I suppose I’d call myself a pragmatic sentimentalist.
First, on the pragmatic side, I am inclined to say:
Also, a key part of reason is the nature of co-humanity, even with yourself. The dialectic cannot succeed without manifesting the virtues of sincerity, wisdom, ect. We have to exhibit these things and presume them from our partners, if our discussions are to have any meaning. And not just meaning the sense of values, but meaning in the linguistic sense: you cannot know what I mean if you don’t presume that I am good. That leads to the sentimentalist option, which I think relies on the assumption of the interconnectedness of all things. I’ll give a context that I think feeds into what I said earlier:
Young Ro-chan wrote the following in his essay, “Ecological Implications of Yi Yulgok’s Cosmology”:
Between that any my original position, that should make the following sentimentalist justification make sense – Wang Yangming’s opening statement in his “Inquiry on the Great Learning”:
From Wing-Tsit Chang, “A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy”.
So, ultimately, I think the foundation for morality is co-humanity, recognizing that we are not limited to ourselves, we both interact and are defined by both the people we deal with on an everyday basis as well as our ancestors and even amorphous things like “society as a whole”. Morality ultimately deals with recognizing that and because of that, returning to and cultivating the virtue within us. My primary difference with other virtue ethicists isn’t so much the specific virtues we name (some name three, some name five, some name eight, and so on – but they can all generally be recognized to be more-or-less the same thing), but rather how the telos is established. MacIntyre and others tend to think that the agent themselves are responsible for their own telos. I think that is a mistake. I think that the telos of the particular thing is established by things outside of its self (another way of saying the gentleman makes one body with all things, because they establish his telos).
I don’t believe in objective morality or ethics. Everything is subjective, but what is subjective can be assumed to be objective for a majority of a particular society, that particular society’s moral code as is compatible with its culture.
Morality through collective selfishness, not as some noble idea, but a necessity for a more efficient interactive environment between humans. I also hold to the idea that killing a human, regardless of any of its traits (i.e. age/gender seem to be the most pressing), is ‘moral’ as long as there’s greater gain for humanity as a whole. I believe in the group mentality, the individual is expendable in relation to the group. I see humanity as an entity in itself.
To take a life is harsh, so why do people dice with this premise, and act like they are invincible: even in the face of dangerous confrontation/where some don’t ramp when it comes to survival over you!
As a human being, I remit the concept that I’m capable of any altrusistic ideals and solemn oaths. Instead I’m a somewhat random collection of instincts and ligaments which operate to a general natural desire in a hazy nihilistic misdirection. In other words: I tend to follow rules, but like all human beings I probably break them all sooner or later. Either way I can TRY . . .
Men don’t hit women or girls.
Much feminism preaches and gripes about why this is sexist and just degrades women further. To that one might say “okay, men can hit women” to which an onslaught of feminism can call the speaker a wifebeater and womanhater . . . so ahem aside from our unfortunate splintered altruistic movements yet again with the human credo of heading a direction and lost in a haze of uncertainty . . .
I stick to a very simple rule because humans are not ideal practitioners of a complex ethic.
So I think it suffices that my moral directive is only an arbitrary placing which centers me and in no way is the “official” directive that everyone should take. Others can make their own commandments, but without a simple effective rule they become caught up in the same senseless haze. They are best to make their own little boyscout rules- as long as they make something. We need it for our simple survival (we go insane without them, we start to worry we have no meaning, etc) and overall it makes us better people even if it’s not to everyone’s liking. Maybe someone else will pick “work hard” or even “make money.”
You assume that there is somthing mystical, special or privileged about a majority of people’s positions in a societal framework. It almost seems like you embrace them absolutely.
You legitimize morality with violence against other types of violence which is contradictory to your so called greater good idealism.
Is weight lifting subjective? I see dominance in one area as being the same in another. I see some men who can lift weights like no other, and I see some ideologies dominating others like no other. No difference.
Yes, we are all unique butterflies, unique snowflakes . . .
