Morality and debt?

[anon]

I'll try to make it more explicit for you.

Following quotes are from your posts.
They all contain at least one good/evil evaluation without mention of for who (or what) it is good/bad and how you can say it (compared to what, how it is evaluated/verified), etc.
I'll put the part in bold.

I don't think good/evil dualism is bad. I think of some things as good and some things as evil; therefore, I participate in good/evil dualism. But I try to be fluid about it, and to see things in context. That is the nondual aspect which I value as "good".

Faust wrote a nice post about "evil" in this thread. His post there implies that we can see good/evil as a relative distinction, but not an absolute one.
So we can see good/evil duality from a nondual point of view. I think that is a good thing to do - it is a worthy undertaking.

Nah, I think another way to look at the relationship of the good/evil distinction and nondualism is to assess the level of righteous indignation that accompanies one's moral preferences and beliefs. The greater the level of righteous indignation, the more dualistic. Given this understanding of dualism, valuing the good is not in itself dualistic. Righteous indignation is extra baggage. I'm tempted to say it's a bad thing. I've suggested it before (though I was mostly just kind of playing around).

Substantializing "good" and "evil" is immoral in the sense of the word I've made explicit here - morality is about relationship. So "goodness", if it is to be meaningful, is necessarily non-dual. Or to put it another way, what is "good" is what leads towards the understanding and realization of nonduality.

Can you see that you are not specifying one or more of elements in your evaluation/thought?
"good/bad" compared to what? "good" evaluated by what kind of method?
"good" for who? "good" under what condition? "good" within what kind of range/perimeters?
"good" except what kind of cases?

Your first mistake is to see the word "good" and assume it means the same thing in all cases. Good can mean "what God demands", it can mean "what a person ought to do/how a person ought to be", it can mean "universally (morally) correct", it can mean "what I value", it can mean "what I prefer" (i.e. my taste in food), etc.

I've been saying something like "a nondual perspective is good", in slightly different ways. You seem to think I've contradicted myself, as you can't see how "nondual" "is" and "good" can peacefully coexist. I guess my comments about righteous indignation didn't clarify my point, so I'll give an example of how this works:

A simplistic moral outlook is often just an extension of the friend/enemy distinction. Though I may adhere to certain moral codes (most people do that, more or less), I may tend to forget that morality has no essence - it is all relationship. Moral intelligence in my opinion is simply the ability to engage skillfully in sympathetic relationships. One aspect of that ability likely involves a fearless commitment to certain moral codes. Morality is not just some kind of wishy-washy friendliness, it is friendliness with backbone. If I have this moral code I commit to, and some identifiable group of people holds to a different moral code (or seems immoral to me - or therefore seems immoral to me) then I might mistakenly substantialize my values and think of those people as "bad", or "evil". Substantializing my values often involves bloated justification - i.e. my values come from God, therefore I am correct and those who are different from me are wrong. But in fact there is no ultimate justification to depend on, at all. All there is is relativity and relationship. People complain about morality being relativized, but morality is about relationship. That is what morality is. Further, nothing is permanent, and relationships such as the friend-enemy relationship is no exception. So to substantialize the friend=good & enemy=evil equation is unintelligent. Jesus said "love your enemy". He was advocating bringing a nondual perspective into simplistic moral judgements. Why would he advocate something he didn't value? Of course he valued this nondual perspective as good.

Nah, I call what I value "good". If you don't call what you value "good", it doesn't change the fact that we are exactly the same. We value things. I value seeing others as like myself, and I value understanding that what we call good and evil are merely human fabrications which we impose on others. I value the notion, which I believe to be true, that there is no ultimate justification for our actions. I also value the notion that remaining open to others and not clinging to my own preferences and beliefs as objectively true is an intelligent and good way of approaching life.

I think if a person doesn't value nonduality as good, they likely won't ever get beyond their simplistic moral judgements. You can't just pretend you're above it all.

[Nah]

Though if you'd be able to present arguments that morality isn't necessary for a society after all, then i'd certainly be prepared to look in it.

If you REALLY want me to present arguments that (what you consider as) morality isn't necessary (in the way you want to evaluate it) for (what you consider as) a society, you can simply spell out how you thought about these.
This way, we will be talking about something at least similar.

No, i do no REALLY want you to present arguments on that issue. That matter is more or less settled in my mind, so i have no real interest in discussing that anymore... i thought i made that clear. I'm allways interested in a new perspective on it though, so if you want to make your case, great.

Which issue, then?
Tell me and I may do it.

[Nah]

Nah - take care not to pour the condescension on too thick.

Be more specific, please.
Which part of my post to which member is too thick for your taste?
If you don't want to say in forum, you can PM me, too.

If you wrote this as a friendly advice, I appreciate your concern.
If it's an official warning from a moderator, it's too thin and unclear to adjust posting style.

[Nah]

I'll try to make it more explicit for you.

Following quotes are from your posts.
They all contain at least one good/evil evaluation without mention of for who (or what) it is good/bad and how you can say it (compared to what, how it is evaluated/verified), etc.
I'll put the part in bold.

I don't think good/evil dualism is bad. I think of some things as good and some things as evil; therefore, I participate in good/evil dualism. But I try to be fluid about it, and to see things in context. That is the nondual aspect which I value as "good".

Faust wrote a nice post about "evil" in this thread. His post there implies that we can see good/evil as a relative distinction, but not an absolute one.
So we can see good/evil duality from a nondual point of view. I think that is a good thing to do - it is a worthy undertaking.

Nah, I think another way to look at the relationship of the good/evil distinction and nondualism is to assess the level of righteous indignation that accompanies one's moral preferences and beliefs. The greater the level of righteous indignation, the more dualistic. Given this understanding of dualism, valuing the good is not in itself dualistic. Righteous indignation is extra baggage. I'm tempted to say it's a bad thing. I've suggested it before (though I was mostly just kind of playing around).

Substantializing "good" and "evil" is immoral in the sense of the word I've made explicit here - morality is about relationship. So "goodness", if it is to be meaningful, is necessarily non-dual. Or to put it another way, what is "good" is what leads towards the understanding and realization of nonduality.

Can you see that you are not specifying one or more of elements in your evaluation/thought?
"good/bad" compared to what? "good" evaluated by what kind of method?
"good" for who? "good" under what condition? "good" within what kind of range/perimeters?
"good" except what kind of cases?

Your first mistake is to see the word "good" and assume it means the same thing in all cases.

Where did I say that?
You are talking from your wrong assumption, again ...

It doesn't matter if your "good", "bad", "nice", etc means different things.
It's the lack of context/perspective, in each particular case.
Do you understand this?
Can you see that you often fail to provide element(s) of context/perspective?
Please answer to these questions.

Good can mean "what God demands", it can mean "what a person ought to do/how a person ought to be", it can mean "universally (morally) correct", it can mean "what I value", it can mean "what I prefer" (i.e. my taste in food), etc.

Can you understand the silliness of "universally (morally) correct"?
Do you see that "what I value" isn't specific enough?

I may comment on the rest when you provide answers to my questions.

[anon]

Can you understand that I'm done with this inane discussion, Nah? Can you?

[Nah]

Can you understand that I'm done with this inane discussion, Nah? Can you?

Nope.
I will understand you are done with this interesting exchange with full of easy to understand and convincing examples ONLY WHEN you actually manage to stop replying.
Just like the matter of the lack of context, I care about actual action.

[Diekon]

Which issue, then?
Tell me and I may do it.

And you probably won't, as you can allways find something that isn't specific enough for your taste, but here goes...

Any society will do. There's no real need to specific in this case, cause evey society i know of has moral rules.

The claim was that a society wouldn't "work" without morality. I know this is vague, but i thought it was enough to get the point across. Apparently not. With "work" i mean some "order" basicly. People want some certainty about how other people will behave, and make deals to that end. That enables them to predict how people will react to certain actions, and helps them plan ahead to get what they want.

To give a more specific example in case that would be necessary, i'll use the one i've been using in this thread. "Killing is bad, or wrong" or "you shouldn't kill a human being". This doesn't have to be absolute, there can be limited exceptions to that rule, in case of self defence, or it could only apply to the in-group, whatever... it's still a general moral rule aimed at making human behaviour predictable. Most people living in groups don't want to wake up every morning knowing they'll have to make sure they don't get killed by the end of the day.

A society where killing other people from the group is allowed in all circumstances wouldn't "work". Have a go.

[Faust]

Be more specific, please.
Which part of my post to which member is too thick for your taste?
If you don't want to say in forum, you can PM me, too.

If you wrote this as a friendly advice, I appreciate your concern.
If it's an official warning from a moderator, it's too thin and unclear to adjust posting style.

Perhaps you should PM me, Nah. Which part of my warning was too unclear for your taste? Your response was just too thin and unclear for me to adjust my moderating style.

[Nah]

Be more specific, please.
Which part of my post to which member is too thick for your taste?
If you don't want to say in forum, you can PM me, too.

If you wrote this as a friendly advice, I appreciate your concern.
If it's an official warning from a moderator, it's too thin and unclear to adjust posting style.

Perhaps you should PM me, Nah. Which part of my warning was too unclear for your taste? Your response was just too thin and unclear for me to adjust my moderating style.

PM sent with more details.

[Nah]

Which issue, then?
Tell me and I may do it.

And you probably won't, as you can allways find something that isn't specific enough for your taste, but here goes...

Don't be so pessimistic.

Any society will do. There's no real need to specific in this case, cause evey society i know of has moral rules.

The claim was that a society wouldn't "work" without morality. I know this is vague, but i thought it was enough to get the point across. Apparently not. With "work" i mean some "order" basicly. People want some certainty about how other people will behave, and make deals to that end. That enables them to predict how people will react to certain actions, and helps them plan ahead to get what they want.

So, the desired end result of "morality" is the predictability, certainty (in the mind of the members of any group).
I said "in the mind of" because there is no absolute predictability nor certainty if we think logically.
In other words, for a very logical person, this type of end result is already out of question.
Now, for a less logical person, I can understand that imagined or appearance of predictability or certainty can be often acceptable (or desired).
And I guess some people want this because they want (the appearance of) peace of mind.

To give a more specific example in case that would be necessary, i'll use the one i've been using in this thread. "Killing is bad, or wrong" or "you shouldn't kill a human being". This doesn't have to be absolute, there can be limited exceptions to that rule, in case of self defence, or it could only apply to the in-group, whatever... it's still a general moral rule aimed at making human behaviour predictable. Most people living in groups don't want to wake up every morning knowing they'll have to make sure they don't get killed by the end of the day.

A society where killing other people from the group is allowed in all circumstances wouldn't "work". Have a go.

What is the real cause we kill and don't kill?
What makes us act?
Is it the morality that is conceived/understood intelectually by more or less logical part of us?
Or is it the combination of circumstances and preferences and beliefs?

I tend to think that our intellectual/logical part isn't very strong in most people, to the point we are insane and stupid compared to an imaginary person who can think well all the time.
I think our emotional and biological part is much stronger in dictating our action (and our thought), especially in long run.

So, I guess it's normal that most intellectual/logical efforts that don't take biological/emotional factor into consideration would fail, eventually.
And I think it's not really morality but our basic preferences and beliefs that is making us live without killing others (at least for many of us, or at least not very often).
If this is the case, I don't think we really need morality much to have similar killing rate.

I mean, personally, I don't feel any "moral" constraint against killing others.
But I wouldn't do it, most probably, because I'm too lazy, to begin with, and I don't like messy thing like blood all over and guts hanging out. And there are some other factors that goes against my preferences.
I'd say that the preferences of others in this matter isn't so far from mine, in many cases, although there would be smaller number of people who really like/love killing for different reasons.



To summarize, I think we can get the appearance of peace of mind from many things other than morality, and I don't think morality is the main factor that make us act in certain way.
So, I don't think we need it to have the appearance of peace of mind nor to make us act (or to make us believe that others would act) in certain way.
This is the case of not very logical person.

For a (more or less) very logical person (or someone has stronger preferences for "logical integrity/honesty"), the idea of morality is absurd form the beginning and thus there is not much need to even think about it.
I mean, it's like talking if God exists or not when the God is an imaginary thing that isn't clearly defined. It's simply too absurd.


PS.

There are more possible takes to this.
But it's the way that's most aligned with my preferences of the day.

[Diekon]

Which issue, then?
Tell me and I may do it.

And you probably won't, as you can allways find something that isn't specific enough for your taste, but here goes...

Don't be so pessimistic.

Any society will do. There's no real need to specific in this case, cause evey society i know of has moral rules.

The claim was that a society wouldn't "work" without morality. I know this is vague, but i thought it was enough to get the point across. Apparently not. With "work" i mean some "order" basicly. People want some certainty about how other people will behave, and make deals to that end. That enables them to predict how people will react to certain actions, and helps them plan ahead to get what they want.

So, the desired end result of "morality" is the predictability, certainty (in the mind of the members of any group).
I said "in the mind of" because there is no absolute predictability nor certainty if we think logically.
In other words, for a very logical person, this type of end result is already out of question.
Now, for a less logical person, I can understand that imagined or appearance of predictability or certainty can be often acceptable (or desired).
And I guess some people want this because they want (the appearance of) peace of mind.

Yes, again, i said some certainty, it doesn't have to be absolute. And the result of morality is not only predictability in the minds of people, thought that is a part of it i suppose. It does have tangible results in that a lot of people will follow those rules. And of course not everybody will follow them, but for the people that is still better than nobody following the rule because there is no rule.

To give a more specific example in case that would be necessary, i'll use the one i've been using in this thread. "Killing is bad, or wrong" or "you shouldn't kill a human being". This doesn't have to be absolute, there can be limited exceptions to that rule, in case of self defence, or it could only apply to the in-group, whatever... it's still a general moral rule aimed at making human behaviour predictable. Most people living in groups don't want to wake up every morning knowing they'll have to make sure they don't get killed by the end of the day.

A society where killing other people from the group is allowed in all circumstances wouldn't "work". Have a go.

What is the real cause we kill and don't kill?
What makes us act?
Is it the morality that is conceived/understood intelectually by more or less logical part of us?
Or is it the combination of circumstances and preferences and beliefs?

I tend to think that our intellectual/logical part isn't very strong in most people, to the point we are insane and stupid compared to an imaginary person who can think well all the time.
I think our emotional and biological part is much stronger in dictating our action (and our thought), especially in long run.

So, I guess it's normal that most intellectual/logical efforts that don't take biological/emotional factor into consideration would fail, eventually.
And I think it's not really morality but our basic preferences and beliefs that is making us live without killing others (at least for many of us, or at least not very often).
If this is the case, I don't think we really need morality much to have similar killing rate.

I mean, personally, I don't feel any "moral" constraint against killing others.
But I wouldn't do it, most probably, because I'm too lazy, to begin with, and I don't like messy thing like blood all over and guts hanging out. And there are some other factors that goes against my preferences.
I'd say that the preferences of others in this matter isn't so far from mine, in many cases, although there would be smaller number of people who really like/love killing for different reasons.

Our basic preferences are not to be viewed in total isolation from morality, i think. We are partly social animal, and we are learned to behave according to some moral rules from birth. Most don't want to be isolated from the group, so they don't even think about crossing any boundaries, that's also a basic preference...

My grandparents didn't have any problem killing, skining and preparing a rabbid to cook it, now nobody will come near a rabbid that isn't neatly prepackaged and ready to cook... I don't know if we are "inherently" so adverse to killing people, especially people not belonging to our group.

To summarize, I think we can get the appearance of peace of mind from many things other than morality, and I don't think morality is the main factor that make us act in certain way.
So, I don't think we need it to have the appearance of peace of mind nor to make us act (or to make us believe that others would act) in certain way.
This is the case of not very logical person.

For a (more or less) very logical person (or someone has stronger preferences for "logical integrity/honesty"), the idea of morality is absurd form the beginning and thus there is not much need to even think about it.
I mean, it's like talking if God exists or not when the God is an imaginary thing that isn't clearly defined. It's simply too absurd.

"Not the main factor" is still a factor, and a factor a society can't do without i'd argue. This is hard to prove of course... I hope by a very logical person you don't mean a person who won't accept anything less than absolute certainty.

[Nah]

Yes, again, i said some certainty, it doesn't have to be absolute. And the result of morality is not only predictability in the minds of people, thought that is a part of it i suppose. It does have tangible results in that a lot of people will follow those rules. And of course not everybody will follow them, but for the people that is still better than nobody following the rule because there is no rule.

I'd say, it's better for what you like.
And probably, it appears to be better for what you like, more precisely.
So, this evaluation can be seen as the expression of your preference.
I think that morality appears to you as something necessary for what you like.
There is nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think it's reflecting well constructed thought.

Our basic preferences are not to be viewed in total isolation from morality, i think.

I said morality may influence preferences and beliefs of us, just like anything else.
However, I do think preferences are more primitive or basic than morality.
And I tend to see it's more morality that is reflecting the preferences than the opposite, although there are interaction and exchanges between them.

We are partly social animal, and we are learned to behave according to some moral rules from birth.

I thought you were talking about more systematic and artificial moral rules.
If you are including instinctive tendencies of us in the "moral rule", I think you are making morality into even more messy mixed bag.
Also, it may make "talking about the necessity of morality for the society to work" somewhat meaningless, as I don't think we know how to remove such instinctive tendencies (and I don't think we really know about "instinctive moral rule").
So, I don't think it's a good idea to bring that in.

Most don't want to be isolated from the group, so they don't even think about crossing any boundaries, that's also a basic preference...

If so, it is the case (instinctive) preferences (of not wanting to be isolated) is creating or enforcing certain prohibition/hesitation that can be seen as morality by some people.

In short, preferences influencing actions, and some considering it as morality.
But I don't think we need to bring "morality" to understand what's going on.
In other words, "morality" can be a preferred way of seeing thing for some people.
Maybe it's a bit like some people who talk/interpret things in bible story, star trek episode, and so on.
Just a narrative.
But even as a narrative, I think it's too messy (like economics, geopolitics, etc).
I think it's something messy disguised as cool/neat/necessity/organized/etc.
It's more of "moral mess" rather than "moral rules", to me.
It might appear attractive, and I'm not against personal taste of anyone loving odd things.
But I don't think it's a really good idea to take odd preference as sound idea, if we want to think reasonably.

My grandparents didn't have any problem killing, skining and preparing a rabbid to cook it, now nobody will come near a rabbid that isn't neatly prepackaged and ready to cook... I don't know if we are "inherently" so adverse to killing people, especially people not belonging to our group.

Killing for eating is a bit different, I'd say.
Eating is a BIG necessity for any creature (unless trying to die by not eating).
But even for eating, your points shows we don't really like messy thing, so much.
I did lots of fishing and cutting/cooking fish.
I still find it pretty messy to kill them and chop them apart and clean to cook them.
And many people are more or less lazy and prefer less of messy thing.
If it's not for eating, I guess more people would prefer even less of messy thing like killing.

To summarize, I think we can get the appearance of peace of mind from many things other than morality, and I don't think morality is the main factor that make us act in certain way.
So, I don't think we need it to have the appearance of peace of mind nor to make us act (or to make us believe that others would act) in certain way.
This is the case of not very logical person.

For a (more or less) very logical person (or someone has stronger preferences for "logical integrity/honesty"), the idea of morality is absurd form the beginning and thus there is not much need to even think about it.
I mean, it's like talking if God exists or not when the God is an imaginary thing that isn't clearly defined. It's simply too absurd.

"Not the main factor" is still a factor, and a factor a society can't do without i'd argue. This is hard to prove of course...

It depends on how you define and delimit things.
If you really want, you can define things so that you can prove it withing the condition you set.
You can make most (if not any) theory true by adjusting the conditions and other factors.

I hope by a very logical person you don't mean a person who won't accept anything less than absolute certainty.

I'd say very logical person wouldn't desire "absolute certainty" because it's obvious that "absolute(ness)" and "certainty" contradict each other, even though the same person may continue to desire such (imaginary and contradictory) state for some time after understanding the limited/conditional nature of any certainty.

[Diekon]

Yes, again, i said some certainty, it doesn't have to be absolute. And the result of morality is not only predictability in the minds of people, thought that is a part of it i suppose. It does have tangible results in that a lot of people will follow those rules. And of course not everybody will follow them, but for the people that is still better than nobody following the rule because there is no rule.

I'd say, it's better for what you like.
And probably, it appears to be better for what you like, more precisely.
So, this evaluation can be seen as the expression of your preference.
I think that morality appears to you as something necessary for what you like.
There is nothing really wrong with it, but I don't think it's reflecting well constructed thought.

No, it's not just my preferences. There are huge amount of evidence that indicates that this is what most people want in general. Huge amounts! Even the most liberal enterpreneur will tell you that they want some security of law. It's the same for morality, people just want some security on some issues.

And as for me, i'm not particulary fond of morality or moral rules, and i used to be more radical, i just see it as something that is necessary now.

Our basic preferences are not to be viewed in total isolation from morality, i think.

I said morality may influence preferences and beliefs of us, just like anything else.
However, I do think preferences are more primitive or basic than morality.
And I tend to see it's more morality that is reflecting the preferences than the opposite, although there are interaction and exchanges between them.

We are partly social animal, and we are learned to behave according to some moral rules from birth.

I thought you were talking about more systematic and artificial moral rules.
If you are including instinctive tendencies of us in the "moral rule", I think you are making morality into even more messy mixed bag.
Also, it may make "talking about the necessity of morality for the society to work" somewhat meaningless, as I don't think we know how to remove such instinctive tendencies (and I don't think we really know about "instinctive moral rule").
So, I don't think it's a good idea to bring that in.

Yeah, morality is a product of our basic preferences if you like.

As for the claim being somewhat meaningless, again, i though it made sense at the moment i made it.

Most don't want to be isolated from the group, so they don't even think about crossing any boundaries, that's also a basic preference...

If so, it is the case (instinctive) preferences (of not wanting to be isolated) is creating or enforcing certain prohibition/hesitation that can be seen as morality by some people.

In short, preferences influencing actions, and some considering it as morality.
But I don't think we need to bring "morality" to understand what's going on.
In other words, "morality" can be a preferred way of seeing thing for some people.
Maybe it's a bit like some people who talk/interpret things in bible story, star trek episode, and so on.
Just a narrative.
But even as a narrative, I think it's too messy (like economics, geopolitics, etc).
I think it's something messy disguised as cool/neat/necessity/organized/etc.
It's more of "moral mess" rather than "moral rules", to me.
It might appear attractive, and I'm not against personal taste of anyone loving odd things.
But I don't think it's a really good idea to take odd preference as sound idea, if we want to think reasonably.

I think it's a usefull way of understanding and decribing what's going on. What are you criteria for evaluating and concluding that it is an odd way of looking at things?

And of course things as they really are, are more messy, but then we can never fully describe things as they really are in words.

My grandparents didn't have any problem killing, skining and preparing a rabbid to cook it, now nobody will come near a rabbid that isn't neatly prepackaged and ready to cook... I don't know if we are "inherently" so adverse to killing people, especially people not belonging to our group.

Killing for eating is a bit different, I'd say.
Eating is a BIG necessity for any creature (unless trying to die by not eating).
But even for eating, your points shows we don't really like messy thing, so much.
I did lots of fishing and cutting/cooking fish.
I still find it pretty messy to kill them and chop them apart and clean to cook them.
And many people are more or less lazy and prefer less of messy thing.
If it's not for eating, I guess more people would prefer even less of messy thing like killing.

The point was that preference are also influence by the times and culture...

I hope by a very logical person you don't mean a person who won't accept anything less than absolute certainty.

I'd say very logical person wouldn't desire "absolute certainty" because it's obvious that "absolute(ness)" and "certainty" contradict each other, even though the same person may continue to desire such (imaginary and contradictory) state for some time after understanding the limited/conditional nature of any certainty.[/quote]

Yeah, i know, that's why i said what i said, because you seem to be expecting that i prove every claim with absolute certainty.

[anon]

Nah:

The idea that all morality is simply idiosyncratic preference is an odd one. The recognition that moral codes are subjective (i.e. metaphysically groundless) does not impugn the existence of moral codes as expressions of our nature as social animals. Subjective does not mean arbitrary. Moral codes are more deeply imbedded in our minds than mere personal preferences. The person who thinks that "preferences are more primitive or basic than morality" doesn't seem to be especially aware of what they are saying. What kind of preferences? What is the context for such an assertion? Is my belief that chocolate ice cream is superior to strawberry ice cream of the same kind as my belief that a basically friendly attitude towards myself and others will help make people's days at least a little bit better? Do all preferences carry the same weight?

I think Diekon is right when he says that "morality is a product of our basic preferences" (my emphasis). I think he's also right to ask what your "criteria for evaluating and concluding that it is an odd way of looking at things" are. Finally, I agree with Diekon that "you seem to be expecting that [he] prove every claim with absolute certainty".

A couple metaphors:

1) Lightgage steel framing. Every component and every connection of components of the steel shelves I bought from the hardware store are flimsy. There is nothing I can point to that has any strength in itself. There is apparently no basis for the final overall strength of the steel shelves. The shelves themselves are paper thin, and the entire time the shelves are being assembled, the shelving unit as a whole has no strength, at all. But when the final screws are being tightened, the whole thing finally starts to work as a system, and the shelving unit is capable of holding hundreds of pounds, without any problem. Everyone knows the shelves do what they are supposed to do. The design of the shelving unit could have been arrived at through decades of trial and error, through the use of advanced calculations, or most likely - both. But ask a person to describe why or how the shelving unit works the way it does and you'll likely stump many intelligent people. And when someone comes along that can actually give a fairly accurate and thorough answer, that answer may sound like just so many empty words. I believe there is no separate foundation for moral relationships that can be identified. The foundation for moral relationships is in the relationships themselves.

In theory, all specific moral codes help create societies wherein individuals can flourish. Moral codes are inventions. Asking an inventor to justify every aspect of his invention is silly. If an invention works, it works. If it has some problems it has some problems. Justification isn't an issue, in the abstract. It is only an issue for those who feel they don't flourish under its darker aspect (i.e. enforcement through punishment, guilt, etc.)

2) Eradicating an invasive wild rose bush. Go for the root first and you'll probably lose an eye, or at least a whole lot of blood. First you've got to get your pruners out and start trimming. If you're particularly skilled, you can trim just the right branches and get to the root with some level of efficiency. But it's not all or nothing.

The moral posture is "instinctive tendencies", which you apparently are averse to discussing. I can understand your logic here. But if you value realizing the context-dependent nature of specific moral codes, as well as all personal moral decisions, then there must be a reason for that. What is it you value, that makes you value a rational investigation of moral preferences so strongly? There must be some core value or values, that your investigations contribute towards upholding. What is that value? What is that basic preference of yours? Can you discover what that value is without method? Don't any such methods likely include conventional moral behavior? Can you attain the peace of mind necessary to undertake logical investigations of the nature of morality when your mind is agitated from panic and guilt and terror because you killed your best friend in a drunken rage? Morality in this second sense isn't some kind of social contract as in the first, it is the means and methods which can help anyone to cultivate a stronger happiness. Though perhaps when "the root" is cut, there is no more need to think in terms of pleasure versus pain, happiness versus suffering. Who knows?

I know I said I was done with our conversation earlier, but I'm sure we can all handle my change of mind.

[Faust]

Kind of an interesting article:

http://www.lastagetimes.com/2009/08/a-1 ... -surfaces/

It's written much the way I would write it, and I have done this kind of writing. A commentary by the discoverer of the Code says:

“What is particularly interesting about this list of dos and don’ts for the theatre is that it was written in 1945 when Kathleen was establishing one of the first small theatres in Los Angeles and she was 24 years old. I wish I had been told some of ‘the rules’ when I was a young actress instead of having to pick them up as I went along.”

She wished for such a code of ethics.

And the author of the article closes with:

"All members of the Circle Theatre were required to sign this document. And they must have-because the theatre, and the group into which it evolved, was successful for many years."

"They must have", implying that this code of ethics was a key to their success.

It may or may not have been, but people like to think this, and regularly do - the author knows this, and so this makes for a satisfying way to "wrap up" the article.

I think it's also likely that this code was considered "newsworthy" because it has a certain patina of age and because it is written down. I think Moses used stone tablets because presentation counts.

People want to have rules, and they want to know them. It just makes our lives together easier. That is by no means the entire justification for morality, but it illustrates, in part, the psychological need we have for them.

It's also true that we desire some indication that we are justified of the certainty we feel that the rules we operate under apply in a meaningful way, which is why we have invented gods. But there are other ways to be sure that the rules are good ones.

[Nah]

No, it's not just my preferences. There are huge amount of evidence that indicates that this is what most people want in general. Huge amounts! Even the most liberal enterpreneur will tell you that they want some security of law. It's the same for morality, people just want some security on some issues.

Thank you for confirming it's your preference, but also what many other "want".
I mean, it's their preferences/desires, as well.

And as for me, i'm not particulary fond of morality or moral rules, and i used to be more radical, i just see it as something that is necessary now.

You are free to see it as "necessary".
As you know, I don't see it in the same way.

Yeah, morality is a product of our basic preferences if you like.

That's more or less my prefered view.

I think it's a usefull way of understanding and decribing what's going on. What are you criteria for evaluating and concluding that it is an odd way of looking at things?

It these cases (I means moral, geoplotics, economic, etc), I think people who love them tend to see them as if they are something scientific or reliable even though foundation/methodology/etc are much weaker (compared to science, math, etc) in my opinion.
To me, it's odd to see something messy as if it's clean, something mixed bag as if it's systematic, and so on.

And of course things as they really are, are more messy, but then we can never fully describe things as they really are in words.

Well, I've been saying our preferences and beliefs are messy.
I'm not beatifying things nor dressing fancy looking clothing like "morality" to see things in a narrative that might give (superficial) peace of mind.
I'm too lazy to keep up a stroy line like that.
And if you like a story, it can be any one, like religion, some "philosophy", ideologies, movements, hobbies, whatever.
If you pick moral over other one, well, that's your choice.
One possible problem is people with certain story line tend to depend on the support of others, and they can get upset when someone doesn't support/approve their story.
They are one step before being fanatic, in a sense, in some cases.
(But there are people with pretty strange story line, and yet very independent and happy, too.)

The point was that preference are also influence by the times and culture...

Sure. And preferences influences time and culture.

Yeah, i know, that's why i said what i said, because you seem to be expecting that i prove every claim with absolute certainty.

You don't know me, yet, then
What I prefer to hear is more conditions/limitations associated with any claim, assertion, theory, etc. Not more certainty.

If someone says "It's still better", it lacks details.
I prefer to hear A is still better compared to B, C, D, for attaining so and so objective/goal, when we evaluate them in this and that method in case certain specific conditions are met.

I like "conditional certainty" much better than "unconditional/absolute certainty".
It's just like we can't compare dog and cat without any detail and say "cat is better than dog".
Such comparison/evaluation is absurd if we like to think in reasonalbe/logical manner.
But it's totally OK for a cat lover or people who don't care much about logical honesty/integrity.
It's just a matter of preferences.

[Nah]

Nah:

---- snip ----

I know I said I was done with our conversation earlier, but I'm sure we can all handle my change of mind.

No problem. Please do what you want.
Right now, I'm not very interested in what you are writing, though.
Sorry.

If you really really want to discuss with me, somehow, you can PM me.

[anon]

Is what I have to say more interesting to you if it's in a PM?

[Nah]

Is what I have to say more interesting to you if it's in a PM?

As I said in the previous post:
If you really really want to discuss with me, somehow, you can PM me.

[anon]

No thanks, Nah.

[Ingenium]

Uh, I wasn't being 'overly literal' before. And, fyi, I'm the Queen of beating the finger-moon metaphor to death and have known none who can beat me at it.

I think of some things as good and some things as evil; therefore, I participate in good/evil dualism. But I try to be fluid about it, and to see things in context. That is the nondual aspect which I value as "good".

The quote above indicates a goal for you, but once you've chosen 'good', you might also consider beginning the preparations to let it go. (Oops! Too slow! lol) All any of us bring to any of it is -- perhaps -- heightened awareness. Sometimes. And then it's gone. Even though we really, really, really want it (and us) to be all good and right and stuff (or we want there to be Goodness and Righteousness and Stuff), it still arises and passes away and that sucks. You're always awash in dualism and, further, calling your belief that you navigate with 'fluidity' and 'see things in context' as a 'nondual aspect that is good' makes little sense to me. I mean if you really meant that statement as something, that is. In other words, placing a 'good' value on nonduality seems nonsensical to me. Otoh it could indicate an attachment to it, which is perfectly understandable to me.

I guess I might be viewed as amoral, too, not that I give a sh*t.

There are goals (like non-harming and reducing suffering; such goals inspire following the precepts) but, from my perspective, they are necessarily inherent to selfness. I don't view that as either good or bad, I view it as the way humans function. In that sense, the perspective I've developed seems to make the most sense from my experience.

[anon]

Uh, I wasn't being 'overly literal' before. And, fyi, I'm the Queen of beating the finger-moon metaphor to death and have known none who can beat me at it.

I think of some things as good and some things as evil; therefore, I participate in good/evil dualism. But I try to be fluid about it, and to see things in context. That is the nondual aspect which I value as "good".

The quote above indicates a goal for you, but once you've chosen 'good', you might also consider beginning the preparations to let it go. (Oops! Too slow! lol) All any of us bring to any of it is -- perhaps -- heightened awareness. Sometimes. And then it's gone. Even though we really, really, really want it (and us) to be all good and right and stuff (or we want there to be Goodness and Righteousness and Stuff), it still arises and passes away and that sucks. You're always awash in dualism and, further, calling your belief that you navigate with 'fluidity' and 'see things in context' as a 'nondual aspect that is good' makes little sense to me. I mean if you really meant that statement as something, that is. In other words, placing a 'good' value on nonduality seems nonsensical to me. Otoh it could indicate an attachment to it, which is perfectly understandable to me.

I guess I might be viewed as amoral, too, not that I give a sh*t.

There are goals (like non-harming and reducing suffering; such goals inspire following the precepts) but, from my perspective, they are necessarily inherent to selfness. I don't view that as either good or bad, I view it as the way humans function. In that sense, the perspective I've developed seems to make the most sense from my experience.

But Ingenium, seeing things in context, and being more fluid about it, is "beginning the preparations to let it go". If "placing a 'good' value on nonduality seems nonsensical" to you, then I do think you're being overly literal. If it's not good to have a nondual view, then you sure won't achieve a nondual view. You will remain mired in duality. You won't begin preparations, in any way. Why would you?

Are we defining the word "good" differently or something?