• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Are you a moral person?

PyramidHead

Contributor
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,080
Location
RI
Basic Beliefs
Marxist-Leninist
Morality can and should be considered a separate concern from societal function and human survival, even if the moral sense we have now largely evolved under conditions that favored those things. The fact is, almost everything about us can be traced back to a mutation or combination thereof that helped our ancestors thrive in groups. That doesn't mean we have to adhere to that original goal in all applications of our evolved tendencies.

To make this more obvious, consider that we must have evolved an ear for music for some social or reproductive fitness benefit. By definition. And so, we can imagine the earliest examples of music being used as ways of memorizing important information in the form of songs, announcing superiority to rival groups by coordinated displays, or arousing potential mates. Yet, none of these are valid ways of evaluating music today. Music is something over and beyond its humble beginnings. Good music stirs us on a level that has nothing to do with remembering hunting paths or impressing sexual partners (well, maybe there's still a considerable amount of that). Someone who insisted that the only acceptable way to scrutinize music is to appeal to its original evolutionary function would be someone who quite simply did not understand music. At all.

I think the same can be said about morality. It's perfectly coherent and understandable to imagine an act that would be beneficial to society or humanity at large, while still involving a great deal of unfairness, cruelty, and manipulation. To argue that such an act would be moral by virtue of its desirable social and survival consequences is, to me, a concession that you have no idea at all what morality is. It may be true that there are reasons to do something unfair, cruel, and manipulative, and those might be social reasons, genetic fitness reasons, or whatever, but they cannot be moral reasons. That's not what morality actually is, any more than the music of Bela Bartok is actually just an efficient way to intimidate rival tribes.

We need to de-couple the genetic origins of morality from its application. We need to resist the temptation to discard any moral concept that is not socially and genetically supportive, either on an individual or collective level, solely on those grounds. Everybody knows, deep down, what it means to be moral. It means, at minimum, don't favor your own interests over somebody else's just because they are your own. Every time I hear someone try to engineer that basic concept back to self-interest, to demonstrate that, after all, behaving morally is in my self-interest compared to behaving immorally and that's why I should do it, it gets distorted beyond recognition. It's as if, without some endgame that benefits me above all in the end, there can be no compelling justification for doing anything. But, the entire point of morality is that I sometimes do what is best for someone else, not because I calculated that it will be a winning strategy for my projects in the long run in some game-theoretical sense, but solely out of compassion, and indeed often IN SPITE of it being bad for me (or for society, or for humans, etc.) in the long run.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,247
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Do you defend the corporate dictators that control the majority of capitalist wealth and power?

I don't think they are dictators. I think your use of the word in this context is absurd

A dictator is a position of power within a group of humans.

Orders come from dictators and all others follow them or they leave the group. There is only one direction of power.

Are you claiming this is not how power exists within corporations?

It is one thing to be blind to dictators and another to claim that while they have the power of a dictator they still somehow are not one.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
You are objecting to paying for a product that somebody else created.

It is childish foot stomping, not morality.

Patents and copyrights protect the innovators.

They do not harm anyone.

The harm comes when these sick dictatorial structures enter the picture.

No sir I am not. I'm suggesting reality is a real thing and relative behavioral mores are appropriate. Such as copyright only has value for a limited time until it is either overwhelmed or rendered moot by circumstances. So it's use should be lokewise limited. Human behavior is only relevant around the time it is committed. Moral behavior should also be so constrained.

As I've already pointed out several time dictatorial structures are more in the mind of the perceiver than they are embedded in the arc of life experience. Ergo they can't be considered stricture constraining behavior or morality.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
No sir I am not. I'm suggesting reality is a real thing and relative behavioral mores are appropriate.

There could be appropriate dictatorships.

The father and the child.

"You must go to bed. You must brush your teeth."

We do not say these dictatorial situations are immoral.

Because it is a situation involving a child. And it is looking after the interests of the child.

But the dictatorship must prove it is moral, prove it is justified, prove it is needed.

Otherwise it is considered immoral.

Immorality is the starting position when looking at human dictatorial structures.

If they can prove they are somehow necessary and in the interests of those being dictated to then they are considered moral.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,247
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Do you defend the corporate dictators that control the majority of capitalist wealth and power?

I don't think they are dictators. I think your use of the word in this context is absurd

A dictator is a position of power within a group of humans.

Orders come from dictators and all others follow them or they leave the group. There is only one direction of power.

Are you claiming this is not how power exists within corporations?

It is one thing to be blind to dictators and another to claim that while they have the power of a dictator they still somehow are not one.

That's not how power exists in corporations. The board of directors of a corporation are slaves to the market. They have to obey or the company goes out of business. They also have to obey laws. The perceived power they have is mostly an illusion.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
A dictator is a position of power within a group of humans.

Orders come from dictators and all others follow them or they leave the group. There is only one direction of power.

Are you claiming this is not how power exists within corporations?

It is one thing to be blind to dictators and another to claim that while they have the power of a dictator they still somehow are not one.

That's not how power exists in corporations. The board of directors of a corporation are slaves to the market. They have to obey or the company goes out of business. They also have to obey laws. The perceived power they have is mostly an illusion.

You mean the company as a whole is a slave to the market. Meaning it must supply what people want.

That would be true of a democratic company.

It in no way justifies a dictatorial power scheme.

Those are just the power schemes best for dictators. Best for stealing from many people and somehow making astronomical amounts that have no connection to differences in human abilities.

They are not the only way power can be distributed.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,247
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A dictator is a position of power within a group of humans.

Orders come from dictators and all others follow them or they leave the group. There is only one direction of power.

Are you claiming this is not how power exists within corporations?

It is one thing to be blind to dictators and another to claim that while they have the power of a dictator they still somehow are not one.

That's not how power exists in corporations. The board of directors of a corporation are slaves to the market. They have to obey or the company goes out of business. They also have to obey laws. The perceived power they have is mostly an illusion.

You mean the company as a whole is a slave to the market. Meaning it must supply what people want.

That would be true of a democratic company.

It in no way justifies a dictatorial power scheme.

Those are just the power schemes best for dictators. Best for stealing from many people and somehow making astronomical amounts that have no connection to differences in human abilities.

They are not the only way power can be distributed.

Ok, then all existing companies today are democratic companies. Unless the companies exist in socialist countries. Those don't necessarily have to supply what the people demand. But the rest certainly have to.

I never said these are the only way power can be distributed. I just pointed out that it's stupid to say that companies have dictatorial power. It's a farcical statement.

Keep in mind that what people actually demand is often different from what they say they want. The stuff companies provide is the stuff that people actually demand. Which often makes no sense
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
A democracy is not a dictatorship.

In a democracy all people vote and the outcome of that vote is in some fashion assigned power. In a democracy there are no secrets from workers.

In a dictatorship there is no general vote.

Although the dictators may decide by voting among themselves. They have all power, even the power to do that.

To just say a dictatorial power structure is by some magic a democratic structure is a waste of my time.

Stupid outright lies in defense of a position are a waste of time to discuss.

These corporate structures are dictatorial structures. They were carefully constructed that way.

All power flows from one source.

And those without power either comply or leave.

The structures are dictatorial structures.

That is a given and not something to discuss.

All that needs to be discussed is the morality of dictatorship.

When and why is it justified.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,247
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A democracy is not a dictatorship.
Nice platitude. But since you're using the words wrong, it means litterally nothing when you say it.

In a democracy all people vote and the outcome of that vote is in some fashion assigned power.

In the capitalist paradigm money is used as a proxy. How much you want it is measured in how much money you're paying for it.

BTW, I'm a socialist. I'm supposed to be on your side here. I understand why money is a bad "voting-instrument". But it's still democratic.

In a democracy there are no secrets from workers.

Well.. that's just unworkable. I'm suffering from information overload as it is. I'd prefer less information. But relevant information.

If you haven't noticed, the major shift in the capitalist paradigm after the advent of Internet is the death of company secrets. Everybody knows everything today. The only thing a company can control somewhat is the speed by which it leaks out.

In a dictatorship there is no general vote.

More platitudes. Since people are continually voting with their money I guess capitalist companies are democratic.

Although the dictators may decide by voting among themselves. They have all power, even the power to do that.

We've already established that companies today aren't dictatorial. Thanks for making even more clear.

To just say a dictatorial power structure is by some magic a democratic structure is a waste of my time.

I haven't.

These corporate structures are dictatorial structures. They were carefully constructed that way.

All power flows from one source.

And those without power either comply or leave.

Ehe... no... The corporate power structures were carefully constructed in such a way to take away power of kings to meddle in how companies were run. Kings do have dictatorial power. Corporations were an instrument by which to break dictatorial power. You need to read more history before making more embarrasing pronouncements.

All that needs to be discussed is the morality of dictatorship.

When and why is it justified.

It's necessary if we ever plan on winning wars. Otherwise never.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Nice platitude. But since you're using the words wrong, it means litterally nothing when you say it.

You don't understand the difference between a simple truism and a platitude.

In the capitalist paradigm money is used as a proxy. How much you want it is measured in how much money you're paying for it.

BTW, I'm a socialist. I'm supposed to be on your side here. I understand why money is a bad "voting-instrument". But it's still democratic.

I am talking about the structures of power within these organized entities referred to as businesses and corporations.

You know the real world as it is really organized.

They are structured as rigid dictatorships.

Why you are in left field talking about money is incomprehensible.

In a democracy there are no secrets from workers.

Well.. that's just unworkable. I'm suffering from information overload as it is. I'd prefer less information. But relevant information.

No secrets means that all meetings and all decisions and all actions are in the open.

The company doesn't suddenly say it must fire all workers and hire new Chinese workers.

It does not mean you get an email about it unless you want one.

We've already established that companies today aren't dictatorial.

More absolute nonsense from left field.

We have only established that you call dictatorial power structures something else.

You have a strange avoidance of what is clearly stated in every corporation.

There are directors with real power (dictatorial power - it can reside in a small group as well as in an individual) and workers with no power beyond the power to endure the hardship in leaving or comply absolutely.

Ehe... no... The corporate power structures were carefully constructed in such a way to take away power of kings to meddle in how companies were run. Kings do have dictatorial power. Corporations were an instrument by which to break dictatorial power. You need to read more history before making more embarrasing pronouncements.

They took the power of the king, using the model of the king, onto themselves.

Your absolute blindness or willful ignorance to the real world is getting boring.

These corporations and companies are set up as rigid dictatorships.

To claim otherwise is an absolute waste of time.

The only issue is the morality of absolute dictatorship.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
No sir I am not. I'm suggesting reality is a real thing and relative behavioral mores are appropriate.

There could be appropriate dictatorships.

The father and the child.

"You must go to bed. You must brush your teeth."

We do not say these dictatorial situations are immoral.

Because it is a situation involving a child. And it is looking after the interests of the child.

But the dictatorship must prove it is moral, prove it is justified, prove it is needed.

Otherwise it is considered immoral.

Immorality is the starting position when looking at human dictatorial structures.

If they can prove they are somehow necessary and in the interests of those being dictated to then they are considered moral.

If you replace the dictatorship's responsibility with our acceptance that dictatorships are thus and so you might have something. Dictatorships, in any form ar what they are. How we participate with, interact, treat, with them determines whether they should be considered morally proper or no.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
Is the dictatorship that calls itself monarchy simply what it is?

Or is it something carefully constructed to lavishly serve some at the expense of the many?

That sure sounds like the world carefully constructed by the few where corporations dominate.

The human desire to be lavishly served by the many through some kind of dictatorship is real.

We can either try to contain it or as we do now give it free reign.

We can either try to adopt a morality in life or we can let the least deserving, the defective few with the strongest desire to dominate, rule.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Existence is. Things caused aren't responsible, rather they are, uh, caused, dependent on whatever. Humans presume own agency so let's use that as a starting point. What is created is so done in current conditions so there's that too. How do you get from human presumption of agency in an at least chaotic world to dictatorships calling? Probably a human thing I guess. Not world responsive at all as far as I can see. Where is lawfulness of dictatorship beyond what humans claim?

Those igniting the carbon crisis can't be called immoral because things change in response to that and there's a new reality where what exists pis either neutral or benefits from existing carbon state. So when you go about attributing such as agency to dictatorships maybe you should recalibrate to something that is lawful in the nature of the world rather than as humans spout.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Actually I'm saying humans can act on the many choices given them, but they should restrict calling morality to other than those related to reality that they have found exists and that they understand. It doesn't matter that whether the choice is actually a free choice it matters that the choices they make should be based on what they collectively known rather than what one thinks one knows just because they happen to be alive. I've always had difficulty with the notion of intuition as advertised by Speakpigeon. Seems such a cop out. I choose to think morality is a personal system based on collective knowledge rather than a personal system based on personal belief. After all we are social animals.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
That is convoluted and incomprehensible.

On issues of morality what a free mind can do is point out instances of immorality.

Like systems of dictatorship that are not needed in any way.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
First, minds are demonstrably not free. Second the world is demonstrably determined. Third Within one's purview all one can actually hope for is to be consistent with natural law in social behavior.

So .... as i wrote

... morality is a personal system based on collective knowledge rather than a personal system based on personal belief. After all we are social animals.

We are governed by behavior within social systems that are also, ultimately determined.

What one believes has little to do with morality beyond whether one, having no access to reality, one has only recourse to personal belief. That final futile condition is not much of a basis for anything governing social intercourse, nor is it one held by but a very few. I suspect Trump might operate in such an arena.

If you wish to contest please bring a bit of evidence or at least coherent argument.

Actually I want to use you as a punching bag on one more of your sillinesses.

So you are saying that a mind developing has no need for social systematic dictation. Children raised by wolves will probably never develop language. A dictatorial regime living in a language environment surrounded by mandatory language speakers is just one necessary dictatorial regime essential for human development.

Babies don't feed themselves. Anther dictatorial regime is required.

Citizens do not carry roads around with them nor do they have coherent laws regulating how one drives illustrates at least two more required dictatorial regimes . It is getting down right silly that you think there is no requirement for dictatorial systems for social humans.

untermenche its time you thought about saving up for a remote island and learn some survival methods else you're out of luck avoiding necessary dictatorships.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
First, minds are demonstrably not free.

Demonstrate that my mind is not free.

What conclusion is it not free to make?

I think your ideas about the mind are total nonsense.

I made that conclusion freely with my mind based on ideas not some kind of "programming".

To make decisions based on ideas is to be free.

And if the mind is not free to make choices then any talk of morality is absurd.

That you discuss morality freely shows you don't even believe your bullshit.
 

ronburgundy

Contributor
Joined
Dec 6, 2014
Messages
5,757
Location
Whale's Vagina
Basic Beliefs
Atheist/Scientist
I'm not so sure there's a traffic law I haven't broke.
But is that immoral?

I'd say traffic violations are often immoral, because it puts others in harms way and at unnecessary risk (sometimes fatal) for purely selfish reasons. IOW, they are immoral for the same reason that DUI is immoral. In fact, driving while using a cell phone is just as immoral as a DUI.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
I thought you were in mental health. If so you should know that the brain works by the processes of arousal, association, and differentiation (edge detection). You have no choice in those aspects of your thinking or processing information. Very difficult to decide to change heart rate and to make it happen consciously using your whatever you want to call that thing cooling the thalamus and autonomic nervous system.

As I said what you believe is of no consequence. "....to ber free..." not likely!

Your absurd is call empiricism.

Notice which way your ideas go down the drain, over and over and over again.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,314
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I'm not so sure there's a traffic law I haven't broke.
But is that immoral?

I'd say traffic violations are often immoral, because it puts others in harms way and at unnecessary risk (sometimes fatal) for purely selfish reasons. IOW, they are immoral for the same reason that DUI is immoral. In fact, driving while using a cell phone is just as immoral as a DUI.

I agree. But clearly some traffic violations do not add to risk for anyone, and are not immoral. The difference between driving at 100km/h rather than 120km/h down a deserted freeway on a clear night in terms of risk is zero, to within our ability to determine such things; But if the speed limit is 110km/h, one is a violation and the other is not - and a speed camera ticket a real possibility for the faster option.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Any increase in energy increases volatility. Increasing speed increases likelihood of accident. ...or maybe I'm just whistling Dixie here. Seems to work for balloons though on most mechanisms for increased energy of gas inside them.

I really think you wrote that bilby​ just because you're a young dude who gets a kick out of going fast in a 500 to 3000 kilograms of metal, plastic, and power plant on macadam or concrete.

My brother was that way when he was young. Got very drunk one night and just flew his modified '58 ford over 60 ft wide arroyo at about 95 while stationed at an army camp near Yuma. Didn't know anything happened until the next morning when he came out of barracks and found damage on the front end of his car. I'm guessing he was moral due to 'lack of awareness' and 'no harm no foul' exceptions. Although he claims to have had a slight back ache for a couple days. Operational moral caution maybe?
 
Last edited:

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,314
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Any increase in energy increases volatility. Increasing speed increases likelihood of accident. ...or maybe I'm just whistling Dixie here. Seems to work for balloons though on most mechanisms for increased energy of gas inside them.
Sure, but the marginal increase in risk on a quiet road between just under the limit and just over is minuscule; And the limits are set to be appropriate for moderate traffic conditions. There's no sudden step-up in risk from going 10km/h over the limit on a dry road with no other traffic.
I really think you wrote that bilby​ just because you're a young dude who gets a kick out of going fast in a 500 to 3000 kilograms of metal, plastic, and power plant on macadam or concrete.
I really think you are wrong on every single one of those unwarranted assumptions. Better luck next time.
My brother was that way when he was young. Got very drunk one night and just flew his modified '58 ford over 60 ft wide arroyo at about 95 while stationed at an army camp near Yuma. Didn't know anything happened until the next morning when he came out of barracks and found damage on the front end of his car. I'm guessing he was moral due to 'lack of awareness' and 'no harm no foul' exceptions. Although he claims to have had a slight back ache for a couple days. Operational moral caution maybe?

I have never driven while drunk, and never plan to. The difference in risk between driving 9% faster than the speed limit on an empty highway in good weather, and driving while "very drunk" is fucking HUGE. I really think that you would have to be a senile old fool to even consider mentioning them in the same post, as though they were somehow comparable.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Sure, but the marginal increase in risk on a quiet road between just under the limit and just over is minuscule; And the limits are set to be appropriate for moderate traffic conditions. There's no sudden step-up in risk from going 10km/h over the limit on a dry road with no other traffic.

Speed limits take in to account drivers as well as roads. A significant proportion of drivers are, as you so aptly put it, "senile old fool(s)" which changes the calculus from road conditions for normal drivers under a normal range of environmental conditions to road conditions to those who drive including those with lowered cognitive, operation, and emotional skills which are fucking HUGE.

So I posted a memory of one with lowered cognitive and operational skills. This actually fits what regulators include in their calculation of speed recommendations. Safety enforcement officials choose a band of speeds starting at about 10% above posted recommended speeds to sanction. These limits represent a pretty normal model for moral behavior social enforcement by the community.

I have never driven while drunk, and never plan to.

Someone like me who failed to train my children in the necessary social behavior and physical fitness required when drinking - something I learned when I was young - which may have resulted in one of them dying of that scotoma at a young age needs to reflect on possibilities learned through experience.

I was thinking more like you when I raised my children. I'm more realistic now, shame on me.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
Its hard to reconcile social values with personal values, especially in the sense of morality. The above post suggests how social morality is treated for individuals by the state. Here in this forum we've been concentrating on whether individual feelings, some say intuitions, are the basis for individual morality. Others, me, suggest morality should be reality based. That is evidence of what is proper according to findings in scientific realism should be the anchors for individual moral standards. If an individual like say, bilby, doesn't drink then he claims society may be imposing on him standards of social morality, driving behavior, that are not relevant to him.

bilby has issue with speed limits that appear to permit sanction against him since those standards not only take into account, but, also take into account different behavioral norms in individuals. Its a real problem since one behaves only as one believes he should or can behave while the state assumes that if one exceeds suggested standards which include both physical risk in executed design and expected range of 'normal' individual behaviors by 30% one should be formally sanctioned, fined. My view is bilby professes to practice an unusual social behavior, - he doesn't drink and drive* - he has difficulty accepting rigid physical standards even though it is obvious they are not rigid as I outlined above.

It is for this very reason that I believe on should look to reality for basis for individual morality. bilby does this when he points to physical basis for suggested speed. He fails to take into account behavioral and individual difference findings that are also included in state sanctions for immoral social behavior, speeding and driving too slow (actual signage on California freeways for minimum speed). I sympathize with him here. Behavioral, Social, and Neuroscience is not settled, not yet among what most consider scientific realism.

All of this suggests tension between social and individual morality.

* statistics indicate drivers do drink and drive that drivers, do text and drive and that old and inexperienced male and female, drivers use the roads.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
27,314
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Its hard to reconcile social values with personal values, especially in the sense of morality. The above post suggests how social morality is treated for individuals by the state. Here in this forum we've been concentrating on whether individual feelings, some say intuitions, are the basis for individual morality. Others, me, suggest morality should be reality based. That is evidence of what is proper according to findings in scientific realism should be the anchors for individual moral standards. If an individual like say, bilby, doesn't drink then he claims society may be imposing on him standards of social morality, driving behavior, that are not relevant to him.
Although this isn't about me, and I do drink (but not if I plan to drive).
bilby has issue with speed limits that appear to permit sanction against him since those standards not only take into account, but, also take into account different behavioral norms in individuals. Its a real problem since one behaves only as one believes he should or can behave while the state assumes that if one exceeds suggested standards which include both physical risk in executed design and expected range of 'normal' individual behaviors by 30% one should be formally sanctioned, fined. My view is bilby professes to practice an unusual social behavior, - he doesn't drink and drive* - he has difficulty accepting rigid physical standards even though it is obvious they are not rigid as I outlined above.
You are very badly mistaken. This isn't about me, and it's rather foolish of you to continue to make false claims about my behaviour.* If you want to know how I behave, you should ask, rather than guessing - so far all of your guesses have been very poor indeed.

My position, (which has everything to do with the thread topic, and nothing to do with my personal decisions - FYI I do not routinely exceed the posted speed limit, as I have no desire to be fined) is that there is nothing inherently moral about obedience to an arbitrary rule that is established based on typical (or even worst case) conditions, when those conditions no longer apply.

Speed limits in most places apply equally at all times and in all conditions; However the level of risk associated with a given speed varies enormously - at 3am on a clear, dry, weekend night, the safe maximum speed on a road is clearly far higher than it would be on the same road at 5pm on a wet misty weekday in peak hour traffic. The moral thing to do is to drive at the highest safe speed, so as to avoid risk to life, while also preventing needless delay for other motorists. The lawful thing to do is to drive at the speed limit, or at the maximum safe speed for the conditions, whichever is the lower.

To take an even more extreme example, there is nothing in the slightest bit immoral about driving at twice the speed limit on an empty freeway, or driving through a red traffic signal, or rolling through a stop sign, in a post apocalyptic world in which you are the only inhabitant. Note that my moral claim here does not imply in any way that I personal engage in such behaviour (for reasons that I hope are obvious).
It is for this very reason that I believe on should look to reality for basis for individual morality. bilby does this when he points to physical basis for suggested speed. He fails to take into account behavioral and individual difference findings that are also included in state sanctions for immoral social behavior, speeding and driving too slow (actual signage on California freeways for minimum speed). I sympathize with him here. Behavioral, Social, and Neuroscience is not settled, not yet among what most consider scientific realism.

All of this suggests tension between social and individual morality.

* statistics indicate drivers do drink and drive that drivers, do text and drive and that old and inexperienced male and female, drivers use the roads.

Obedience to arbitrary rules may have some overlap with morality, but the two are NOT synonymous, and your attempt to paint mere disobedience as necessarily immoral is irrational and authoritarian.

There is no such thing as 'social' vs 'individual' morality; The individual has moral obligations to society, and breaches of social morality are inescapably individually immoral. Only in the absence of society (the post apocalyptic wasteland scenario) does society not have to be a large part of ones considerations regarding the morality of any given act. Ignorance of the effects of ones actions on others does not render those effects unimportant, and does not render behaviours that have (unknown and/or unexpected) negative impacts on others 'individually moral'.





* Interestingly, your making this about me personally is both an infraction of the rules of this board, and an immoral action.
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,599
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
This isn't about me,
Of course it's not about you. It's on me for not writing you don't drive when you drink.


My position, (had) nothing to do with my personal decisions .
I agree and I believe I didn't say you did any of those things. I really just noted your objection to the apparent arbitrariness what I labeled as speed 'suggestions'.

If you took away that I believed you did any of those things I apologise. You object to small differences in what appear to be guidelines for certain road conditions you consider arbitrary. I disagree with that statement. By your strong presentation about this 'arbitrary' observation you make you left me with the impression these rules were objectionable to you personally for their apparent arbitr=iness if nothing else. No one claimed you got tickets for driving in any fashion.

...and certainly you are not addressing my post as being my personal position. Whatever.

Speed limits in most places apply equally at all times and in all conditions; However the level of risk associated with a given speed varies enormously - at 3am on a clear, dry, weekend night, the safe maximum speed on a road is clearly far higher than it would be on the same road at 5pm on a wet misty weekday in peak hour traffic. The moral thing to do is to drive at the highest safe speed, so as to avoid risk to life, while also preventing needless delay for other motorists. The lawful thing to do is to drive at the speed limit, or at the maximum safe speed for the conditions, whichever is the lower.

Abso-damn-lutely

To take an even more extreme example, there is nothing in the slightest bit immoral about driving at twice the speed limit on an empty freeway, or driving through a red traffic signal, or rolling through a stop sign, in a post apocalyptic world in which you are the only inhabitant. Note that my moral claim here does not imply in any way that I personal engage in such behaviour (for reasons that I hope are obvious).

Nice example of written hyperbole. That twenty day dead herring needs to be put aside. Your cautions are noted.

Obedience to arbitrary rules may have some overlap with morality, but the two are NOT synonymous, and your attempt to paint mere disobedience as necessarily immoral is irrational and authoritarian.

The speed signages posted are based on principles and findings as solid as those used to construct the roadways. If you take away nothing else from my screeds here these postings are developed after research and design evaluation and supported by subsequent laws written based on those findings. Nothing arbitrary here.

There is no such thing as 'social' vs 'individual' morality; The individual has moral obligations to society, and breaches of social morality are inescapably individually immoral. Only in the absence of society (the post apocalyptic wasteland scenario) does society not have to be a large part of ones considerations regarding the morality of any given act. Ignorance of the effects of ones actions on others does not render those effects unimportant, and does not render behaviours that have (unknown and/or unexpected) negative impacts on others 'individually moral'.

If it would make you more comfortable roadway speed laws and enforcement guidelines are part of what government (society) does to affect safety and ensure more or less equal protection under the laws which exist on enforcement of signage. There may some local arbitrary exercise of both these guidelines and the way they are enforced. However It is my contention that these rules of the road are attempts by society to remind citizens there are certain behaviors expected from each of them with respect to road use. That, to me is example of social moral exercise to citizens reminding them there is basis other than gawd and selfie behind what is considered moral behavior re driving. I even include harsh fees for excessive water usage as a social moral tool used by government. If you like we can call the social thing the "Let's get along book of suggestions".

Since it is apparent that most pluck morality right out of their arses I decided to demark the topic with social and individual morality designations. My preferred puffery.

Thanks for your patience and courtesy in helping me get this topic right.
 
Top Bottom