How Do You Define Morality?

[Flint]

The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.

...you haven't informed yourself...

I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...

[wolf]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

I knew you were a commie.

That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable human confusion between "needs" and "wants."

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by wolf

I knew you were a commie.

That's doomed to failure, of course, because of the inevitable

conservative

Originally Posted by wolf

human confusion between "needs" and "wants."

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

That line sums up my basic philosphy of life and underpins my moral code.

I can understand some people reacting strongly on reading this, either from emotional reaction or from frustration (or both). Those with family who survived (and didn't survive) the horrors of communism in Russia, which began with the philosophy stated above, will react as strongly as WWII holocaust survivors would to a statement of Nazi belief. (NB I am not directly comparing communism with Nazism here, just comparing survivor reaction.) Their families have lived that social construct and suffered under it.

The trouble is that someone does have to decide what each person shall contribute, and what each person shall 'need'. That's absolute power, something we've been trying to liberate ourselves from (as a system of government) for quite a while.

[DanaC]

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

Nope.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by Flint

The question was: How Do You Define Morality? ... Not "provide a short, 'public' summary of either faith's beliefs accurately" ... The answer, for these religions (relevant as it applies to so much of the human population) is: they define morality as what is written in a book.
I'm curious, how do you know to what level I am informed? (Hint: saying it's "self-evident" isn't a real answer) ...

I agree, the question was 'How Do You Define Morality'; not 'How Do You Think People of Religions Not Your Own Define Morality'. I'd have been interested to hear your thoughts on what defines morality for you, Flint.

As for the short, 'public' summary, you are the one who made a statement on behalf of two religious faiths. It was inaccurate and insulting. Your statement "They define morality as what is written in a book" doesn't even make sense. (I could assume that you're saying they take their moral principles from their sacred writings, and you still wouldn't have the entire concept, and that's not the point anyway.) My question is, why do this? Why attempt to state what someone else, whose beliefs you don't hold, believes, when the question is how do you define morality?


Finally, I didn't say it was self-evident that you are not informed; I said it was self-evident that you're not in a position to speak authoritatively on behalf of either Muslims or Christians ... given that you're not one (that was the self-evident part). I said that either you haven't informed yourself about these faiths, or you're choosing to be insulting.

[Flint]

Yeah, I'm being insulting. You are, I assume, "speaking from a position of authority" . . . ha ha ha

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post. Can someone please help?

[*quote]I'm still master of the uneducated multi-quote post[/quote]
Then take out the *

But how can you define 'best' unless you refer to some objective concept that places choices on a continuum?

I can not define best but there are common sense choices. Usually that is a mix of freedom and the voice of the people for big choices. I don't have the time to get into my personal choices and hypocriticalness right now but I can later if you want.

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

According to my personal morals and my society's morals, what Hitler did was bad. You can not be all accepting with morals, if there is direct confrontation with morals, you have to fight for one or the other, I have chosen my side. That also brings up another problem...I love subjective topics.

What would be the drive to do what is 'best', even if you could define it, for others? Won't they all be pursuing their individual 'bests'? If their 'best' means killing your children and eating them, is that just a choice, or does it have moral value?

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us. Its gets a lot more complicated but most situations work out that way. I can go into my own personal theories when I have the time.

[DanaC]

The way I see it, we live in a direct relation with society. If we help society, it will help us. If we work against society, it will work against us.

I like that.

[Flint]

Also, though, if you disagree with an aspect of that society, sometimes you have to swim upstream.

[DanaC]

That's very true Flint.

I want to come back to this one:

And in your infinite wisdom you are capable of actually knowing what those are?

I've been thinking about this response, and I find it quite an interesting one. I said that the sentiment "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" underpins both my political philosophy and my personal moral code. I am not sure how that gives the impression that I am the one who decides what each person's needs and abilities are. I am not a revolutionary, I am a socialist who believes in the democratic process.

In a democratic system, citizens vote politicians in and out of power, they hold the final and most powerful card in the pack. Those politicians enact laws and control the tax system. If an individual or party believes in flat taxes they campaign for flat taxes, if they believe in prgressive taxation they campaign for progressive taxation and the electorate decide which of those individuals or parties they will vote for.

I personally believe in socialist values therefore I, along with many of my ilk, campaign for redistributive taxation. I say again, I am not in favour of revolution; it's about winning people to your point of view, persuading them of the benefits of the system you believe in and if you succeed with enough people, in that argument, it finds its expression in the ballot box.

Just as your country has come to certain shared conclusions so has ours. If a democratic country elects its politicians and agrees a set of codes on which to run their country (such as taxation levels and styles) there will be some individuals for whom that decision will not sit easily. Unless you remove government entirely and remove taxation entirely then someone, somewhere is making decisions about what other individuals can and should pay in tax, and about what they can and cannot do in law. That is no different to a country electing a government which believes in socialist values. If you don't like it, then get involved and campaign and make sure you cast your vote carefully.

[orthodoc]

Thanks, Dana, your post is very helpful. I misunderstood your earlier, shorter post; because it stated the Marxist view without comment I thought it implied that you are in favor of a communist system, not a democratic one. While I may not agree with your particular political views, I definitely agree on the importance of becoming active and informed within a democracy, and of working to further the values you hold.

I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.

[DanaC]

orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.

It's also important to understand that Marx wasn't working towards a revolution, he was predicting the conditions that in his view would lead to one. Given the proximity of his writing to the 1840s revolutions and the earlier French Revolution, that wasn't entirely off base. Also, given the extremes that existed within the emerging industrial nations it was something that many people were talking about.

We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.

I still contend that a government with the power to decide each person's appropriate contribution (which would cover education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances) and needs (again, broad categories) would have far too much power and would stifle (at best), or kill (more likely) the population and economy. I would/will always work against that.

And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".

The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Do you truly believe that there is no possibility of one morality being better than another, or that no concept of 'good' or 'better than' exists? So that Nazi morality, for example, was just a choice, like choosing to dye your hair blond or red, and there was no right or wrong involved?

I'm pretty sure that in the grander sense, the universe doesn't give a sh*t if you are a hitler. However, your mother cares, your descendants may care, and therefore you may care if only by extension. It's all tied to time, place & circumstance.
The question of why one race might consider itself to be superior is merely an extension of why our species considers itself to be the culmination of creation -- IMHO, it ain't. There is no absolute.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

orthodoc, the thing about Marxist philosphy is that it takes as its basis a democratic process as the goal. Communism in theory is about as democratic as it's possible to be. The idea of Sovietsin every workplace, each sending representatives to a larger body who then send reprentatives to an even larger one until eventually every town, city and factory has a say, in theory is highly democratised. Now, obviously the way it was actually done in Russia didn't meet that model. But the theory had a lot of interesting possibilities.

The trouble arises in the gulf between theory and practice. In Russia there were Soviets in every workplace and town. My father-in-law had to watch pro-communist films at night after working all day, and if he nodded off in exhaustion he was woken up with the business end of an assault rifle. The kulaks in Ukraine didn't want their farms taken away and collectivized, so Stalin deliberately starved them to death. The democratic part broke down.

Originally Posted by DanaC

We all think of Marx as the one who came up with socialism, but actually he was merely one part (though a biggy I'll grant you) of a strand of political thinking that was around in much of Europe at the time. There were groups in England in the late 18th century who were experimenting with communal living long before Marx was writing.

Some of them were the monasteries (I am familiar with Orthodox monasteries, rather than RC ones)! The communal model has always been the monastic standard. However, these are small communities whose main raison d'etre isn't to attempt an ideal economic or social system. Most small communes I've read about that are based primarily on a social model don't seem to have done well long-term. Still, I realize there was a great deal of legitimate unrest and frustration in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Originally Posted by DanaC

And you'd find most socialists (and indeed most communists in my country) would also work against a government that sought to control "education, activities, career choice, and offspring - number, sex, and parents thereof, along with finances".

While the Soviets in Russia didn't dictate who should get married, they did control education, activities, and careers. China has dictated number of children per family. I admit that sex and parentage are an extrapolation, but one that isn't far-fetched if a very efficient government were in control. It would be the logical development of assessing each person's appropriate contribution to society.

In Canada the public schools promote socialist philosophy, and kids are taught that policies different from Canada's are 'bad' (my kids experienced this when we were back there for a couple of years). No discussion of alternate policies or politics was permitted. This, in my view, is one type of socialist control of education. Whereas in American schools my kids have been presented with and have discussed several models of government, politics, and issues such as health care.

Originally Posted by DanaC

The history of leftwing activism in my country includes fights against laws which dictated who could do what trade or job, it includes the fight against overbearing employers who sought to dictate morality to their workforce. It's about increasing freedom, not curtailing it.

I completely agree with the institution of labor laws that provided for safe working environments, reasonable work hours, and an end to child labor. Unfortunately, in Canada leftwing activism has led to unions that do curtail freedoms - that dictate who can do what trade or job, and who employers must or must not hire. The streets are monitored with video cameras and a pilot project is in place to try interactive video, i.e. allowing the 'watcher' to shout orders or warnings to people who are violating accepted behavior. In spite of the fact that the government constantly told me (through radio and TV commercials and broadcasts) what I should be doing to be a safe, healthy, good citizen, I did not feel protected. I felt spied on, helpless, and angry.