Altruism and Absolute Morality

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, really, Doug. How do you say otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]My goals are rock solid principles, they are what guide me in every action in life. If they where in conflict I'd be very confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of thing do mean by "goals". Are you talking about "do not kill" goals (and don't kill anytjhing even bacteria) or minor ones like I will be home for the kid's party? I can't beleive anyine has goals which can never result in conflict....but I wait to be shown the rror in my thinking!

[/ QUOTE ]I've never acttualy decieded that 'thou shall not kill' or the oppposite should be given much thought, as a goal. But at this point I'm really not ready to put forth my ideas of living a moral, and productive life. Only that the ideas of ethics being discussed by chezlaw are the type of ethics that most of the people I run into are using.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adultery is a perfect example of morality the overlap if both morality self interest and non morality self based interest. I'm begining to think at some point and some level morality is wholly the juggling at that you describe it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what you mean. You have to decide between your two self-interests:

the want to remain faithful (moral because its about someone else)
the want for the affair (non-moral)

When you get the opportunity you have to decide what you want the most, that doesn't add a moral dimensions its already there.

How would you analyse it differently?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]I might analyze it as

the value of your spuose(a self interest in the consequence creates a 'moral')
the desire for the affair (non-moral)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Adultery is a perfect example of morality the overlap if both morality self interest and non morality self based interest. I'm begining to think at some point and some level morality is wholly the juggling at that you describe it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what you mean. You have to decide between your two self-interests:

the want to remain faithful (moral because its about someone else)
the want for the affair (non-moral)

When you get the opportunity you have to decide what you want the most, that doesn't add a moral dimensions its already there.

How would you analyse it differently?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]I might analyze it as

the value of your spuose(a self interest in the consequence creates a 'moral')
the desire for the affair (non-moral)

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed but I can't see how you differentiate between the view of morality as self-interest and morality as juggling self-interest. Both seem to work fine in this example.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that we will find AM if we look at mans life as valuable to him. Additionally, that people are owners of their own life.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a world void of an AM authority I think this is the case. We compromise our own self interest (our own rights) by allowing others into our individual world. It is a trade off don’t you think? A necessary trade off because “no man is an island”.


[ QUOTE ]
Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or that someone has complete rights - unlimited rights - might makes right is the only thing stopping one from exercising all of his rights

But, again, we bargain for our own rights and those rights that we value most when we allow others into our individual worlds - whether it be by living in a society or simply entering into a marriage.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed but I can't see how you differentiate between the view of morality as self-interest and morality as juggling self-interest. Both seem to work fine in this example.


[/ QUOTE ] I must have been overtired when I was responding in the thread. It seems like I could have explained almost everything in it better than i did.

Which, if any, of ones morals would not demand the same action off a person, (if person is able to rationally think and empathise and then project the same moral code onto others) than from just plain self-interest.

I am looking to find the overlap of morals with the rest of self interest as well.

For instance, thou shall not kill. Would be an overlap moral. As well as adultery. Altruism, by tautology ,wouldn't be an overlap moral.

[DougShrapnel]

It is good to know that there is a God, because otherwise you would stop being able to be reasonable. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Or that someone has complete rights - unlimited rights - might makes right is the only thing stopping one from exercising all of his rights

[/ QUOTE ] Can our reason give us flawed but close judgment in morals?

Sometimes I tell stories of hunters. They danced around the crackling fires. In their masks and their tribal attire, they danced to the god of the hunt. The winds blow the smoke from the colorful leaves up to the god of the hunt. An animal was sacrificed, it was to thank the Gods for the warning that the cold would soon come and game would be scarce. The sacrifice was also to the god of the hunt from providing men with more zinc in his nose then his lovely counterparts, he used this zinc to know which way was which. The natural place of man was so decided as the hunter by the gods. A sign was given, tomorrows hunt would be good, the whole town saw it, there was no denying it, and no one would dare. The hunters slept well and awoke at dawn to search thru the forest. They gathered their sticks with sharp rocks tied to the ends. They came across a track of a deer. The track was deeper than most, and it was filled with debris of the forest. The size of the track was smaller than normal. The hunters concluded that the deer had run thru here at a speed of 25mph, weighed about 90 pounds, and would take about 8hours for them to catch up to it. Drive on, the hunters continued. The wind picked up at the hunters back to hurry them on their way.

Deeper in the forest the men came across another track. It too was covered with debris from the forest, but these tracks where large and not deep. The hunters looked at line of the tracks and the curvature of the hill in the direction of the tracks. The hill was steep and at an angle. They knew the prey was right over the hill and knew exactly where the animals ended up. The hill would be good for them to sneak up on the creatures. The dance and sacrifice had paid off. There was no time, they rushed the hill and thru their spears. They adjusted for the arch of the hill, they adjusted for the speed of the wind, they adjusted for the size of the animal for the speed of the spear. They adjusted for the movement of the animal. And threw their spears where the animal would be when the spear would reach it. It was a slaughter, the dance last night would be put to shame by the one they would give tonight.

They went home. They went home without thinking about laws of motion. They went home without knowing about physics. They went home without understanding calculus. They made their way home with the help of the extra zinc in thier nose. They made their way home thanking god.

Can ethics be like calculus, geometry, and physics or must it be linked to religion? Or is it something else entirely? Will it forever remain in philoshpy? No right, no wrong, just opinion?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed but I can't see how you differentiate between the view of morality as self-interest and morality as juggling self-interest. Both seem to work fine in this example.


[/ QUOTE ] I must have been overtired when I was responding in the thread. It seems like I could have explained almost everything in it better than i did.

Which, if any, of ones morals would not demand the same action off a person, (if person is able to rationally think and empathise and then project the same moral code onto others) than from just plain self-interest.

I am looking to find the overlap of morals with the rest of self interest as well.

For instance, thou shall not kill. Would be an overlap moral. As well as adultery. Altruism, by tautology ,wouldn't be an overlap moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you want (or quite why you want it). Morality as I'm describing here is naturalistic. I care about other people because I've evolved to care about other people (or been designed that way).

Morality appears to have this fairness element (you care as I care) because we're all similar creatures and because, presumably, morality has evolved as an embedded cooperative statagy.

Evolved morality doesn't demand you treat people fairly, it just makes you want to.

chez