What is the basis for morality?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Originally Posted by Nique

This line of thought also excludes the concept of empathy & sympathy which in its most extreme forms is essentially selfless and illogical from a standpoint of self-preservation - but it exsists, however infrequently, nonetheless.

Empathy and sympathy are abilities that allow whomever possesses and is using them to identify qualitites of others as "like me and worth preserving". In their extreme forms, a person can effectively form an identity transfer with all of humanity, seeing all of humankind as "like me".

As a quick poke in the direction, note that Catholic priests are given the title "Father", and refer to those under their authority as "their sons and daughters", and are blocked from having any actual family to transfer their sense of self onto. This is a mechanistic, formal, and ritualized means of attempting identity transfer to a wider group. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

And yes, it means that "selfish" and "self-interested" take a long walk outside of their usual meanings. Just because it's not semantically well-phrased doesn't invalidate the concept, though.

[TheSpacePope]

Well levi I have to say that I somewhat agree with you, because I believe that our morality stands up to the point of self preservation. If you ask someone when it is most likely that they will break a societal more, such as murder, they will most likely give you the answer; To protect myself, my family, and my land. So in that sense I see where you are coming from. But as a whole, I don't think that OUR morality comes from simple selfishness. because many times people will risk their own lives to protect others, which would be contrary to your point. It would depend on your personal belifs as to what you do in any given situation. So really I guess that I'm getting to the point that (your basis of) morality is learned from your environment,i.e. parents, school, interactions with society, then you put your own thoughts to your learned belifs and change them through personal growth to become your personal morality. But if I was going to point in the direction of a universal moral, that would be self-preservation. Most people will follow that one rule, if no others. so In effect you are right levi, but nique is also right, there is a balance between selfishness and altruisim.

p.s. i think I love you nique. thank you for diffusing the situation

[Levi Kornelsen]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

But as a whole, I don't think that OUR morality comes from simple selfishness. because many times people will risk their own lives to protect others, which would be contrary to your point.

No, it wouldn't. I'm saying that your "percieved self" can and usually does extend beyond your actual, physical person, and that you might be willing to sacrifice your physical person, as the lesser part of you own identity, to preserve other parts of your own identity that are outside of yourself.

Ghandi said "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.". Ghandi won victories for himself. His "perceived self", however, was vast and effectively included all of India.

Again, the word "self" is misleading in this case. I just don't have a better one on hand.

[Nique]

EDIT: Welcome to the forums, by the way, Levi.

Originally Posted by Levi Kornelsen

And yes, it means that "selfish" and "self-interested" take a long walk outside of their usual meanings. Just because it's not semantically well-phrased doesn't invalidate the concept, though.

I think it does though. When you take those concepts (selfishness) outside their normal meaning to such an extent, we're effectivly talking about something else entirely. All you're doing showing the link between the two concepts, which I can agree with - but I don't think we can really say that they are merely the same function.

In their extreme forms, a person can effectively form an identity transfer with all of humanity, seeing all of humankind as "like me".

Or animal life? Or (if discovered) extraterestial life? There's bound to be quite a few differences there, yet this doesn't inhibit many from 'saving the whales'.

If it isn't the true self we're protecting, serving, or helping, then this "identity transfer" is effectivly NOT selfishness and maybe not even 'self-interest' in a wider sense. The concept of selfishness just doesn't apply at all to someone who altruistically puts someone else's welfare ahead of their own.

Maybe we're actually agreeing, but I just don't think its prudent or nessecery to put these two concepts under the same label.

Originally Posted by Spacepope

Most people will follow that one rule, if no others. so In effect you are right levi, but nique is also right, there is a balance between selfishness and altruisim.

I think maybe selfish just isn't the right word to use in this disscussion - Its conotation is effectivly IMMORAL, whereas self-interest or self-preservation seems to just be a natural response, which doesn't exclude altruism -selfishness does, however.

Originally Posted by Levi Kornelsen

Again, the word "self" is misleading in this case. I just don't have a better one on hand.

And that's just the problem - Identitfying with someone outside your person is getting us close to the very definition of altruism. The preservation of an identity is not the same thing as selfishness - which is viewing the literal self as more important, and placing personal desires & gain ahead of all other persuits.

We're talking about the same thing, I'm sure of it.

Originally Posted by Spacepope

p.s. i think I love you nique. thank you for diffusing the situation

Yeah, no problem.

:shifty: But I still like chicks, okay?

[Levi Kornelsen]

Originally Posted by Nique

Maybe we're actually agreeing, but I just don't think its prudent or nessecery to put these two concepts under the same label.

The only point of disagreement we have, I think is this. I think that pure, standard-connotation selfishness and pure altruism are ultimately two expressions of one single principle. And I define that principle as "caring for yourself and all that you can percieve as part of your identity."

[Staizer]

"caring for yourself and all that you can *perceive* as part of your identity."

* except after c . . .

There are a few problems with thinking that other people and things are a part of yourself.

1: Responsibility - If I assume that person A is a part of my self then I have to also assume that everything they do is my responsibility. This just isn't true. I am only responsible for how I act and react.

2: Control - Dealing with responsiblity, if I am responsible for person A's actions then I essentially control them, they only do what I tell them to do. This is wrong because person A no longer has any freedom to do what they want. Also, since I truly don't have control over that person, any act that they do that is against my will is a personal affront to my own self. They are vying for control of the "self" and I am losing a piece of who I am.

3: Identity - If I control person A then who am I? Who is the "I?" I am destroying their "self" to meld it with my own. Once again, if person A does something against my will they are taking over me, thus I get defensive, however if I am doing something against their will I am taking over them, and they get defensive.


The process you are talking about is purely selfishness. Altruism is never involved in the controlling of someone else, or in their control of you.

Altruism is the ability to allow other people to be themselves without any thought of control. You care, you console, you advise, but you also back down when it is needed.


What does all of this have to do with morality?

Maybe that there should be no moral absolutes. A moral absolute would mean that we have to act a certain way to remain "good" "whole" "civilized." When really those are relative terms.

We don't have to be a certain way, because, as humans, we have a choice. In fact we have hundreds of choices, none of which makes us bad people. We merely make bad choices, not bad people.

[Sithdarth]

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2d.htm#eut
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

I just love Socrates. He showed thousands of years ago the most basic problems with morals. His first questions highlight how in any sizable group of people a universal definition and thereby set of morals is hard to come by. Later he shows just how complicated a universal rule of morals is to ferret out. Indeed he rips quite a gapping logical hole in his friend that hasn't really been filled since. Morals really only make sense individually from person to person and case to case. No matter which way you go about it there is no truely objective set of morals. Expierence and gentics both create your personality and color your judgement. Its easy to see how no two people are exactly alike and thus ideas of morals differ greatly.

[Levi Kornelsen]

Originally Posted by Staizer

* except after c . . .

(Drat)

Originally Posted by Staizer

There are a few problems with thinking that other people and things are a part of yourself.

1: Responsibility *Snip* 2: Control *Snip* 3: Identity *Snip*

The process you are talking about is purely selfishness. Altruism is never involved in the controlling of someone else, or in their control of you.

Yes, you've identified some of the other places the process can lead.

People making laws against things that don't harm them simply because they identify with their nation and don't want anyone in their nation to do something they feel is wrong. Parents training their children to act in ways that aren't good for the child, effectively living through the child. Small groups that have a specific code of behaviour feeling betrayed when that code is broken by any member, even if it harms none of them in the least.

Yet, it's all one thing.

Ask a Pro-Life activist if they believe they are doing what is right for others, and why. They certainly believe that they are acting proactively, and out of love.

Ask a drug counselor if they believe that by manipulating those they work with and changing the wway those people think, they are doing some good. They certainly think so.

Originally Posted by Staizer

Altruism is the ability to allow other people to be themselves without any thought of control. You care, you console, you advise, but you also back down when it is needed.

And yes, the process can lead here as well. Though not very often, really.

Originally Posted by Staizer

Maybe that there should be no moral absolutes. A moral absolute would mean that we have to act a certain way to remain "good" "whole" "civilized." When really those are relative terms.

We don't have to be a certain way, because, as humans, we have a choice. In fact we have hundreds of choices, none of which makes us bad people. We merely make bad choices, not bad people.

*Shrug*

Someone else can field this, if they want. I don't believe in moral absolutes.