tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post114010464421431929..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Are you pursuing your project?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140752686412736652006-02-23T22:44:00.000-05:002006-02-23T22:44:00.000-05:00I've read it J,I like pretty much everything by Sh...I've read it J,<BR/><BR/>I like pretty much everything by Shermer and am an avid reader of Skeptic magazine.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I think provisional morality is more than just a philosophy or an ideal way of looking at morality, I think it's the way people actually operate in the real world. From relativist to fundamentalist, we all have exceptions to what we believe to be right or wrong, we just find ways to justify those exceptions to fit the society we live in.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure if that is what Shermer is trying to convey, but I think it is what his veiw naturally leads to.<BR/><BR/>NoahJerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17925319454015150016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140406151565959742006-02-19T22:29:00.000-05:002006-02-19T22:29:00.000-05:00Have any of you guys read "The Science of Good and...Have any of you guys read "The Science of Good and Evil", by Michael Shermer? I've just finished it a few weeks ago, and it's pretty interesting how he treats all this absolute x relative morality issue (among other things). I recommend the book - I think I have to read some parts again, at least.<BR/><BR/>But regarding what you guys have been discussing, what he advocates is "provisional morality". Relative (anything goes, as long as you come up with the right scenario) and absolute won't do. Provisional, if I understood well, is what's right (or wrong) for most people most of the time. It is reasonably universal since it's the result of our evolution, history and culture. But it's also reasonably flexible - again due to our continuing historical and cultural "evolutions", but also due to our recognizing of the nuances of positions possible in different times/cultures/etc.<BR/><BR/>I'm still struggling with the fine details of this (and therefore want to read the book again), but sounds like a good start.<BR/><BR/>Cheers<BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140220081764536202006-02-17T18:48:00.000-05:002006-02-17T18:48:00.000-05:00Katie said I don't think that context negates obje...Katie said <I>I don't think that context negates objective evaluations of morality; rather, to evaluate objectively, context must be retained.</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly. Whether something is 'good' or not depends on the context. I agree with you. I wasn't saying context negates morality, but I was saying that because morality is context dependent it therefore negates the idea of an 'absolute, eternal, good-for-all-circumstances' code of ethics. Which you seem to agree with.<BR/><BR/>As soon as someone tries to define what is good others think they can behave badly as long as they find a loop-hole in the wording of the ethical code. <BR/><BR/>Just do the right thing. Simple.Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140213200649107692006-02-17T16:53:00.000-05:002006-02-17T16:53:00.000-05:00Morality being context dependent? That is a good p...Morality being context dependent? That is a good point. Is it? By that definition, it is to say that murder could somehow be moral. That sounds rediculous. But something like acceptance of nudity on T.V. could be moral depending on its context. So I would both agree and disagree. I guess it would depend on the context (just kidding). The definition of Morals would have to be decided first. If being moral is to follow the golden rule (if you don't like it then dont do it) then I would have to argue that context is not very important and morals could not change. If the definition of moral is some set of ideas of how people should act at some given point in history, then yes context will change what is moral.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140201144765966212006-02-17T13:32:00.000-05:002006-02-17T13:32:00.000-05:00Katie said we exist in an historical contextI agre...Katie said <I>we exist in an historical context</I><BR/><BR/>I agree and oddly was thinking about this on the way to work this morning. We have 'free will' but the options that we consider for any given act are influenced by evolution, society, family, etc. so that each option does not have an equal probability of being chosen by our 'free will.'<BR/><BR/>We can chose the option that has the least probability if we want - the one that evolution and society says "no" to, that is our choice. But most people rarely do this (for good reason).<BR/><BR/>Morality is a washout, it's all context dependent.Derek (formerly 'me')https://www.blogger.com/profile/01993249375321760846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1140135695516684132006-02-16T19:21:00.000-05:002006-02-16T19:21:00.000-05:00Wilhelm von Humboldt, writing around 1790, had thi...Wilhelm von Humboldt, writing around 1790, had this to say:<BR/><BR/>"Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice - or is only the result of construction and guidance - does not enter into his very being, but remains alien to his true nature. He does not perform it with truly human energies, but merely with mechanical exactness. And if a man acts in a mechanical way, reacting to external demands or instruction rather than in ways determined by his own interests and energies and power, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is." (In "Limits of State Action")<BR/><BR/>I like Humboldt's version better, but I must admit "too much a waiter" is very terseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com