I apologize if I’ve somehow bothered you. I don’t think of my comments as criticism and particularly not as Faustian criticism.
It’s always difficult to “convince” other people of your “values” when you don’t seem to have any–which is what you come across as saying. You no longer believe in the values you were taught. Okay. Most intelligent people no longer think the way they thought as children, but not everyone trashes everything. People rethink their childhood values and adapt them to work for themselves as adults–and some of those childhood values don’t work for adults. But, I don’t think there are many people who try to negate everything they’ve been taught.
Prove me to be incorrect. Talk to a trained counselor. Take a copy of what we’ve spoken about with you as your reason for the consultation, if you want. I’ll be happy to wait.
Edit: Nevermind I’m going to have to regroup on this one, but to address the issues of councilors, it sounds like a nightmare despite whatever use it may be in our discussion. Also there was no offense taken, by Faustonian, I meant the ilp member Faust, who made a lot of assumptions about me in my last thread on morals.
Thanks for the Faust explanation. And counceling shouldn’t be a nightmare, nor should it be done for the sake of the discussion. A lot of states offer the (free?) service; a lot of insurers cover it–think about it, for yourself. You could gain a lot of useful insights as a result.
My nephew, an Afghan vet said, just the other day, that a lot of his friends were ‘afraid’ of him. They may well be–he collects guns, including an AK-15, and was diagnosed with PTSD when he first got home. I don’t know if he went through counceling or not, but with everything that’s been happening recently, I imagine he can be pretty frightening. I don’t mean to imply anything by that other than to say even family members–in my family, lol)–can use some talk therapy just to add a POV they may not have thought of. Again, think about it. --Liz
Liz: there is something definitely wrong with the military,suicides are way up,b disfunctional vets are begging on the streets, or laying around near veteran hospital slugging from their cheap vine, they seem devalued somehow, far cray from the time of glorious vets returning from battles as heroes, celebrated and eaising their families in Levittown and getting their education with government grants.
But , Stuart, there are people who WILL and DO make amends when it is inconvenient for them to do so. That’s what does actually bring on the awareness and the growth.
I finally do quit and I swear I’ll never be dishonest again, well that oath will last no longer than the time it takes me to get another job where I must be dishonest.
I quit in order to start a great new career where such a form of dishonesty is unnessesary. I swear never to be bad again and live happily from then on.
3)I’m downsized out of the company. I still think what I was doing was wrong, but being so upset at losing my job for such a bad reason I never really make any signifigant plans towards not ebing dishonest again, after all I’m as much a victim as anyone.
It would seem that I would be trully virtuous in senario 2, though I wonder if you can anticipate what my objection to that would be.
[/quote]
I don’t really look on your 3 examples above as making amends since making amends to me has to be directed toward the person or the entity which you caused harm to.
I agree with you in that there is really nothing virtuous in the No. 2 attitude of the person. The true virtue would be in seeing one’s responsibility toward something they’ve done and acting on that, transcending self and making amends - kind of like going against the grain. Virtue isn’t simply an attitude, it’s also what you do in the particular moment - kind of like a noble act. And i don’t intuit virtue as being aware of itself - neither is nobility.
Insofar as No. 2 goes, there is no virtue where there can be no temptation nor possibility of transcendending self or growth. He wants to live in a kind of safe cocoon and he doesn’t anticipate himself as he really is.
I do not believe that the feeling of ‘guilt’ is a prerequiste on morality… Some individuals (wise individuals) understand the concept of justice and what is right or wrong without the actual feeling. Maybe I am talking about pachyderms, individuals who really understood life and all it’s hardships. God, a higher entity, may seem like the epitome of pachydermism out there - many people pray with no result asides from hope.
I consider myself an altruist, but not to the level of pure altruism where your life revolves around others for their benefaction. I try never to err, but I am only human and so I do err… Guilt always catches up to me though and eventually, if not weeks then years, I do make it up to the incumbent that I may have brought slight ill. In a different philosophy forum I argue about the attainance of genuine ‘true happiness’. To me this concept is hard to achieve without genuine education - a state where one is immune to pain but does not suffer by actions. The main reason I brought this up was to discover a way in which one could raise children to live a life of absolute bliss, without the pain, misery, melancholy, sadness and distraught that life may provide. I covered it extensively but what it comes down to is that a certain degree of brainwashing, or conditioning is required.
Guilt may make us feel bad but it can be experienced in such a way that is perceived as logical deduction, with a third distorted sense of reality that makes us realise the emotions others feel - this without it being the feeling of guilt. What I am talking about is a genuine state of full awareness that allows us to feel guilt were it the voluntary thing to do, and the actions by the person speaking more than words and indeed taking in consideration what is right and proper.
Sure, guilt can be derived from the abstinence of actions that would generally be seen as immoral, with good cause. But what I am arguing is that there is always room for a compromise (the closest thing to it anyway) by acknowledging the target incumbent source of all guilt in a different facet of life - one that will appease him/her. I have to be frank, I have felt guilt in life, but mayhap never genuine sheer brutal guilt that hurts to the very bone (I am very careful with that). Guilt, as an emotion, can be nearly as bad as misery, and it can be long lasting too. One can suffer throughout their life over feelings of guilt but this is the point you have to rationalize the situation and accept that you (if indeed) did the best you could do to mitigate the situation.
The trick to avoid feeling guilt is to just not do anything stupid that would hurt others - this can be a great feat to some. It is important to be self conscious of other’s feelings and their secluded worlds they live in. Some may ponder over the nature of others for months, years, and much more just to seek to understand them when the reality is the truth is often closer than one may think. Being aware of the present is a good way to avoid guilt, and mayhap planning ahead (in an instant would be my recommendation) about the redemption techniques would be much advised.
I don’t think guilt is a prerequisite for morality but more the other way around, that is, morality is a prerequisite for guilt - that is all…
He mentioned guilt as a prerequisite to a dialogue on morality, which is different from saying guilt is a prerequisite for morality. It’s a tack that is not usually taken, prior to a discussion of morality, and might very well be a useful one.
Our own earliest and most basic feelings of guilt are probably anticipations of punishment which are gradually internalized. Similarly, when dogs have been scolded often enough for peeing on the carpet, they learn to feel bad about it. Although we humans have come to rationalize these feelings into larger systems of morality, the starting points seem the same in us as in other social animals.
Arcturus Descending, I don’t know who I would make amends to in such a situation. It sounds very abnormal for someone to try to find those who suffered due to company policy and for that person to try to explain to those people his part and that he doesn’t wish to mitigate the part the company played but wishes to find a way to make amends anyway. Perhaps you could give me some examples.
Percarus, welcome, I’ve always taken into account your words (at philosophychatforum), though, your views have often differed greatly from mine. You say not to do anything stupid, implying using common sense. The term doesn’t even make sense to me, I’ve seen two many forms of common sense compete against each other. For example, the common sense idea that I shouldn’t do something drastically against my own my well-being, versus the common sense idea that I must act when there’s something I feel I’m obligated to do and would hardly qualify as human if I didn’t . Well I chose to be human, that is to lose almost all of my well being.
One can argue day and night about issues such as common sense in morality, but once they go out in the world and see the utterly exasperating situations that will arrise, it would seem that they no longer could. But, I remember that you have been out in the world, in various industries, how could you not have had this revelation yet, and I don’t ask condensendingly only as one who really wants to know?
Moreno, thanks for having confidence in this idea. So yes this is about dialogue not the obtaining of the conscepts themselves, but Percarus’ misunderstanding on that aside he did make a useful argument about morality before guilt.
That makes sense. Guilt comes from fear of punishment over certain acts. Punishment can latter be used more loosely to include the disrespect of one’s peers. So in a culture without moral conscepts then people would still have guilt, but perhaps they could simply recognize it for what it is; an emotion that warns one that an act of theirs may expose them to the wrath of others.
What I mean by moral conscepts is that one is taught to believe there is right actions and wrong actions in an absolute sense. So if one learns morality in that way at the same time they are learning that certain acts have consequences then, guilt and morality become intertwined.
So with that construct we could say that one can’t be convinced of the ephemerality of moral truths in an absolute sense without first addressing their guilt or lack thereof.
I personally find nothing abnormal in a person wanting to make amends because he sees the part he has played in an employee[s] suffering due to his actions and that of company policy. I think that sometimes ‘making amends’ to another can be simply an apology and showing awareness of his/her part in something. That kind of action can go a long way in at least giving back to someone their dignity and showing that ‘someone’ that the other sees his part in wrongdoing. Perhaps if we have the money, we can make some kind of an anonymous donation toward that person for money lost.
I do realize that sometimes making amends cannot be done toward the person we’ve caused harm to. So the only thing we must do is to vow (not sentimentally but with right intention and willfulness) never to do the same again, to never put ourselves into that kind of a situation because we have learned that lesson. I think that making amends is one of the steps of AA and generally it must work since there are many recovered reformed alcoholics walking the streets.
I obviously was wrong in saying this since as I said above, we cannot always make amends to the one we’ve hurt. But we can be resourceful and find a way which will instill in us an awareness for change. Nothing good comes without sacrifice but it’s well worth it to the self.
But yet we still have to argue the point and show things as they truly are. It isn’t simply in the work place, where common sense insofar as morality goes, plays a part. Sometimes we have no common sense with our children (in which case, that ‘common sense’ is another form of love) - we teach our children to take the easy way out by example and by not loving them enough in the common sense way to say no to them in particular moments - thereby not instilling within them the values they need to grow and the awareness they need to see others as more important than ‘things’. I think that one of the main problems today unfortunately is that we have taught our children to value things things things things thngs - over people.
And I really do think that it comes down to “to do no harm” or at least to try to do no harm. Perhaps trying is lying. Not everyone will step out of their better self when it is convenient for them to do so.
We impose on a child right from its birth a series of dogmas, language, behavior, and a framework of morals. Also, society has created us for the purpose of maintaining a level of predictable control all of which has value in a functional sense. This is the model, the concept that is supposed to benefit the people by ensuring that we live together sanely. If we do not, repairs and adjustments are made so that intelligent living is kept in existence.
When laws are transgressed consequences are paid. It would be unfair to withhold the knowledge of what those laws are and the consequence if disobeyed. Morality, guilt, responsibility and other feelings of accountability arise when questioning actions/behavior before and after they occur.
Finishedman: It is true in a limited sense, that a child’s moral rearing would tend to limit the disjoint between the intrinsic values and what Stuart calls the ephemeral ones. In most synchronous societies, this disjoint is not noticeable, and parents pick them up early, to downplay any residual guilt which may be caused by such an inconsistency.
However, with widening the scope from close regional ties, the control element is gradually degraded to the point of non contraversion.
At this point, changes happen, in terms of redefinition and/or behavior alterations. The ought of parental instruct at this point becomes ineffective, at best.
So the question of the usefulness or the uselesness of parental education becomes a function of many variables, the most can be said is, that it is a relativistic issue. There seems to be, on parents' part, an underlying unexpressed confusion in this regard. What do you think?
But in context we are talking about a prerequisite to a dialogue on morality. This is not the issue of which came first, but what might be useful to talk about first. I Think focusing on guilt might be an interesting inroad into that dialogue. One, it focuses on a certain kind of cost. Two, it shows how morality is functioning - and can lead to other phenomenological analyses of what actually happens when there is morality. Three, guilt is a barrier to being open to change one’s morality or give up the idea at all. For many people discussions of morality trigger guilt feelings and can make it seem like no change can be made. Focusing on guilt first gets at the actual block.
I started this thread without giving it much thought. As you know I had made a few other threads on the subject of morality, and I didn’t “do well” in them, so, almost out of “desperation” I decided to try to simply focus on guilt before going further. The problem I guess is that my premise may have been flawd from the start. If I could have started an open discussion on guilt that would have made much progress, then it would seem that there never would have been any reason to assume that guilt was ever a factor as to why I “failed” in my previous threads on morality.
I feel compelled to get others to understand (whether they agree or not isn’t as important) my position on morality, so, I don’t know I’m just trying new ways of approaching the dialogue. Though I think it will be a while before I get back into another such discussion.
Looking at guilt, challenging guilt or triggering guilt by questioning morality
set off survival terror in most people
outside of consciousness. They feel an immediate need to snuff out the topic because of the underling terror.
It’s a bit like if you started saying
stepping off a high building is safe, you can fly
and they felt some attraction to this.
The immediate fear and ‘need’ to say you are wrong or nuts leads to rejecting the idea and fast.
There is also the horror of finding that all this time one has listened to guilt and did not really need to.
