Harry wrote:I'm arguing that if you are doing your thing in an unethical way, you are ipso facto not flourishing. You may be accomplishing great things, but you are not doing so in a way that allows you to know yourself to be a person you admire.
Sure, but the only concern here with respect to morality is how it affects others, correct? I don't see the importance of an individual flourishing, where morality is concerned. All I see in the causal web is that the person's sanctity is respected. I mean, we all agree that a person should flourish, but where that relates to morality, it's only tangential.
But we all recognize that "we would all be better off if we exercise more" is not likely to turn exercise into a moral obligation.
I agree, but I think in this case it's because exercise is more about the individual, and less about the collective. Certainly a more fit person would put less strain on the healthcare system and would potentially be a more productive member of society. But where those things may slightly promote flourishing of the species, the scale in this particular instance would be weighted against the sanctity of the individual.
Contrast this with littering from your car window. There is very little individual sanctity lost, and the impact on the collective is a bit more visible.
Regarding littering and recycling, I think it's still in the process of being accepted as a moral concern. Some people are convinced, while others are not. I think the problems need to become a little worse for the impact to drive it over the edge.
Well, I don't think there is much improvement to be gotten by morbid introspection about purity of one's motives.
I completely disagree. Know thyself. Some of the best self-improvement I've ever had is through introspection and comparing what I've found with the way I perceive others.
The way it often surfaces is that sometimes, a very subtle character trait in someone I know will rub me the wrong way. The behavior, being an irritant, rests in my memory of a bit. A few months, perhaps a year. Then I come across myself behaving the exact same way and immediately freeze, going introspective. I want to know why I acted in a way that I myself find irritating.
There are only two conclusions, I've found. One is that I was indeed being selfish or impure of motive(which means the other person I know was being selfish or impure of motive). The second is that my motives were pure, but somewhere between the emotion and my outward action, strange psychology happened. Once I understand that, I understand that the person I know could have had the same occurrence. Granted, there's always the possibility they had impure or selfish(or whatever) motives, but dwelling on that is helpful to no one. So I give them the benefit of the doubt, which is helpful both to myself and to the relationship.
Well said. Yes, actually, I also think shifting between analytic mode and encounter mode is a sensible, maybe even vital, way to live. In fact I think I overstated the instrumental aspect of understanding - reflection is a big help in dealing with other people, for example, and I don't think this has to work by subtracting from our openness to them. Often it seems to be just the opposite - that I am better able to translate from what they say to what they really mean (or purposely leave unsaid).
Right, I think this is nearly identical to what I was saying above. A little less pedantically worded.
As long as you are not trying to force some exclusion of any proposition that things can really be wrong, or really be meaningful, I am okay with wherever such a discussion takes itself.
Sometimes I'm a turd and point out limits to the propositions, but only ones worded with a parochial bent. There are things that are truly wrong, much that is truly meaningful, and in both cases this is only true with respect to an intelligent agent. The reason I get turdish is due to the number of times I've run across people who swear that meaning is objective, and exists "out there" apart from an intelligence that can harvest it.
Unlike you and Penelope, apparently, I put little weight on such moral sentiments. I think they usually arise more from social norms which people pick up, intertwined heavily with assumptions about privilege and status, than from natural empathy and mirror neurons, (much less from biologically fixed instincts.)
I think you misunderstood my position, which is ok because it's complex. I agree that how our moral code develops over time has influences that affect purity, for lack of a better term. I agree that the code comes from social norms and is colored by perspective. This is different from our moral emotions.
Where moral emotions are concerned, they are the other side of the coin. We have the code, yes. But we have the emotions that influence us on a personal level to abide by the code. ("Code" in this context is just an easy short word. I mean sentiment/obligation/standard/etc. - that which we agree is moral behavior).
So we agree as a society that stealing or perhaps littering is bad. That agreement is the code. Our guilt when we steal or litter is the enforcing emotion. If we suppress the enforcing emotion(which for some isn't hard), then we have embarrassment or shame to curb future action. If we suppress all moral emotions, society will still enforce the code with the legal system.