Posted by Kazper at 7:14pm Jan 25 '07Morality is relative because all right and wrong is ultimately determined because of pleasure. I think for one to adopt the Way they have to get some pleasure from not being a hypocrite. I see some people simply not caring if they are hypocrites. So the Way... is not perfect. What would make it most logical to adopt by all is if it is a truth that what one does is done back to one, since we are all pleasure seeking beings and it would not make sense to do something that ultimately brings us unpleasure. But one would still not be wrong, if this were the case, if they did what they wouldn't want done to them because they're still acting from pleasure, just like one following the Way...
If it were true that everything one did got done back to one then that would be one of the effects for every cause. One may do a thing which has two effects, one of them the above. This one does not derive pleasure from the above effect but does from the other and determines the pleasure to outweigh the unpleasure so chooses to accept the unpleasure. This one is completely justified to do this as this is what everyone does and which everyone has no choice but to do. So, if everyone acts from pleasure without exception then everyone is justified in doing ANYTHING. Morality is relative.
Now, what morality can we discover/create that can encompass many moralities so that we can coexist and prevent many conflicts from arising because of different moralites and to guide us in judging moralities...? I keep coming back to the Way because I don't see anyone being able to desire the big ones, which pretty much everyone agrees on now, being done to them. The laws that would come from honest, clear contemplation of the Way, would have 100% consent because I think the big ones just can't be desired by anyone to have done to them. So there would be few laws and different societies would then definitely need [pragmatic laws] to make their societies work...
I think that honest contemplation of the Way can generate some Universal Laws that anyone following the Way can abide by.
It would be good if the [pragmatic laws] didn't violate the Universal Laws and I think they don't have to: if a society steals from an other society the other society is justified, according to the Way, to steal back because the stealing society, according to the stolen from society, is asking the stolen from society to treat them how they are treating the stolen from society.
The Way can generate Universal Laws that allow for an eye for an eye but [pragmatic laws] can restrict this use in favour of other ideas thought better because of pragmatism.
Yes. [Pragmatic laws] should be encompassed by the Universal Laws, otherwise what's the point of the Universal Laws? [Pragmatic laws], I think, are primarily created to allow a society to function. Maybe they should be used solely for that, meaning: morality issues that don't have 100% consent among ALL (no vote is taken of course, it's reasoned out from the truth of our nature) and so are not Universal Laws and also have nothing to do with the functioning of society... are not made into [pragmatic laws] but remain in the individual realm and can become personal laws...
I think it simpler though to just have citizens consent to abide by laws they do not directly consent to and just have proposals for [pragmatic laws] be discussed among them since I think that many things that could be considered personal could affect the functioning of a society...
Ahhh! See... all may see a certain action (let's say torture) as something they could never possibly want done to them but could honestly see times where the effects of not torturing are much more unpleasureable and so, decide to go ahead and torture. So, we've just violated a Universal Law because of our nature and pragmatism...
Our best law generator may just be a discussion of causes and effects and then a consensus of pleasure.
As simple as possible: If a certain amount of complexity is necessary for something to work (and you want/need it to work) then it can not be made less complex... or else it won't work.
Every one ultimately acts from pleasure. So, every ones' morality is ultimately determined by what each one finds pleasureable. So, morality is relative. No single morality is more justified than an other morality... [objectively]. (This does not mean that I'm not going to kill you psychopath... unless I find the effects from not doing so more pleasureable than the effects from doing so...)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
If it were true that everything one did got done back to one then that would be one of the effects for every cause. One may do a thing which has two effects, one of them the above. This one does not derive pleasure from the above effect but does from the other and determines the pleasure to outweigh the unpleasure so chooses to accept the unpleasure. This one is completely justified to do this as this is what everyone does and which everyone has no choice but to do. So, if everyone acts from pleasure without exception then everyone is justified in doing ANYTHING. Morality is relative.
Now, what morality can we discover/create that can encompass many moralities so that we can coexist and prevent many conflicts from arising because of different moralites and to guide us in judging moralities...? I keep coming back to the Way because I don't see anyone being able to desire the big ones, which pretty much everyone agrees on now, being done to them. The laws that would come from honest, clear contemplation of the Way, would have 100% consent because I think the big ones just can't be desired by anyone to have done to them. So there would be few laws and different societies would then definitely need [pragmatic laws] to make their societies work...
I think that honest contemplation of the Way can generate some Universal Laws that anyone following the Way can abide by.
It would be good if the [pragmatic laws] didn't violate the Universal Laws and I think they don't have to: if a society steals from an other society the other society is justified, according to the Way, to steal back because the stealing society, according to the stolen from society, is asking the stolen from society to treat them how they are treating the stolen from society.
The Way can generate Universal Laws that allow for an eye for an eye but [pragmatic laws] can restrict this use in favour of other ideas thought better because of pragmatism.
Yes. [Pragmatic laws] should be encompassed by the Universal Laws, otherwise what's the point of the Universal Laws? [Pragmatic laws], I think, are primarily created to allow a society to function. Maybe they should be used solely for that, meaning: morality issues that don't have 100% consent among ALL (no vote is taken of course, it's reasoned out from the truth of our nature) and so are not Universal Laws and also have nothing to do with the functioning of society... are not made into [pragmatic laws] but remain in the individual realm and can become personal laws...
I think it simpler though to just have citizens consent to abide by laws they do not directly consent to and just have proposals for [pragmatic laws] be discussed among them since I think that many things that could be considered personal could affect the functioning of a society...
Ahhh! See... all may see a certain action (let's say torture) as something they could never possibly want done to them but could honestly see times where the effects of not torturing are much more unpleasureable and so, decide to go ahead and torture. So, we've just violated a Universal Law because of our nature and pragmatism...
Our best law generator may just be a discussion of causes and effects and then a consensus of pleasure.
As simple as possible: If a certain amount of complexity is necessary for something to work (and you want/need it to work) then it can not be made less complex... or else it won't work.
Every one ultimately acts from pleasure. So, every ones' morality is ultimately determined by what each one finds pleasureable. So, morality is relative. No single morality is more justified than an other morality... [objectively]. (This does not mean that I'm not going to kill you psychopath... unless I find the effects from not doing so more pleasureable than the effects from doing so...)
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Re: Ruminations. - Kazper