Morality

[Daniel]

This is an interesting article for many reasons, none-the-least of which is the observations it makes about differing cultures, moral systems and their function in society. The question I'm asking myself is how the difference in perspectives plays out here on the forum: are we talking past each other because we value different things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/sc...mora.html?8dpc

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Daniel

This is an interesting article for many reasons, none-the-least of which is the observations it makes about differing cultures, moral systems and their function in society. The question I'm asking myself is how the difference in perspectives plays out here on the forum: are we talking past each other because we value different things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/sc...mora.html?8dpc

Wow, this makes the brain cells ache. We're always so certain that we know why some things are right and some things are wrong ... and that our Western perspective is the only valid one. This makes fascinating reading. I have thought for a long time that what passes for dialog on the kinds of things we talk about at SF is, in fact, whistling into the wind. If the people we wish we could convince are not equipped to hear what we're saying and vice versa, what's the solution?

Some years ago, I was president of the International Center in my community. Because of that, I got to attend a conference in DC. One of the workshops was an eye-opening discourse by a man from a developing country who had lived in the US for many years. He painted a very plausible picture about how his society values women so much that they protect them from the rough and tumble of public life. You can see where this is going. He was very persuasive. You had to believe, at least as he was talking, that his view was correct. His purpose was to sensitize us Americans to a set of values we are not familiar with so that we could respect people from other cultures.

I didn't think of it at the time, but much of his presentation concerned the tension between individual rights and the good of the group. Powerful stuff.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Daniel

This is an interesting article for many reasons, none-the-least of which is the observations it makes about differing cultures, moral systems and their function in society. The question I'm asking myself is how the difference in perspectives plays out here on the forum: are we talking past each other because we value different things?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/sc...mora.html?8dpc

"The question I'm asking myself is how the difference in perspectives plays out here on the forum: are we talking past each other because we value different things? "

I think, dear Daniel, that that is an excellent observation/question. It is, after all, our differing views that divide us.

One of the main reasons I de-converted from fundamental Christianity was the inclination to define "God" down to a detailed list of rights and wrongs. The more detailed the list, it seems, the more divisive it becomes. One of the teachings of Christianity that I can find no argument against (okay, I aspire to keep it), is the "law of love." Particularly, I consider one of the primary tenets of love to be finding the value in another person. That just makes sense to me. Especially the notion of considering others as more important than ourselves.

What I am getting at is, I see several people on this site who endeavor to practice love, and when we manage to have love as a perspective, I think we connect vs. talking past each other. (who's signature is "there is no law against love"??). Of course, that leaves us having to define love...

Ben,

"One of the workshops was an eye-opening discourse by a man from a developing country who had lived in the US for many years. He painted a very plausible picture about how his society values women so much that they protect them from the rough and tumble of public life. You can see where this is going. He was very persuasive. You had to believe, at least as he was talking, that his view was correct. His purpose was to sensitize us Americans to a set of values we are not familiar with so that we could respect people from other cultures."


What a great example. One perspective of an insider is that this is valuable culture...the perspective of an outsider might be that this is oppressive propaganda (I wonder what the women of his culture think?). It seems to me that the question of value vs. oppression must be answered to determine "morality." And who determines that? Some would trot out commandments, a moral code carved in stone as the standard to judge what is morality. Then there are those like Jesus who profer the code: "do unto others as you would have them do you do." 'Moral relativism?'

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by paul

"The question I'm asking myself is how the difference in perspectives plays out here on the forum: are we talking past each other because we value different things? "

I think, dear Daniel, that that is an excellent observation/question. It is, after all, our differing views that divide us.

One of the main reasons I de-converted from fundamental Christianity was the inclination to define "God" down to a detailed list of rights and wrongs. The more detailed the list, it seems, the more divisive it becomes. One of the teachings of Christianity that I can find no argument against (okay, I aspire to keep it), is the "law of love." Particularly, I consider one of the primary tenets of love to be finding the value in another person. That just makes sense to me. Especially the notion of considering others as more important than ourselves.

What I am getting at is, I see several people on this site who endeavor to practice love, and when we manage to have love as a perspective, I think we connect vs. talking past each other. (who's signature is "there is no law against love"??). Of course, that leaves us having to define love...

Ben,

"One of the workshops was an eye-opening discourse by a man from a developing country who had lived in the US for many years. He painted a very plausible picture about how his society values women so much that they protect them from the rough and tumble of public life. You can see where this is going. He was very persuasive. You had to believe, at least as he was talking, that his view was correct. His purpose was to sensitize us Americans to a set of values we are not familiar with so that we could respect people from other cultures."


What a great example. One perspective of an insider is that this is valuable culture...the perspective of an outsider might be that this is oppressive propaganda (I wonder what the women of his culture think?). It seems to me that the question of value vs. oppression must be answered to determine "morality." And who determines that? Some would trot out commandments, a moral code carved in stone as the standard to judge what is morality. Then there are those like Jesus who profer the code: "do unto others as you would have them do you do." 'Moral relativism?'

It raises the question of whether there IS absolute morality. There are cultures where female genital mutilation is considered a moral act. I think its an atrocity and that those cultures are warped. Whose right? I am circumcized (ok so the mystery is gone for some of you... sorry) so are my sons. none of us feels mutilated by this fact... but there are those who consider it so. Whose right?

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by u-dog

It raises the question of whether there IS absolute morality. There are cultures where female genital mutilation is considered a moral act. I think its an atrocity and that those cultures are warped. Whose right? I am circumcized (ok so the mystery is gone for some of you... sorry) so are my sons. none of us feels mutilated by this fact... but there are those who consider it so. Whose right?

I'd consider a third position---morality is neither absolute nor relative.

Or maybe puting it another way--there is an absolute, but human beings can only know the absolute imperfectly. Therefore any system of human morality must leave room for doubt and modification.

"New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth."

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

"New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth."

Steven Webster

By the way, that's a quote from a hymn by James Russell Lowell written in the 19th century in support of the Abolitionist (anti-slavery) cause. That slavery was immoral was a "new" idea. Now-a-days we easily embrace the "abosolute truth" that slavery is a violation of morality.

Steven Webster