Morality

[Scott1]

I ran across an interesting quote I'd like to share about human morality:

"... all morality involves encounter with the other person; in measuring the morality of our acts, recourse to absolute standards - whether derived from a revealed code or natural law - is often impossible. It is often a matter of choosing among competing values, sacrificing some to realize another."

Thoughts?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I would agree with that Scott. Especially the point of morality often having to be a choice between competing (and often conflicting) values. I think that this is part (but not all) of what gives morality it's "relativistic" bent.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Rex]

can you tell us who that quote is from?

 

[Scott1]

That's the most suprising of all Rex.....

A Jesuit Catholic moralist:

Father J.H. Walgrave O.P.

 

[Valjean]

Doesn't our responsibility toward our Planet come before duty toward our species? God before society?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Planet before Species, I can agree with. God before Society, I can't.

TVOR

 

[retrorich]

Planet before Species, I can agree with. God before Society, I can't.

TVOR

I agree with your disagreement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree with your agreement of his disagreement but disagree with your apparent agreement with his agreement.

 

[jewscout]

I agree with your agreement of his disagreement but disagree with your apparent agreement with his agreement.

:bonk: i'm so confused :bonk:

 

[retrorich]

I agree with your agreement of his disagreement but disagree with your apparent agreement with his agreement.

Good one! :biglaugh:

At least we can agree to disagree...or can't we?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This whole thread is quickly becoming egregious.

TVOR

 

[Scott1]

I picked the wrong day to quit drinking.:areyoucra

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I picked the wrong day to give up Heroin.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nevertheless, if planet or species were ever a real and viable issue, I would vote species in a heartbeat.

 

[jewscout]

I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

 

[Scott1]

Alright! That's enough! How did my cute little post on morality go so wrong! Hehe.:biglaugh:

Back on topic, please.

 

[Valjean]

If all morality involves encounter with another person wouldn't that leave destruction of non-human habitat, such as pollution of economically unutilized rivers, rainforest destruction and activities contributing to ozone depletion or arctic melting extramoral? Does animal cruelty have no moral implication?

There's a Judeo-Christian tradition that the Earth and everything in it was created specifically for man's purposes, that all things were put here specifically for man's comfort and convenience, that we're charged with "dominion" over Nature.

This strikes me as monumental arrogance, and confining our moral universe solely to human interactions would seem to follow from it.

 

[Pah]

If all morality involves encounter with another person wouldn't that leave destruction of non-human habitat, such as pollution of economically unutilized rivers, rainforest destruction and activities contributing to ozone depletion or arctic melting extramoral? Does animal cruelty have no moral implication?

There's a Judeo-Christian tradition that the Earth and everything in it was created specifically for man's purposes, that all things were put here specifically for man's comfort and convenience, that we're charged with "dominion" over Nature.

This strikes me as monumental arrogance, and confining our moral universe solely to human interactions would seem to follow from it.

Society sets the rules that become morality. The secular society (which has "dominion" over faith based morality) says that the "group" is as important as the individual. What one does that harms the group is as immoral as harm to an individual.

But, I truthfully do not know whether I am agreeing with you or rebutting you statements.

Bob

 

[Valjean]

So you don't believe in absolute morality? You seem to be saying that morality is entirely a human construct, that right and wrong are as society defines them.

This sounds like (Kohlberg) level 2 thinking.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Nevertheless, if planet or species were ever a real and viable issue, I would vote species in a heartbeat.

I had to think about this one. I guess that I am saying planet over species because the species will definitely NOT survive without the planet, but if the planet (ecologically speaking) survives, over time, another sentient species may evolve.

If all morality involves encounter with another person wouldn't that leave destruction of non-human habitat, such as pollution of economically unutilized rivers, rainforest destruction and activities contributing to ozone depletion or arctic melting extramoral? Does animal cruelty have no moral implication?

The intent of my post was that we should exercise morality regarding the planet (in terms of the ecology), because it in turn impacts other humans. So, clearly, ozone depletion, deforestation, greenhouse effect, all have moral undertones (at least, to me, they do).
Regarding animal cruelty, I'd have to say that torturing animals needlessly speaks to the lack of intelligence, and low self-esteem of an individual - not necessarily his morality (though this may be merely a semantic argument - which I hate). On the other hand, if animal cruelty is truly a moral issue, how would one reconcile the ingesting of animal flesh? I think this is the reason that many people (Huajiro may be one) are vegetarians. I have no such qualms about eating meat, so I should leave that argument for those that hold such a view.

Thanks,
TVOR

PS - for your amusement:

Kareem Abdul-Jabar as Co-pilot Roger Murdock
Peter Graves as Captain Clarence Oever
Frank Ashmore as Navigator Victor Basta

Oever : Roger!
Murdock : Huh?
Tower : L.A. departure frequency 1-2-3 point 9er.
Oever : Roger!
Murdock : Huh?
Clarence: Re-quest Vector, over!
Oever : What?
Tower : 2-0-9er clear for vector 2-3-4.
Murdock : We have clearance Clarence.
Oever : Roger, Roger. What's our Vector Victor?
Tower : Tower's radio clearance, over!
Oever : That's Clarence Oever! Over.
Tower : Roger.
Murdock : Huh?
Tower : Roger, over.
Murdock : Huh?
Oever : Huh?