Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Moral individualism.......haiN????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Moral individualism.......haiN????

    While reading something today, i came across this theory of moral individualism...
    the theory is that, "one must find a truth that is true for him...."
    meaning that one must choose one's own way widout the aid of universal, objective standards....that an individual must decide which situations are to count as moral situations....

    haiN....???
    don't we believe in the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgement of right and wrong???
    don't we believe that highest ethical good is same for every one???

    haiN....??what do u say ppl???
    what u believe in??? Objective standards??or Moral individualism??does it make sense to u???

    #2
    interesting, I was talking to this woman walking around, an *anthropologist*, who studies different cultures and countries for a living. She sits in face trying to convince me that all morality is relative, there is no universal morality...blah. I've heard it before, and pretty much any person on the street can say the same thing. But is it true?

    First of all, there are "universal" morals. No culture encourages random killing, torture, lying or stealing. These are acts that are universally looked down upon. Also, just because cultures have different practices does not mean that they have different morals. The Arab prince with 7 wives and OJ Simpson may not be that different. Both of them clearly believe in the sanctity of marriage, and children born in wedlock, and being faithful to women you marry. Different practices do not necessarily entail different standards. One culture might approve of abortion (USA) while another may not (Peru). Both of these cultures accept that it is wrong to kill a living person, but they simply differ about whether a fetus is really a living person. In other words, the basis of most practices is a "universal" morality that everyone denies.

    Another thing this wanker woman said was that all people are motivated by self interest. She says that all actions are done to promote the self, blah, blah, blah. Again I see problems. One cannot take this seriously. If I have children, I can't tell them, do what you want in every case without regard for the next man. They couldn't spread that doctrine, its ridiculous. If your own self interest is all that you seek, then you couldn't tell others to do the same, because that it in itself is not in your self interest. That would not be in your own best interest. It would make much better sense if you are self concerned to tell others to help promote the common good which would ultimately help you and your self interest.

    Now think about this: What if God (your objective standard of good/evil) were utterly trounced by the Devil and stuck in some cage. What if the Devil was then the absolute judge of good and evil and flipped the interpretation of good and evil. Under this system lets suppose that acts such as theft, murder, and lying are condoned. Would we do these acts? NO. We wouldn't be able to function as a community in this situation. So the foundations of morality do not come from some mystery God. They come from relations between different individuals and the practical consequences of certain behaviors, in my humble opinion.

    the point: while perhaps there is no absolute moral order there are certain acts that are inherently wrong (lying, stealing, etc.) in EVERY community and form the basis of morality.

    Comment


      #3
      >>don't we believe in the traditional view that moral choice involves an objective judgement of right and wrong???<<

      I guess one can do that indiviually too rather than a family or mohalla exercise. Do you think indivisual can't judge objectively what is right and what is wrong? or is there supposed to be always a second person telling us exactly that?

      And if Morality is something that someone else tells us, then how objective is it?
      haiN?

      I think when we think objectively and judge by ourselves someting to be morally and otherwise good thing, we have better chances of sticking to it and follwoing it through rather that good thing being prescribed by some higher species or thrust our thoats with a clergy or governmental danda. Yes it has its own risks; one can have objectivity of a ullu and make wrong judgements and hurt themselves and others...but eventually they will learn from their wrong judgements and bad mistakes.

      What is Morality? Nova sahib zara aidhar auna!

      Morality is good stuff? well then what is good? right? right path? who decides it? why?

      CM

      Comment


        #4
        hmmm on second thought, i'm starting to agree somewhat with the woman i was talking about earlier.

        i believe the fundamentals of morality are universal but people in differ in details.

        what is good = what is helpful for the community at large.

        what is bad = what is destructive for the community at large.

        the "whats" are subjective, but the definitions of bad and good given here are not (does that make sense)

        An Example of what is "good" for one community being "bad" for another:

        the Cannela tribe in W. Africa practices marraige, but the woman has extra-marital sex with other husbands and single men. The entire tribe has been at peace for years and years and everyone is happy...the men love it, the women don't fight. Then along came some missionaries and traders. They gave the Cannela's a list of "universal morals", taught them that "God said" the sexual practices were wrong. Now the Cannela's are a bunch of consumers strung out on American junk products, and the women fight more and more because they were taught to be jealous-hearted about their men. (true story)

        i'm still thinkin....

        ------------------
        HOTEP

        Comment


          #5
          Naik,
          There is no absolute right or wrong....So there is no way of objectively yaa subjectively( ya phair koi hoor ly) defining that...
          Phir kee bachoon wallee baat.....
          Its determined relative to the goal.....Goal as an individual and goal as a society...
          We follow the code of society because , we are under a tacit contract to do that...by accepting the perks it offers...

          Comment


            #6
            Siraj I agree with your last post. and I am glad that you are thinking about morality...becuz once we think out it thoroughly and believe in it from heart we will practice that morality naturally not for the fear of some external punishment or some incentive...but becuz we believe it is the right think. That morality will last for long time and we will be in peace with it.


            There seems to be some universal morals. Like the ones you mentioned...e.g. Murder. But we see it all the times that even murdering someone becomes sometimes so moral to do. In fact humans in history and even currently, have made murdering someone,in certain cases the peak of their morality.

            I think main thing while considering morals is that it should not hurt other human beings. If Nova wants to dance nude(in his bathroom) that's his business but he should not do that in his neibhourhood on the street if he is the only one who likes doing it Although if the whole street in the neibhourhood is into nude dancing in public.....phir sabh de pauN baaraN....let them have fun and don't enter that galli and start preaching that so and so said that being nude is highly immoral so put on your clothes or I will shoot and kill you becuz if I kill nude ppl according to morals of my neibhourhood I will become really very very moral person in my mohalla

            CM

            Comment


              #7
              I think like anything else in this life and world, morals come in different forms and categories.

              There are morals that are absolute and universal like the ones Siraj enumerated in his first post. There other morals which fall into relative category. i.e relative to the culture or community to which they apply. Chann ji's nude gali can be the example (what an idea, Chann ji... I would love to rent a condo with a telescope in the next gali )

              And then there are morals which are individualistic. Society does not dictate them, universality does not define them very clearly but an individual may still abide by them out of his/her personal acknowledgment. The example of which I can think right now is going vegetarian voluntarily (I know not a good example but what did you expect from me anyway?)

              But of course, like anything else in this world and life, morals are not that simple either. What seems to be a relative moral for a community (women clitoris circumcision in some Aferican tribes - yes it falls into that tribe's relative morality since they practice to impose their code of morality on women) may not be a universally accepted moral. So in such a case, from that tribe's perspective it's subjectively good and from universal code of morality (whatever that is, I have no clue) it's is objectively wrong.

              Comment


                #8
                You know the saying: "There is nothing either good or bad, only thinking makes it so". This is more of the same.

                On an aside, rules are great. Give you security. Don't need to think too much. But then there are also exceptions. The trouble is when and how to apply the exceptions. That's what the hard work is all about. If only you could apply a simple rule to all decisions!!!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanx for ur input guys i appreciate that...and u know what i find interesting in ur posts....almost all of u do agree wid me
                  see this theory or idea or whatever it is...implying a complete individual freedom**i donno u got that point or not**...widout any limitations....

                  "A man is completely Free to do whatever he wants to do....whatever he thinks is right or wrong for himself....in his situation....wid out any regard for others...."

                  No limitations???is that applicable in real??ofcourse not....all these fancy thoughts and ideas look good only in writings .....when we wanna apply them in real....then the problem arises....and then we realize our limits....

                  ...we all have limits, and i am not talking about religion here. a "man" is not alone in his world....each step he takes...somehow effects other....he is not "completely free"....

                  This idea of complete freedom is utter rubbish....these modern philosophies make no sense at all....and u guys know that
                  unless u just wanna be a stubborn..."meiN nai man'na...ker lo jo kerna"


                  Now siraj u made some very good points in ur first post.

                  >>>She says that all actions are done to promote the self, blah, blah, blah. Again I see problems. One cannot take this seriously. If I have children, I can't tell them, do what you want in every case without regard for the next man.

                  u know i faced this problem....i gave my nephew "Allusions" to read....and when he asked me about the freedom part, when he asked me that is he allowed to do what ever he thinks is right and wrong....i didn't know what to tell him...how to explain this "complete freedom" to him..and hey i was a great fan of this book...and the first time i read it...i said "wah wah wah"....what an idea
                  *sigh*

                  >>>So the foundations of morality do not come from some mystery God. They come from relations between different individuals and the practical consequences of certain behaviors, in my humble opinion.

                  So true

                  Chan ji....

                  >>>one can have objectivity of a ullu and make wrong judgements and hurt themselves and others...but eventually they will learn from their wrong judgements and bad mistakes.

                  *yawn*
                  Others da qasoor???

                  >>>>>>>>>>>&gt ;I think main thing while considering morals is that it should not hurt other human beings. If Nova wants to dance nude(in his bathroom) that's his business but he should not do that in his neibhourhood on the street if he is the only one who likes doing it

                  see thats my point....Nova is not completely Freeeven if according to his standards, dancing nude in galli is ok...he shud not do that

                  >>>it should not hurt other human beings

                  an understood moral http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/wink.gif

                  Rom...her koi vegeterian ban jaye te QasaiyaaN da ki hoye ga....haiN

                  Husnain....Hi!
                  Nova....my iq "0"....my canvas small very smallhun bacchiyaaN wali gal na karaaN te ki danishwaraaN wali gal karaaN???haiN


                  Ciao!!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Wesay i do want complete freedom too...i don't wanna hear....
                    "Naik ji hath hola rakho"....
                    i don't wanna hear....
                    "Naik burri baat....phir ki bachooN wali baat"

                    http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smile.gif
                    *Sighz*

                    Comment


                      #11

                      If you cannot be free, be as free as you can. (Emerson)

                      *sigh*...Naik ur sighs are pretty addictive http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/wink.gif....*sigh*

                      Comment


                        #12
                        CM,
                        Thank you sir jee....Kissi hor dee hoovai na hovai , my imagination barry door door gai..thuadee misaal parh kai....
                        Folks my point was,
                        Absolute freedom is not possible ...Our very constitution binds us..We are not free of the will to live..we are not free of the will to be free...We are bound by limitations of capacity to make change in teh environment...
                        Saday Peer murshid, Leo Tolstoi( Mai his soul rest in peace) nai farmayya aai kai , Absolute freedom is a bottom less void,,,,It means that noone really exists , cause its limitations that define our boundaries as individuals....NalaY , warn vee keeta aai,,,when we talk about freedom its generally freedom from the restrictions and responsibilities, and not from needs and wishes...which if applied, would turn us into animals working on pure instinctual drives...( Jeedee samajh wich gaal nai aai..manoo phone kar kai puch lai...1- 900- danishwar )
                        There are two important points to note..
                        first is why do the question about freedom arises in the first place...i.e why cant we get comfortable with what freedom we have rather then want it in absolute form...
                        Secondly, considering the constant struggle between the wish for freedom and costrictions ( most of which we have brought on ourselves) what should be a happy medium....Should we consider ourselves eternally bound and get little freedom as we can comfortably allow ourselves( Things that wont threaten the society )Or should we start with Freedom , and bind ourselves only where necessary..please note that we will end up in significantly different places , following these two paths...
                        Chan jee, wants the freedom of giving example of his friends dancing nude...It makes him and us all happy...should that fredom be taken away by the society and leave him sulking , or should he be allowed to have a smile , ( And for all of us to enjoy his little mischieves)In my opinion , the more freedom the marrier( let those who are offended by watching nude pl dance , resolve it within themselves),,,,it helps ppl express what they want and do what makes them happy( which is teh major goal of life anyway) and makes the universe colorful....
                        Naik,
                        Tussien tai lajawaab kar daindai oo....
                        Btw...read Khalil Jibrans chapter on it in The Prophet..( his main pont is that teh chains we want fredom from are the ones that we have put on ourselves, at teh dawn of life)

                        [This message has been edited by Nova (edited June 15, 2000).]

                        Comment


                          #13
                          http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/eek.gif I came this close to posting up some lines from Kahlil's the Prophet. Are we on the same wavelength or what? Okay will post them up later http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smile.gif

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Ok ji i'll check the Prophet...its been a while that i haven't opened that book...

                            ooper di taqreer ich du chaar moTiyaaN moTiyaaN galaaN samaj nai aayaaN...per 900 number dial kerdiyaaN dil kaNbdha ay....patta nai agay ki bala beThi hovay;-)

                            girlie pearlie do post some thing by Jibran...*hugz*

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Siraj Bhai!

                              Good perception!

                              ------------------
                              Nadeem

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X