Hmm, you've interpreted these terms "personal morality" and "social morality" in a different way that I had meant to have laid out. I took them as mutually exclusive ways of viewing morality. Personal morality as a code limited to oneself, and social morality where views are applied in social contexts, to influence others and the rules of the group. — Judaka

This happened last time we talked too - I misunderstood what you were trying to say in the OP. If I remember correctly, I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. I see from comments in this thread that is still a disagreement between us.

If you want to piece-by-piece categorise your moral views, as either personal or social, or alternatively using a less binary view, that's a different approach. — Judaka

Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso.

However, even here, it's hard to imagine that the personal remains personal within the context of morality. So long as your feelings are genuine, then your empathy and compassion will inenvitably manifests in attempts to influence or coerce others. After all, you wouldn't sit back and watch someone else be treated cruelly and unfairly, as though it had nothing to do with you, right? You would want to intervene, and tell the belligerent to cut it out. — Judaka

First off, I strongly disagree that "feelings of empathy and compassion will inevitably manifest in attempts to influence or coerce others." As I noted in my first post, If someone is being bad and hurting someone else, my motives would be to help the victim, not to punish the evildoer. That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't, e.g. stopping at a car accident and giving aid to the injured.

You can argue that harm is always wrong, and then list exceptions. Or you can say harm is not inherently immoral, and then argue for the cases where it would be. I'm not sure there's much of a difference. Moral systems always involve these games... You won't condemn harm when it's done under conditions that you consider fair & reasonable, so, yes, it's necessary to judge the acts as unfair, wrong, unreasonable and so on. — Judaka

You've missed my point. I'm not taking about killing in self-defense or something like that. I'm saying it is not necessary to judge or be angry at someone who is doing something bad. All you need to do is protect the victims and potential victims. Protection of real and potential victims might also include physically stopping the wrongdoer and putting them in jail.

I'd like to hear how you've been defining personal/social morality, and whether you really need to debate with me, that your moral views do not contain attempts to influence anything beyond yourself. I'm sure you can see it false. — Judaka

Here's how I defined personal/social morality earlier in this discussion.

Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. — T Clark

Would it help if I clarified that I don't think my personal morality isn't influenced by social factors? Everything I do is influenced by my interactions with others and what I learn from them. I didn't think that's what you were talking about. It's not what I was.

Do I ever try to influence others. Sure. I don't see that as a reflection of my personal morality. It's more of a way of trying to live my life in social situations. How I go about doing that is a matter of personal and social morality, especially if it comes to coercion.

What I was attempting to say was that a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others is not, in my view, really a morality - it's aesthetic preference. My understanding is that it's the intention to influence others which distinguishes moral values and aesthetic preferences — ChrisH

Well I'm glad we clarified my misunderstanding. Now I can feel more comfortable disagreeing strongly with you.

Isn't a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others no different to personal aesthetic preference? — ChrisH

I think they are the same in that they are expressions of personal values and feelings as opposed to reason. Is that what you mean?

This is a subject I've been thinking about since your last similar discussion. I appreciate the chance to clarify for myself how I think and feel about it.

Some claim to approach morality, not with the goal of social control, or even any interest in telling anyone else what to do. That one follows their own moral code or principles and will remain steadfast in that their aims are only personal. One only has these rules for just themselves, with the only purpose being to live a good or honourable life, with no interest in being told or telling others what to do. — Judaka

You and I had an exchange about this in a previous thread. What you've written here is a good summary of how I see things.

To me, this is a distortion of the truth of both what morality is, and what is being done by this individual. Personal morality is not separate or distinct from social morality but rather a part of it. — Judaka

I see them as different, although certainly related, things. Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. Clearly they overlap a lot.

One has moral views such as that a man beating his wife is "cowardly", that "incest is disgusting", or that "a man should provide for his family" or whatever else. Then frames them as a personal code or conceptual idea, representing only one's opinions and guiding how this individual should live.

The intention & motivation are distorted but are the same in every way it matters. Moral views can't involve cold practicality & indifference, they have an emotional weight behind them that characterises moral thinking. It is not an emotional feeling triggered only when involving oneself but in general. — Judaka

You don't have to judge people or their behavior, call them cowardly or disgusting, in order to hold those people responsible for their actions. The important thing about beating people or incest is the harm they cause to the victims, not the acts themselves. In those cases, social and personal morality overlap. On the other hand, consensual sexual behavior or drug use alone generally don't harm anyone but the person acting. In those cases my personal morality does not match social morality.

One will still feel anger towards and lose respect for those who act immorally and they will still argue against rules or conventions that go against their principles. The role their moral beliefs still plays is identical to normal. Encouraging moral behaviour and discouraging immoral behaviour in others, and applying one's moral beliefs in every context as one would normally. — Judaka

I don't necessarily feel angry at people who behave in a manner inconsistent with my personal morality or social morality, although I might. My feelings are not what's important, it is the safety and integrity of those who are harmed that matters.

The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour, despite approving of the practice overall. "I follow my own moral code" as in, "don't preach to me", but nonetheless in following that moral code, one will still do the same to others. I believe this is the attraction of the distinction, but it could also be inspired by a resentment of social control in general, and a wide range of possibilities are valid. — Judaka

This is an uncharitable, and mistaken, interpretation, at least for me. I recognize the value of society's rules and it is part of my personal morality to follow them unless there is a good reason not to. I can't say I never feel resentment towards people trying to get me to do what they want, but as an adult I've learned, reasonably well, how to handle conflicts between my personal desires and what other people want from me.

Personal moral beliefs, though seemingly individualistic, ultimately align with the core features of morality, including social control, emotional responses, and the application of moral principles to oneself and others. I would argue there are very few, if any, notable differences between either approach. — Judaka

No, at least not necessarily and not for me.

A non-personalised approach to morality, which may explicitly demand the compliance of others, isn't distinct in how an individual experiences it from a personal one. — Judaka

Yes it is, at least generally and for me.

One of my all time favourite sci-fi stories. — Wayfarer

I read dozens, hundreds of science fiction books and stories when I was a kid. Most of them have just mixed into the general science fiction memory sludge. "Foundation" and "Rendezvous with Rama", are two that really stand out even now.

Don’t know what others think but it seems to me Loeb has become somewhat obsessive in his quest, to the detriment of his overall reputation. Of course, if the titanium-alloy spherules turn out to be the real enchilada, then I’ll happily eat my words. — Wayfarer

This is another of those situations you've discussed before - a qualified and respected scientist makes what appears to be an extraordinary claim in an area where he has specific expertise and experience. And like in the case of the psychologist who wrote about possible instances of past lives, we are left struggling to figure out what to say. Obviously, first comes strong skepticism. Then comes the obligatory genuflection to the need for openmindedness. Then comes a resigned shrug. What do we do now?

Something similar is going on with the current rush of news about the US military's knowledge about UFOs. In a bold step, the government has changed their name from unidentified flying objects to unexplained anomalous phenomena (UAP).

It's been a good while since I've been engrossed in a book like that. Heck, I don't want to rush into my next book just to savor and think about what I just read. — Manuel

Sounds interesting. I'll take a look.

urchin — Italy

Just about everyone in anime is an urchin. It represents the urchinization of humanity.

Transcendental Idealism generally, particularly, with respect to the OP, the first Book in CPR, entitled Transcendental Aesthetic.

Don’t hate the messenger. — Mww

Kant to me was always the epitome of the philosopher who makes everything more complicated than it has to be and expresses that complicated understanding in obscure language. More recently I've come to find some of his thinking interesting and helpful. So... I won't blame you. I'll take a look.

It is not just about "human motivation", it is about characterising human motivation, and that makes it philosophical. How could science provide a definitive answer to whether our motivations were "self-centred" or not? What makes something "self-centred" is subjective, the logic used is subjective, and the verdict reached in each and every case involves making choices about how to interpret, what to interpret, how to characterise and the construction of a highly subjective narrative. There's nothing testable about it, how do you propose any scientific approach could definitively answer such a question? — Judaka

The question of why people do the things they do is a matter of fact, psychology, even if we don't know the answer. You can talk about it philosophically, but if you get the psychology wrong the philosophy will be misleading. Science can provide an answer to whether our motivations are "self-centred" or not, whether or not that answer is definitive.

@Italy started out describing some philosophical assertions. I responded that those assertions are not necessarily consistent with my understanding of human behavior and human nature. My response was based on psychology - some intellectual understanding but mostly introspection.

There is an entire Enlightenment philosophy predicated on a similar conclusion. — Mww

Is there a name for it I can look up?

I am a firm believer that human psychology is strongly bonded with philosophy itself — Italy

For me, philosophy is how I become aware of how my mind works. I guess that makes it a psychological tool. As I told @Judaka:

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone. — T Clark

cognitive able crow — Italy

I am working on a clever name for you, but nothing I've come up with works. All I've got so far is "anime urchin," which doesn't work for me, in spite of the semi-alliteration.

Poke salad is correct. Polk is wrong.

It's a characterisation based on interpretation, and so, it is definitely a philosophical statement. — Judaka

The important part for me is that, in this case, unless you get the science right, the philosophy is meaningless. The discussion is not about what is right and what is wrong, it's about human motivation. That's a question that can't be answered with philosophy alone.

You have to boil it twice. It tastes like spinach. — frank

Thanks. I still don't think I'll try it.

polk salad annie — universeness

Poke Salad Annie because:



Pokeweed is toxic, but if prepared correctly can be eaten, which makes you wonder why anyone would. I remember it as a kid. It grows just about anywhere.

A southern US delicacy. @Hanover eats it with fried livermush and Krispee Kreeme doughnuts.

lampshade — fdrake

A new word, for me a least. Actually, a new use for an old word. "To intentionally call attention to the improbable, incongruent, or clichéd nature of an element or situation featured in a work of fiction within the work itself."

Also, as you suggested, you may be over-analyzing the scene and giving the movie more significance than it deserves or needs.

Speaking of which, Alan Arkin died yesterday. — T Clark

And speaking of Alan Arkin. Another cultural reference for another dollar - "Cub is young bear."

Twenty bucks if you can get them both.

everything we do is at its core self centered — Italy

A couple of thoughts. First, a quibble, this is really psychology, not philosophy. It deals with matters of testable fact.

Second, the idea that humans are selfish or self-centered is flawed. Humans are social animals. We like each other. We have empathy and compassion. We can help others without needing there to be any reward - it's just what people do for each other in a community. I think most kindness is done without a second thought. At some abstract level, I guess you could say that, since it's a factor that provides evolutionary benefit that makes it selfish. That doesn't make any sense. It would be as though I said "Boy, you have a fast car," and you responded "No, it's not fast, they just built it with a big engine so it could win races."

Just a different spelling. — Jamal

Yes. I'm sure you're right. It just seemed neat to me. I like playing with names. How about "T Quark?" "T Kork." "P Pork." "C Lark." "C Tlark." "T Kralc." "Quarky." "Washington Irving."

One dollar for the relevant literary reference.

Speaking of which, Alan Arkin died yesterday.

Your answer isn't connected to my question. — Eugen

You weren't paying attention.

Adrian Tchaikovsky
— T Clark

I like the spider stuff. — Jamal

I have not read "Children of Time" yet. I'm sure I'll get around to it. He's really a good writer. Real name - Adrian Czajkowski.

You didn't pay attention, that wasn't my question. — Eugen

I did pay attention. In the past, people believed that life couldn't come out of non-living material. Most now agree that it can. That situation is analogous to the question of consciousness coming out of non-conscious materials.

If Jaworsky claims that it is logical to believe that a particle with 0 consciousness can form consciousness, how can he believe that a particle with 0 consciousness + form with 0 consciousness can create consciousness? — Eugen

Can a particle with 0 life + a form with 0 life create life?

universeness apokrisis - 'mon, be civil. — fdrake

That's a good thing, especially for men I think — Moliere

If you've paid any attention to my posts, you can see that voicing my actual thoughts is no problem, although sometimes I have trouble not voicing my actual thoughts.

It has been a useful discussion for me.

I agree. :)

I wouldn't bother talking if I thought you desired to treat people with disrespect. — Moliere

Speaking of which, I feel like I am treading dangerously close to treating you with disrespect. Perhaps we should leave it here.

"Negation" as in "does not express" rather than "is in opposition to" -- so if you do not express femininity, then "-" would be applicable in accord with the theory. — Moliere

Of course I behave in ways that might be described as typical for a women. I show affection in action and words. I try to look after the emotional well-being of people I'm around. I work toward consensus. I'm empathetic. I can be passive when it's appropriate.

This would make sense if gender were simply a set of sentences or beliefs, but it's kind of wrapped up in one's whole identity, their way of presenting themselves to others and interacting. So "telling" doesn't have to be with words -- it can be done with mannerisms, dress, tone, and even unconscious actions. And that's only looking at behavior.

Telling you what I'm not, in most conversations, is an explanation that you're not treating me as I am. It's work to tell you, but it's even more work to pretend I'm something I'm not. — Moliere

I know men who have a lot of characteristics typical of women. I know women who have a lot of characteristics typical of men. I have never had any problem treating all sorts of people with respect. People who demand to be treated as not having a gender are rigidly defining what it means to be a man or a women at least as much as people who reject the idea of gender uncertainty.

there are four genders in the theory, where +/+ is androgeny, +/- is masculinity, -/+ is femininity, and -/- is undifferentiated. — Moliere

As I noted in a previous post, I don't identify myself as a man in opposition to anything. That would make me +/... I think people think that's impossible, as if the dialectic represents reality rather than human-manufactured mental process.

What benefit is there in telling you what you want to hear, or to lie about themself? That's work. — Moliere

No. Telling me what you're not is work. Telling me nothing is the low-effort path. I won't bring it up if you won't.

Living up to a public image to be pleasing to others for no benefit other than the comfort of others who don't recognize your identity isn't exactly high on the priority list for most people. — Moliere

I don't expect anyone to do what you've described. As I responded to @universeness, I can understand identifying as just about anything, it's identifying as not something that I don't get. It would have be more than you just don't feel like a man, it would mean you reject the implication of maleness. What's the point of that? What does it accomplish? These days, you can live your life just about any way you want without ever encountering questions of your manhood.

Either way, whether I choose to conform for others or not, the opinions of others aren't about me but rather about how I function in their world("Be a man!" as "Do as I say!"). Which, to me, just sounds like work. And no one's paying me to make them comfortable with my identity, yet, though if the offer were right then I might accept it ;) — Moliere

What you say makes sense and I think it supports my position. Why go to the trouble to declare yourself not a man - it just sounds like work.

Imagine for a moment, you had a powerful personal experience, that absolutely convinced you, that Allah exists and was the one true god. Would you need to tell your loved ones? Would you be compelled to declare your new faith publicly, regardless of the significant social cost to yourself and perhaps your family? — universeness

I don't know what I would do, but it's beside the point. Converting to Islam means you identify as a Muslim. That's really different from identifying as not being something. It takes a special effort to do that. The world is full of things I'm not. Picking one out to emphasize and advertise is a very strong statement of rejection. I have the same reaction to atheism.

Is there any identity that you can imagineer, that could be important enough to you that you must reject your current identity, publicly at significant social cost to you and others? — universeness

No, and if there were, it would mean I'm a different person than I am.

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.'
— universeness — universeness

I was not a very socially aware teenager. I must have been aware of homosexuality, but I don't remember thinking about it much or being bothered by it. I don't remember there ever being incidents against gay people in my school. I don't know whether that was because there weren't any or because I just didn't notice them.

Why do you have a hard time understanding that? — universeness

As I said in my previous post to @Moliere:

What confuses me is not that some people are not attached to their gender identities, but that it is important enough to them that they must reject those identities publicly at significant social cost to themselves and others. — T Clark

Shel Silverstein wrote it — Srap Tasmaner

I never knew that. Makes sense though.

In other words, there seems to be a hierarchy of accountability in societies based on factors such as wealth, class, culture, etc. that feeds into larger issues surrounding how agency is treated. — schopenhauer1

The rich guys neighbors are rich guys too. They feel entitled to complain about disruptive factors where they live. Poor guys won't complain because it won't do any good and they've got bigger problems.

I have to ask, but you can of course decide not to answer, as you may feel that it's 'none of my business!' Do you have any feelings of 'disappointment,' towards this sexually non-binary person, that you are a blood relative of? Do you think that they are aware of your current status of having a hard time understanding their current sexual status? — universeness

My sister and I are not related by blood. Her mother married my father when I was about 30. The decision had very negative impacts on the family - my sister and her husband were devastated. It took them years to come to terms with what seemed like a complete rejection of their family. This was not a moral or religious reaction on their part, it was emotional, personal. I've tried to be supportive to both my sister and brother-in-law and their child. It's true though that it angers me that my sister has had to go through all that for a reason I can't understand. I've never talked to anyone about that and I don't think I show it. I don't see the child often enough that it would ever be an issue.

Do you feel that it's important that you don't demonstrate any bias against this relation, in comparison with any other niece or nephew you have, purely on the basis of their non-binary sexual status? — universeness

I would never intentionally show a negative attitude toward them and I don't think I do unintentionally. I still care about them. !@#$% a lot of my resentment is linguistic.

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' — universeness

"...maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that." What the fuck does that mean?

But I'm still *just* attached enough to my male-side that I prefer to say androgenous man. — Moliere

What confuses me is not that some people are not attached to their gender identities, but that it is important enough to them that they must reject those identities publicly at significant social cost to themselves and others.

So -- androgenous man is the gender identity I've come to prefer, but I'm not settled on the wording. I'm surprised to find others don't feel like me -- but isn't that all part of the path of self-discovery? — Moliere

One of my sister's children, a biological male, identifies as non-binary. I must admit I have a hard time understanding that. Do you think that's the same thing you're talking about?

white, male, American father of son's, — universeness

And a daughter.

magical talking crow
— Italy

I'm going to start referring to T Clark in this way. — Noble Dust

No magic involved. And no talking - just typing.

He's fantasy or, magical realism. Not much sci-fi, a little in his Hard Boiled Wonderland... — Manuel

You're probably right.