![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 27th, 2006 02:25 pmPossible bases of morality: external; 1=1 equivalency; sympathy/guilt.
External dismissed as not truly morality.
1=1 equivalency dismissed for a) lack of examples, b) invariable reliance on external authority.
Sympathy/guilt, i.e. desire to help/to not not help, problematic due to variations among individuals, among individual's desires in different contexts and over time. If it's desire-based, and different individuals have different desires, how can any 'should' be insisted on?
Lovely Romantic attempt at solution: Fluctuations of desire linked to knowledge. Essentially similar and/or connected, human beings in touch with the same body of knowledge share same desires at same intensity. 'Should' here becomes a matter of self-evidence given a certain consciousness--moral suasion becomes the imparting of knowledge, in some form. There isn't 'moral knowledge,' exactly, but there's collateral knowledge that unlocks the same inherent morality.
Ev-Psych solution: Essentially many separate moralities, predispositions to or away from various activities and scenarios--e.g. some level of revulsion from non-habitual/ritualized carnage; on top of these, complex, largely 'unconscious' assessment of own role vis-a-vis other people and likelihood of long-term advantage gained by changing that role. 'Selfish' on the part of your genetic programming, but permitting various altruistic motives and gestures within strict limits--genuine enough to quotidian-You hosting them.
Otherness thingie: Some approach to 1=1 equivalency occurs where awareness of full complexity of another person is realized--how much there is about them that you'll never be able to know, so to speak (a realization requiring a great deal of knowledge about them). Presumably this is enriching in and of itself? If limited to friendship or love relationships, moral identification is as well, though I suppose enough of these can raise your general sympathy bar by convincing you, through triangulation, of similar potential in other Others. But again, this clearly doesn't become a 1=1 habitual morality, as such a thing has never been heard of. This is compatible with Romantic knowledge, though I suppose it could be seen as a knowledge not worth having--e.g. people who equate love with pain--morality would thus be an undesirable consequence of a history of unlucky episodes.
Constructed morality: Some external system completely internalized, conceivably for the good of the internalizing individual, more likely to further interests of the external authority (tyrants, all humankind, whatever). If you need it to be so, you need it to be so--this isn't a Should morality, it's a computer program labeled 'should'. Has interesting potential as a way to complete fragmentary or wavering personal morality, perhaps.
Merging Romantic and Ev. Psych is quite a project...
External dismissed as not truly morality.
1=1 equivalency dismissed for a) lack of examples, b) invariable reliance on external authority.
Sympathy/guilt, i.e. desire to help/to not not help, problematic due to variations among individuals, among individual's desires in different contexts and over time. If it's desire-based, and different individuals have different desires, how can any 'should' be insisted on?
Lovely Romantic attempt at solution: Fluctuations of desire linked to knowledge. Essentially similar and/or connected, human beings in touch with the same body of knowledge share same desires at same intensity. 'Should' here becomes a matter of self-evidence given a certain consciousness--moral suasion becomes the imparting of knowledge, in some form. There isn't 'moral knowledge,' exactly, but there's collateral knowledge that unlocks the same inherent morality.
Ev-Psych solution: Essentially many separate moralities, predispositions to or away from various activities and scenarios--e.g. some level of revulsion from non-habitual/ritualized carnage; on top of these, complex, largely 'unconscious' assessment of own role vis-a-vis other people and likelihood of long-term advantage gained by changing that role. 'Selfish' on the part of your genetic programming, but permitting various altruistic motives and gestures within strict limits--genuine enough to quotidian-You hosting them.
Otherness thingie: Some approach to 1=1 equivalency occurs where awareness of full complexity of another person is realized--how much there is about them that you'll never be able to know, so to speak (a realization requiring a great deal of knowledge about them). Presumably this is enriching in and of itself? If limited to friendship or love relationships, moral identification is as well, though I suppose enough of these can raise your general sympathy bar by convincing you, through triangulation, of similar potential in other Others. But again, this clearly doesn't become a 1=1 habitual morality, as such a thing has never been heard of. This is compatible with Romantic knowledge, though I suppose it could be seen as a knowledge not worth having--e.g. people who equate love with pain--morality would thus be an undesirable consequence of a history of unlucky episodes.
Constructed morality: Some external system completely internalized, conceivably for the good of the internalizing individual, more likely to further interests of the external authority (tyrants, all humankind, whatever). If you need it to be so, you need it to be so--this isn't a Should morality, it's a computer program labeled 'should'. Has interesting potential as a way to complete fragmentary or wavering personal morality, perhaps.
Merging Romantic and Ev. Psych is quite a project...
