| BookTalk.org News |
| • Only 4 members are currently signed up to receive email digests. Click on the digests link on the right at the top of every page to learn more. This is a great feature for keeping updated on forum activity. |
| • Regular casual chats are back on the menu! Check out the calendar for the schedule. |
| Featured Videos |
Dan Barker
author of "Godless"
talks about his deconversion
Andrew Bacevich
"The Limits of Power"
More Videos
|
| Amazon Honor System |
|
| Donate to BookTalk.org |
Please support BookTalk.org by making a small donation today!
•
Who supports us?
|
| Show us where you live! |
 |
|
| Author |
Message |
seeker 
I can enter The Chamber
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject:
|
 |
|
Mr. Pessimistic said:
| Quote: |
| I guess it comes down to the question: Is morality something definite and set in stone, or is it a creation of the human species to facilitate civilization? |
A few examples of situational ethics:
The most successful salesmen are the ones who are not only adept at conning others, but are able to con themselves into believing that the product they are pedalling is what you need.
The highest paid executives are those who are willing to make the really tough decisions, such as, "how many human lives is a cheaper bumper worth?"
"Liberals have no principles." -- Conservative credo
"Conservatives have no principles." -- Liberal credo
"Urban ghetto life is all about surviving by developing useful 'street-smart' strategies. That means figuring out who has power that can be used against you or to help you, whom to avoid, and with whom you should ingratiate yourself. It means deciphering subtle situational cues for when to fold, creating reciprocal obligations, and determining what it takes to make the transition from follower to leader." -- Philip Zimbardo
"We fought and died for every inch of this land." - Israeli West Bank settler |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jales4
Intern
Usergroups: None
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 162
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: Northern Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| Or would you say that there is no such thing as morality apart from the circumstances that prevail in a given time and place? And if so, then are we justified in judging other people's behavior from the assumptions of our own time and place? |
So far, and I am still pondering this, I would agree with your statement above - as I can find ways to justify lying, stealing, taking the life of another human being, and many other immoral things, all in certain situations.
I don't believe that morals are absolute. And if they aren't, then when judging another person, we MUST take their situation into consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender: 
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| jales4 wrote: |
| I don't believe that morals are absolute. And if they aren't, then when judging another person, we MUST take their situation into consideration. |
Okay, so if morality is always situational, then how do we go about assessing it in any given situation? Is there a set of criteria that would tell us how to take a person's situation into account when attempting to judge their behavior? Or are we stuck with a set of criteria that presume an absolute morality in judging events that always take their cue from a morality that is situational at best? Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jales4
Intern
Usergroups: None
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 162
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Northern Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:10 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action? |
This will give me something to think about at work today - but off the top of my head:
I see this observation as more of a preventative measure - if we know situation x is likely to cause certain behavior, what can we as a society do to either change the situation, or if we can't change the situation, then we can offer support for those in that situation, with the hopes of changing the outcome.
Sorry for the run-on, I don't have time to reword, I'm out the door to work.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:21 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
Okay, so if morality is always situational, then how do we go about assessing it in any given situation? Is there a set of criteria that would tell us how to take a person's situation into account when attempting to judge their behavior? Or are we stuck with a set of criteria that presume an absolute morality in judging events that always take their cue from a morality that is situational at best? Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action? |
Well, this is precisely what we as a species have been trying to figure out for tens of thousands of years. We have a lot of work to do but I think we have been making improvements. One thing we did was develop (consciously and not) a system of morals by which to judge behaviors. It is not a perfect system and may never be...but it is all we have so we continue to work it all out.
Just because a system of morality/ethics/law is not inviolate does not make it ok for us to just assume we have no competency in judging situations by using it. We will not hit a home run everytime, but at least we have come this far. It is a work in progress and what is so bad about that?
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Wisdom Personified
Bronze Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1646
Thanks
Given: 4
Received: 9 in 9 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:47 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
JTA: Here are two perspectives for considering these issues:
1) Scientific / psychological: How much do situations determines people's beliefs and actions?
2) Moral: How can we judge people's actions? How much are they responsible for their actions.
Your answer to the first question will influence, but not determine, your answer to the second one. Personally, I'd rather focus on the first question, especially since Zimbardo's challenged my prior beliefs so much. |
If external situations determine individual behavior and beliefs, then really, there is no such thing as individual behavior or belief...there is only a network of interlocking events reverberating before our eyes. Actually, taken to its full conclusion: soldiers in war are just one of the ways that a particular galactic system mobilizes the milky way to get this minor solar system to fuel our watery globe to blow itself to pieces. Scientifically there is no "self" involved.
Positing a Self with free agency it seems, is an act of poetic license wedded to an ethical desire to hold ourselves and others accountable. Or it can be traced to particular forms of religious revelation where persons are created with free will and thus able to choose righteously or sinfully. Instead of automotons, we are Persons. Instead of simply blindly colliding "its", we are thinking interpersonal "Thou's".
I think we must judge our behaviors, because in the act of judging we define the parameters of our Personhood, lifting us above the robotic automation of impersonal forces in chaotic nihilism...and into responsible interpersonal relationships, affirming our dignity and the integrity of both individual and communal existence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seeker
I can enter The Chamber
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:39 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Zimbardo said (p. 226):
| Quote: |
| The most important lesson to be derived from the SPE is that Situations are created by Systems. |
I would use the word Institutions in place of the word Systems; however, I think the point is the "bad apple" explanation for evil is almost always a cover-up for institutions that have encouraged or rewarded those "evil" actions either overtly or covertly. That does not imply that the individual "bad apples" should be held blameless, but that if we stop there we have merely punished a hired assassin, while declaring the master-minds of the crime innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jales4
Intern
Usergroups: None
Joined: 10 Oct 2007
Posts: 162
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: Northern Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm trying to come up with a list of possible origins of human morality. I am having a bit of a time keeping straight my own mind the differences between behaviors and morals. (Do drugs and alcohol only affect our behaviors, or do they 'loosen' up our morals?)
So far I have:
1.) Inherent
2.) Situational
3.) Drives (?)
4.) Society, friends, and family
5.) Diet, drugs, alcohol (?)
Am I missing any?
Also, since our morals and our behaviors do not match is it possible our morals don't change in situations, but our behaviors do - and we just use the situation to justify our behavior?
This is a MOST thought-provoking book! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
| One thing we did was develop (consciously and not) a system of morals by which to judge behaviors. |
Logically, though, the question of whether or not we're competent to judge behavior must precede the question of whether or not morality is valid. We can't simply assume that morality actually does function to give us some competency. If we're not capable of competently judging behavior, then any morals we may have devised are dubious at best, right?
| Quote: |
| Just because a system of morality/ethics/law is not inviolate does not make it ok for us to just assume we have no competency in judging situations by using it. |
I'm not worried about whether or not it's "ok", whatever that would mean. The concern is that the two are logically inconsistent. Can you simultaneously justify two claims to the effect that, a) the morality of any given act is contingent on the situation in which that act is taken, and b) we are competant to make moral judgments about behavior that occurred in a situation we took no part in? That's what's at stake with an issue like that of how we can judge the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib -- if they can justifiably claim that no one who was not there can be competant to judge their behavior, then where does that leave us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seeker
I can enter The Chamber
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
MadArchitect wrote:
| Quote: |
| That's what's at stake with an issue like that of how we can judge the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib -- if they can justifiably claim that no one who was not there can be competent to judge their behavior, then where does that leave us? |
I believe that leaves us first of all with the distinction between judging their behavior and judging their culpability. We seem to have a consensus, at least among those who express opinions about ethics and as generally reflected in western law, that torture and gross violations of human dignity are offensive. Those of us who agree would judge the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib "bad/wrong/repulsive." The question in judging the perpetrators, however, is what, if any, were the mitigating circumstances in each individual case; that is, how much pressure was that individual under? Did the combination of the sustained fear for his/her life, the devaluation of the victim by the indoctrination of the army, the encouragement of the authority figures to "soften up" the prisoners, the hardship of extended service in Iraq, the degradation of powerlessness, dependency, and shame inherent in the prisoners status, and myriad other factors that we can't know, cause a normally peaceful and easygoing person to do things that were unthinkable even to them? To what extent is the commanding officer guilty? To what extent is the army that indoctrinated the soldier and taught that the "enemy" was inhuman guilty? To what extent is the society hungry for revenge for 9/11 and careless of who is the target of that revenge responsible?
In my opinion, this not a matter of whether or not we make judgements. It's a matter of whether we go for the easy judgement to scapegoat the guard as the sole culprit and skate from our responsibility to judge the guard proportionately and to also judge and correct the institutions that taught, encouraged and rewarded the attitudes and behaviors that led to the guard's abuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Usergroups: None
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| seeker wrote: |
| I believe that leaves us first of all with the distinction between judging their behavior and judging their culpability. |
If we can't judge their behavior, then I'm not sure there's any issue about judging their culpability. Their culpability for what? We don't judge people's culpability when they eat lunch. Why? Because culpability is only an issue when it's associated with our judgments about a person's behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:55 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| misterpessimistic wrote: |
| One thing we did was develop (consciously and not) a system of morals by which to judge behaviors. |
Logically, though, the question of whether or not we're competent to judge behavior must precede the question of whether or not morality is valid. We can't simply assume that morality actually does function to give us some competency. If we're not capable of competently judging behavior, then any morals we may have devised are dubious at best, right?
|
I am not sure why. How would we go about judging ourselves cometent to judge if we have no system by which to judge? As I see it, the two would go hand in hand. Now, we may very well have devised a dubious (I prefer 'imperfect') system of morality, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. As with everything, you start from the imperfect and build toward something more perfect...while most likely never attaining true perfection.
| Mad wrote: |
| Mr.P. wrote: |
| Just because a system of morality/ethics/law is not inviolate does not make it ok for us to just assume we have no competency in judging situations by using it. |
The concern is that the two are logically inconsistent. Can you simultaneously justify two claims to the effect that, a) the morality of any given act is contingent on the situation in which that act is taken, and b) we are competant to make moral judgments about behavior that occurred in a situation we took no part in? That's what's at stake with an issue like that of how we can judge the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib -- if they can justifiably claim that no one who was not there can be competant to judge their behavior, then where does that leave us? |
Are you saying that human behavior and our understanding of it is subject to cold logic?
I am not fully on the side of situational morality. I think that people are prone to not follow moral codes to begin with. It takes work to follow a strict moral code. If it was easy, we would not be talking about how 'good people turn bad' (which, like the scapegoat of the 'bad apple' that Zimbardo mentions, is intended to hide something about the 'situation' of the human species, IMO). Situations may help facilitate immorality, but does not produce the tendency to immorality.
So I guess I do not accept you two claims from above and thus do not see any logical inconsistency. We all know what it means to be human...we all share similar feelings inside. So we must come up with a judgement and system of morality based on a concensus of all people (which we have been doing for tens of thousands of years). We have a way to go, yes and I do not expect absolute perfection of this system anytime soon.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Why
Eligible to vote!
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 22
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: Except....
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| We all know what it means to be human...we all share similar feelings inside. |
...in the case of the developmentally delayed person, for example. How do you judge a person who commits a crime which they know is wrong but they are not capeable of controlling the urge to commit. Afterall, isn't our system of judgment and justice based on knowing right from wrong? So, the person who is developmentally delayed but can function independently in society, does know the difference between right and wrong, but chooses wrong out of a compulsion.
Take a rape committed by a developmentally delayed 20 year old that becomes violent and leads to the victim's death. How do you judge that person? He has the mental age of a young child, the hormones of a young man. Do you judge him as a child? Do you judge him as a man? Do you not judge him at all?
I do know that I have no idea what it means to be that particular human (the developmentally delayed one, that is), so how would I judge him? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Professor
Silver Contributor
Usergroups: None
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3521
Thanks
Given: 5
Received: 6 in 6 Posts
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: Re: Except....
|
|
|
| Why wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We all know what it means to be human...we all share similar feelings inside. |
Take a rape committed by a developmentally delayed 20 year old that becomes violent and leads to the victim's death. How do you judge that person? He has the mental age of a young child, the hormones of a young man. Do you judge him as a child? Do you judge him as a man? Do you not judge him at all?
I do know that I have no idea what it means to be that particular human (the developmentally delayed one, that is), so how would I judge him? |
Well, if the person is developmentally delayed, we WOULD know what it means to be that person...for we went through the development, but just proceeded normally, no?
These are extreme cases though. To facilitate this discussion, I went with the majority, not with a defective segment. The thing is, whether someone can control themselves or not, if someone is going around raping and killing, they need to be accounted for in some sort of situation that keeps them from doing that.
Another question is, why would we let a person who cannot control thier urges, especially in the case where they 'know' the difference between 'right & wrong', to live among people who may fall victim to them? Is there a way to fix these people? If not, then an answer may be to remove them from society. I will not offer a means of doing that at this time.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Why
Eligible to vote!
Usergroups: None
Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 22
Thanks
Given: 0
Received: 0 in 0 Posts
Gender:
| |
