, but I think on close examination, one finds coercion at it’s base.
And yes, I strongly believe in an intrinsic morality. One sees it occasionally stripped of all explanations. It isn’t that we don’t attempt to codify and build on our natural empathy because we do. Religion and government has made that a fine art. The key is to look at what is being called moral and looking for even subtle coercion. If coercion is found, it is not moral, it is social engineering.
Since I was “cut off†for a few days, I missed this one.
What I was actually speaking about in my post was the hidden conflict that continually has people reeling in the threads where you post. It isn’t the way it seems on the surface, but you have an agenda that you keep below the table. It means that the discussion on the surface is only a door by which you enter, not the subject you want to discuss.
The other point is the way you dress your statements and like to play the “victimâ€. It is a little bit like the man who dresses as a clown and complains that nobody takes him seriously. Your infatuation with Simone Weil, who I also highly respect, and the way you find a quote from her to fit every subject, is what generally causes umbrage – not what she or Plato or whoever else you want to quote has said. It is because you occasionally let your gilded braid appear beneath your paupers dress (figuratively speaking), giving observers the feeling than something is inconsistent.
This is all very true, but it must be clear that you are not one of the people themselves or one of their children, but a grandchild. You wear this heritage combined with the prestige of being “a descendent of one of the worlds greatest artists and humanitarians and in addition, his brother a very highly regarded archbishop†like a gilded David’s Star and expect people to be impressed on the one hand and sympathetic to such a hard Kismet on the other.
This example is for the above mentioned reasons not quite fitting. With regard to the amount of information people are filtering in a day, you can’t expect them not to keep their distance – especially in an anonymous area like the internet. You are just as selective, otherwise you wouldn’t survive. The pure fact that I am even entertaining you with my time is reason enough to thank me. When you start spouting off your sayings (which, by the way, are very repetitive), there is only one thing to do – switch off.
There is no agenda. The fact that you may believe there is must be the result of some psychological state on your part. Think: what agenda could there possibly be. I’ve never even discussed my path. I’ve only emphasized the importance of recognizing the human condition asserted to by the great teachings in the context of religious philosophy. It doesn’t glorify self esteem and people get insulted. That’s all she wrote. It’s as simple as that.
There is no victim. Humanity is the victim. What is so bad about Simone quotes? If she means something to me and I find her grasp of the human condition amazing and worthy to post a few quotes, why condemn me? Sheesh, people quote the Tao right and left and I think it good. It just doesn’t dawn on me to complain and become annoyed if it means something to them. There is nothing to be annoyed at. And then you have the audacity to write of “tolerance??”
If something is inconsistent, point it out. I’d like to see it myself. Don’t just make innuendos.
True, I am a grandchild and according to you it is time to become unconcerned with the hereditary results of Christian slaughter during the Russian Revolution and Armenian Holocaust. This is good PC thought and should in no way be equated with the grandchild of a Jewish family becoming unconcerned with the hereditary results of the Jewish Holocaust. That should be remembered. It is PC to do so. Thank goodness for people like you that interpret PC as it defines human considerations while promoting its destruction.
I mentioned my Russian?Armenian relationship to some incredible people in a PM to point out how stupid it would appear to kick me off the site for my support of Plato and Simone and the descriptions of how their ideas manifest directly in our lives… These ancestors have said basically the same in their lives and appreciated in the world as a result. Their reputations do not roll over to me. But in their eyes, my support of these ancient traditions would not be the evil as it has become in select eyes here. But trying to make me into something I’m not for the purposes of your psychological defense mechanisms becomes more evident once it becomes clear after I am kicked out that the ideas are the same. It isn’t me that is worth anything but these anti PC ancient ideas are.
It is rather scary that you speak of kicking me out because of posts referring to Plato, Weil and Needleman because they are saying the same thing and it is a message you find repulsive. At least my ancestors mentioned before are appreciated for supporting the human spirit and its potential. I agree, it is repulsive but something that must be dealt with in real life.
Thank you, thank you Lord Bob for condescending to entertain my foolishness with your time.
Dear reader, welcome to the world of PC thought. It is the amount of info available rather than its quality that determines its value. Not Too much on the Armenian Holocaust so its deaths and concerns for its death cannot be equated with the Jewish Holocaust. The grandchildren of each should recognize the difference and know their place in the PC world.
The reasons for this are quite interesting. We claim that we want equality but in actuality we want prestige. So when we make speeches and express"wonderful “thoughts” on equality, we justify ourselves as “moral” beings. But PC thought allows us the experience of prestige because it is an expression of inequality and aligning ourselves with the “right” side gives us “prestige.”
Its power is in that it allows us to experience two emotions simultaneously that are in contradiction and feel good about it. That’s almost better than good scotch.
For my own part, I believe that we have an intrinsic moral [i]sense[/i]- that is, we are all compelled that there is such a thing as morality, we all have an instinct that says there are such things as 'right' and 'wrong' behavior- even if it doesn't supply us with the basics. I think beyond that though, we are in the dark and need to be taught.
Your outlook on morality- do you see any difference between cohersion and education?
Yes, a sense of right and wrong. That’s the problem with enculturation. It isn’t that we have no capacity to act out of empathy, but that we are taught what that acting out should be. This is why Golden Rule is easy to quote but almost impossible to act upon. The dilemma of true morality, at least in the sense I use it, is the necessity of un-learning what I have been taught, and re-learning how to listen with my heart. It is an imperfect performance of an ideal, and both understanding and acting out goes beyond language. When I am truly acting morally, I’m not thinking about it. It is spontaneous acting out of heart. I realize that this is a poor explanation, but words are a poor way of expressing the experience. (shrug)
There is something you continue to miss: There are other POV’s beside that of esoteric christianity. The idea that somehow, ‘ancient’ concepts have more weight than current thoughts is bogus. Ideas and concepts are just ideas and concepts. All must be considered in the context of the time they were first brought forward. That an idea may evolve to ‘fit’ the time and culture of today doesn’t make it “PC”. No idea is static. It is reinterpreted every generation. This includes all philosophies and religions. You are free to hold to a single perspective if you wish. But to imply that all else is less than, wrong, an expression of “wonderfulness”, or any of the other dismissive terms you have used, simply exemplifies the pigeon-holed rigidity of your thinking. You constantly suggest that your position “annoys” those who hold different viewpoints because they are “wrong” and you of course, are “right”. Like all knowers, you ‘see’ what others don’t see. The hubris you bring with you is what is annoying, not the position you espouse, not all the quotations. That you use the rebuff of your prideful way of presenting yourself as “proof” that you are in the right is truly sad. You aren’t the first to climb up on the cross and die for our sins. Jesus “annoyed” a great many people. But the rejection you find here has nothing to do with the ideas, it has to do with the prideful assumption of the mantle. Do as you will, but see it clearly for what it is, and not for your wish of martyrdom.
tentative- One last question- does your view obligate you to claiming that people act better when they aren’t under the control of a heirarchal society telling them how to behave? If morals come from within, and enforcement from without is generally a distortion of them, then what about Hobbes, Lord of the Flies, and ideas like that?
Hopefully, you can get a sense of what I’m not so successfully trying to say.