Morality and debt?

[Diekon]

Would i be missing out a lot if i made Debt the central concept of my personal moral views?

It seem a lot can be described in terms of debt, for instance :

- My moral obligations versus society at large could be viewed as me having to uphold my end of the social contract, that's a form of debt
- Obligations in work-situation are another obvious example that can be viewed in terms of debt
- Moral obligations towards Friends and family could possibly also be view in those terms, throught a shared history and tacit agreements etc..

What do you think?

[anon]

Makes sense to me. Though there's kind of a poverty mentality thing going on haha.

Seriously though, I mean that.

[Faust]

I think "transactions" is more descriptive, but in the end, perhaps not necessarily a better model, depending on what you mean by "debt". If I buy something from you, I "owe" you the money, or you owe me the thing, but for how long? Seconds?

[Diekon]

Makes sense to me. Though there's kind of a poverty mentality thing going on haha.

Seriously though, I mean that.

Mmmm, poverty mentality, yes i can see where you're coming from, i think. That would certainly be the case if you view all actions as moraly inspired actions, or if you only acted out of moral obligation.

Would it change things if i said not all actions have to be morally inspired, eg i could also do things for other people because i like them, or for whatever other reason.... "ON TOP OF" the moral obligations. Moral obligations sort of as the minimal case for my actions.

[anon]

Makes sense to me. Though there's kind of a poverty mentality thing going on haha.

Seriously though, I mean that.

Mmmm, poverty mentality, yes i can see where you're coming from, i think. That would certainly be the case if you view all actions as moraly inspired actions, or if you only acted out of moral obligation.

Would it change things if i said not all actions have to be morally inspired, eg i could also do things for other people because i like them, or for whatever other reason.... "ON TOP OF" the moral obligations. Moral obligations sort of as the minimal case for my actions.

I don't know. It makes sense to me, it's very straightforward. But what do you think of the Taoist view, for instance? For example:

Abandon wisdom and discard cleverness,
and people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon humanity and discard morality,
and people will rediscover love and duty.
Abandon skill and discard profit,
and there will be no thieves or robbers.
These three things relate to externals and are inadequate.

People need what they can depend on:
reveal simplicity; embrace the natural;
control selfishness; reduce desires.

[minesadorada]

If you choose to enjoy social rights, then you also choose to fulfil social obligations. Is that an onerous debt?

[Diekon]

I think "transactions" is more descriptive, but in the end, perhaps not necessarily a better model, depending on what you mean by "debt". If I buy something from you, I "owe" you the money, or you owe me the thing, but for how long? Seconds?

That will depend on the sort of contract or agreement that is made, or is implied in the situation. In your example for instance, the debt would last 5 years under Belgian law. As a parent you'll have a longer debt towards your children, etc...

[Faust]

yeah, and it's that social contract idea that you are talking about. Essentially, it's dealmaking, which may encompass just a little more than debt, although the idea of debt is always in the background.

[Diekon]

I don't know. It makes sense to me, it's very straightforward. But what do you think of the Taoist view, for instance? For example:

Abandon wisdom and discard cleverness,
and people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon humanity and discard morality,
and people will rediscover love and duty.
Abandon skill and discard profit,
and there will be no thieves or robbers.
These three things relate to externals and are inadequate.

People need what they can depend on:
reveal simplicity; embrace the natural;
control selfishness; reduce desires.

I've looked into Taoism a couple of years ago, and it did have some appeal to me. I even made some half-assed attempt at living more along those lines.

My contention against my no doubt flimsy understanding of taoism, is that isn't not very feasable to live like that in todays world.

You know allan watts? He was thé western Taoist Guru. What he said looks nice and inspirational and all... but he also had alcohol problems and wasn't a very good parent to his children. Not that this is a argument against Taoism per se, but it does sum up my view on it. I may give up on all those worldly desires for a while and live accordingly, untill i wake up one day, and realise my desires are still there and i have made no progress in terms of working on a solution.

[Diekon]

yeah, and it's that social contract idea that you are talking about. Essentially, it's dealmaking, which may encompass just a little more than debt, although the idea of debt is always in the background.

Yes, i see it now. Some sort of contract is prior to the concept of debt.

Thanks.

[Nah]

Why the hell do you want (or need) to have "personal moral view"?

Is it because you want to consider yourself someone of great integrity or something like that?

I think we are simply living/acting for our stupid and chaotic preferences and beliefs, after all.
So, I don't think it's so important to conform (or trying to conform, to be exact) certain rule of conduct, which you won't be keeping up, anyway.

[anon]

I think we are simply living/acting for our stupid and chaotic preferences and beliefs, after all.

If you think your preferences and beliefs are stupid and chaotic, doesn't that mean you're already participating in good/evil dualism whether you want to or not?

[Diekon]

Why the hell do you want (or need) to have "personal moral view"?

I want to determine how to act in certain situation... with some consistency.

To be more clear even, they are not meant to be just views for the heck of it, they would pertain to my actions.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

Suppose that we could relegate all transactions into monetary alternatives. That's not a moot question because court rooms strive for a debt sentence all the time (forgive the pun). Before we can even consider this as a rational choice, we first have to base the debt in Money which buys fixed commodity like copper or lead or whatever (which legal tender does not).

If and only if we can start talking in fixed commodity (real Money), then we can start asking whether every moral instance can be debt equivalent. That becomes difficult in heinous crime. Do we all feel justified in putting a price tag on baby-rape?

However, if we institute a categorical construct between heinous crimes and other crimes (which the United States does), and institute real Money (which perhaps no sovereign does, ironically) perhaps that is acceptable as a means to relegate many obligations in terms of monetary debt or transaction if not all. And the ultimate fee for unpaid debt being prison.

[Nah]

Why the hell do you want (or need) to have "personal moral view"?

I want to determine how to act in certain situation... with some consistency.

To be more clear even, they are not meant to be just views for the heck of it, they would pertain to my actions.

I see. Good luck.

I think you will end up learning that consistency is and idea (or ideal) like infinity that you will never attain, though.
But it's better to follow your preference/desire for the consistency, even if it's doomed to fail, than try to avoid it, most probably.

It's possible that what you really want is the sense of (apparent but not really consistent nor solid) security.
I mean, you want to think that you are acting good and in consistent manner on top of it, and it's more important than whether if you are doing what you want and what others around want or not, for now.
I think it's a false sense of security.
But again, you've got to do it, till it's clear enough that it doesn't really satisfy you (nor others).

[Diekon]

Suppose that we could relegate all transactions into monetary alternatives. That's not a moot question because court rooms strive for a debt sentence all the time (forgive the pun). Before we can even consider this as a rational choice, we first have to base the debt in Money which buys fixed commodity like copper or lead or whatever (which legal tender does not).

If and only if we can start talking in fixed commodity (real Money), then we can start asking whether every moral instance can be debt equivalent. That becomes difficult in heinous crime. Do we all feel justified in putting a price tag on baby-rape?

However, if we institute a categorical construct between heinous crimes and other crimes (which the United States does), and institute real Money (which perhaps no sovereign does, ironically) perhaps that is acceptable as a means to relegate many obligations in terms of monetary debt or transaction if not all. And the ultimate fee for unpaid debt being prison.

Sorry, i don't quite see why all debt should be viewed in monetary terms? Could you explain why this should be so?

Also, one of the basic principles of contract law over here, is that one should first try to pay debt in kind, and only if that isn't possible, in monetary equivalent.

[anon]

Hmm, somehow I missed this post and thought you just weren't interested.

I've looked into Taoism a couple of years ago, and it did have some appeal to me. I even made some half-assed attempt at living more along those lines.

My contention against my no doubt flimsy understanding of taoism, is that isn't not very feasable to live like that in todays world.

You know allan watts? He was thé western Taoist Guru. What he said looks nice and inspirational and all... but he also had alcohol problems and wasn't a very good parent to his children. Not that this is a argument against Taoism per se, but it does sum up my view on it. I may give up on all those worldly desires for a while and live accordingly, untill i wake up one day, and realise my desires are still there and i have made no progress in terms of working on a solution.

It was more the "discard morality, and people will rediscover love and duty" aspect that I'm interested in here. It's a different view of morality than social contract theory. For instance, Faust says that morality as social contract is all morality has ever been. I disagree - I think morality is many things. I'm curious what your take on it is. The Taoist point of view seems to be "get rid of the social contract, and watch people express their natural moral posture towards the world".

[Diekon]

Why the hell do you want (or need) to have "personal moral view"?

I want to determine how to act in certain situation... with some consistency.

To be more clear even, they are not meant to be just views for the heck of it, they would pertain to my actions.

I see. Good luck.

I think you will end up learning that consistency is and idea (or ideal) like infinity that you will never attain, though.
But it's better to follow your preference/desire for the consistency, even if it's doomed to fail, than try to avoid it, most probably.

It's possible that what you really want is the sense of (apparent but not really consistent nor solid) security.
I mean, you want to think that you are acting good and in consistent manner on top of it, and it's more important than whether if you are doing what you want and what others around want or not, for now.
I think it's a false sense of security.
But again, you've got to do it, till it's clear enough that it doesn't really satisfy you (nor others).

Yeah 'some' consistency, i doesn't have to perfect.

I don't think it's necessarily doomed to fail, i allready act more or less with some consistency. I mean, it's not as if I wake every morning and go through my day acting totally random.

And i don't want to be some sort of "good boy", nor do i want to see myself as a "moral person" in the typical sense. You're just jumping to unwarrented conclusion here based on some common psychological notions you hold.

I think good things can come from a more consistency personal view on morality, and not only to reduce mental anguish.

[Diekon]

Hmm, somehow I missed this post and thought you just weren't interested.

I've looked into Taoism a couple of years ago, and it did have some appeal to me. I even made some half-assed attempt at living more along those lines.

My contention against my no doubt flimsy understanding of taoism, is that isn't not very feasable to live like that in todays world.

You know allan watts? He was thé western Taoist Guru. What he said looks nice and inspirational and all... but he also had alcohol problems and wasn't a very good parent to his children. Not that this is a argument against Taoism per se, but it does sum up my view on it. I may give up on all those worldly desires for a while and live accordingly, untill i wake up one day, and realise my desires are still there and i have made no progress in terms of working on a solution.

It was more the "discard morality, and people will rediscover love and duty" aspect that I'm interested in here. It's a different view of morality than social contract theory. For instance, Faust says that morality as social contract is all morality has ever been. I disagree - I think morality is many things. I'm curious what your take on it is. The Taoist point of view seems to be "get rid of the social contract, and watch people express their natural moral posture towards the world".

I'll get back to u on this tonight, i need to go now.

[statiktech]

Nah,

"Consistency" isn't infallible and isn't lost if you happen to act or think contrary to some principle you hold. I think it is more of a measure by which we categorize our level of commitment or adherence to a principle.

Anon,

The Taoist point of view seems to be "get rid of the social contract, and watch people express their natural moral posture towards the world".

Wouldn't this suggest a movement toward inherent selfishness, prejudice, and esotericism? I'd think the very value of the social contract lies in the moral agreement between foreign parties.

[anon]

Anon,

The Taoist point of view seems to be "get rid of the social contract, and watch people express their natural moral posture towards the world".

Wouldn't this suggest a movement toward inherent selfishness, prejudice, and esotericism? I'd think the very value of the social contract lies in the moral agreement between foreign parties.

I think eastern religions often propose disciplines that help practitioners to distinguish and cultivate a version of "natural" that is not what many of us think of as "natural". Buddhism, for instance, distinguishes "natural" from "habitual". Since Buddhists don't consider us to be blank slates when we are born, our actions as small children can be considered "habitual". On the other hand, the good news is that the natural state is constantly and always available to us. Innocence and experience are not seen as mutually exclusive, at all.

So the conceptual problem here is how is it natural if it needs cultivation? But I think that's a superficial problem. If you think about it, you'll realize how much we are trained right from birth. We are trained to be more this or more that, to think and act in certain ways. So the disciplines utilized by the practioners of Buddhism (and I think Taoism) could be considered a kind of de-programming.

[Diekon]

It was more the "discard morality, and people will rediscover love and duty" aspect that I'm interested in here. It's a different view of morality than social contract theory. For instance, Faust says that morality as social contract is all morality has ever been. I disagree - I think morality is many things. I'm curious what your take on it is. The Taoist point of view seems to be "get rid of the social contract, and watch people express their natural moral posture towards the world".

Yeah, my guess is that that passage is meant as a critique on the morality of the times, to give more room for the devellopment of a more personal ethic, something akin to virtue. Moral rules can be arbitrary and dumb, you can't eat porq, you have to be circumcised or you can't use a condom, etc... blind following of all those moral rules gets in the way of thinking about your own situation more clearly.

I"d agree with this critique. That doesn't need to mean that the social contract isn't a good description of what morality is though.

Edit : And on a further note, i don't think literally doing away with all of morality (as social contract) would be a good thing. There need to be at least some order, and not everybody will behave left to their own devices.

[anon]

Yes, my argument is that morality is more than the social contract - not that the social contract should be abandoned.

[Nah]

Yeah 'some' consistency, i doesn't have to perfect.

I don't think it's necessarily doomed to fail, i allready act more or less with some consistency. I mean, it's not as if I wake every morning and go through my day acting totally random.

Maybe you were actually very incoherent and inconsistent person.
Then I may agree that more consistency can be refreshing or calming, at least (among other possible effects).

And i don't want to be some sort of "good boy", nor do i want to see myself as a "moral person" in the typical sense. You're just jumping to unwarrented conclusion here based on some common psychological notions you hold.

I thought you wanted to live without (or with less) "moral debt".
And it's not very far from trying to be a "good boy (without or with less debt)", in a way, to me.
I understand that you want to think that I'm making mistake, though.
You can think in any way you want. You are free.

I think good things can come from a more consistency personal view on morality, and not only to reduce mental anguish.

Personally, I think it would be more "satisfying" to know and live according to one's preferences.
However, we have complex and confused layers of often contradicting preferences, making our life seemingly more complicated than it could be.
And it's not necessarily easy to align/unite the layers and filaments of preferences.
So, it's normal that if someone wanted to try this and that, and there is nothing wrong with it.

I don't care much about moral view for many reasons but it's just one of my preferences.
So please keep doing what you want.

[Nah]

Nah,

"Consistency" isn't infallible and isn't lost if you happen to act or think contrary to some principle you hold. I think it is more of a measure by which we categorize our level of commitment or adherence to a principle.

It depends on each person.
Maybe it's a great consistency to attain about 30% adherence level.
For others, it may appear as too erratic and inconsistent.
And whatever the degree you aim, you can still fail and feel bad about it.

Basically, I think it's about how you feel and not really about principle/moral/whatever.
But many humans want to think that it's something more than their personal feeling.
For some, "moral", "principle", and so on must sound better to their ear, somehow.
To me, it's just a fashion thing. A disguise, makeup. I'm not really against fashion things, though. It can be fun and funny. It can be artistic, too.