diana

I think you're right, Tom. That leaves me with a mere assertion...just like that of the opposing viewpoint. Argh.

Fair enough. It isn't compelling to me, either. I recognize the flaws of it. I just can't accept the opposing view that people would do that which they truly believe to be wrong, knowing it to be wrong when they do it.

Or at least, not wrong, in my view at the time I take the action. I'm not the self-appointed god-figure your summation makes me seem. I constantly rethink my position on things.

I think most people do constantly rethink their positions, though. I'm no better or worse than the next person, I think. All I'm saying is that if someone asks me why I did something at any given moment, I can rationalize my action. The act of rationalizing, even if it's a poor attempt, is the act of justifying the morality or amorality of the action. Another way of saying this is that at the time I commit any act, the fact that I have justified the act to myself means I have convinced myself, at least for the time being, that the act is not immoral.

After the fact, I may find that the rationalizations were poor indeed, and that, when removed from the situation and/or when faced with someone else doing the exact same thing , I must admit the act is indefensible. That is, I decide that the act is actually immoral, and I change my behavior to reflect this lesson learned. But at the time of the act, I believed the act to not be immoral.

How do you explain their insistence on repeating an action they believe to be morally wrong?

Fair enough. Particularly since I find myself in the exact same boat of stating that for me to believe someone's words that they believe X to be wrong, all evidence to the contrary, would take far more than mere assertion that they really do believe it's wrong.

d

Jinksy

Diana, I've given up responding to this thread because, frankly, I find your constant claim to understand my mind better than I do extremely obnoxious. If you want to tell me I don't think what I think I think, you have a massive burden of evidence. I won't say any more, because I don't want to upset the thread for anyone still interested, but after this recent comment I had to say something, or I'd end up putting my fist through a wall.

Please try and think about what you're implying when you say such things. I haven't been posting in the military thread telling you that you only joined up because you like the power trip...

diana

Good day, Jinsky.

I figured this was the case, and I understand. That is one of the flaws of the position...or questions if you prefer: is it possible to convince yourself that you believe something when in fact you do not? I think I did this with Christianity for quite some time in my life, simply suppressing all evidence that I did not actually believe it (not physical evidence, mind you, but the doubts and questions I could not answer) whenever they arose. Did I believe, or was I just trying to believe so hard and so convinced that I must believe that I couldn't tell the difference? I don't think I believed--once I reached an age where I began to reason. I recall trying to accept that these things happened then but don't happen now, and that a sacrifice for my sins somehow made sense, but honestly...I drew a blank. But I told myself I believed, and I definitely told others I believed. In my case, at least, I was lying to myself, and I had to withdraw from the indoctrination and educate myself before I had the knowledge and courage to say the king had no clothes, even to myself.

I've had much the same experience with feelings in the context of a relationship. I acknowledge that my desires to see myself a certain way within the context of my culture can make me refuse to see the truth of what I think and feel. I told myself for years that I was in love when I knew this was not the case. Why? My moral code forbade being in a relationship for any other reason--even though it made him happy to be with me and he treated me very well and I felt he was worthy of my love. I wanted to be in love with him, desperately, so I told myself I was. But the feelings were never there. I know at least one other person who acknowledges having done precisely the same thing.

How can such a thing happen? We have an image of ourselves as having a certain code that we're too respectable to violate, first. When we find ourselves in the position of violating it, we must alter something--the code, the situation, or our perception of the situation (or, if you will, our "reality"). I think this phenomenon is very common: many people deal with cognitive dissonance by convincing themselves they think or feel something they do not in order to avoid seeing themselves as immoral.

It was not a pleasant feeling to realize I had been lying to myself and thus, to others. I understand completely why it's offensive that I'd suggest others do this, as well.

If you had evidence that I bossed people around and seemed to enjoy it, and ruled out other reasons I might join, such as the overworn call to patriotism or the much more common desire for a dependable career with a good paycheck, you would have a case, though. If the evidence supported your conclusion, I must either acknowledge the truth of your conclusion or change my behavior, eh? (I thought being in the military pointed more to a desire to be bossed around, though. Isn't this the reason so many people don't join? "I can't take orders." My joining the military would appear to point more toward my desire for submission rather than domination, don't you think?)

Happy new year, Jinsky.

d

viscousmemories

Okay, now I think I see what you're saying. You're assuming that how a person acts reflects their "true belief", regardless of what they say they believe. But as you've pointed out, how a person acts depends entirely on what they believe at the moment of action which we agree might not synch up with what they usually claim to believe - eg. it might be a rationalization.

So I think the opposite is true: someone's "true belief" is what they claim to believe at all other times, and that how they act (if it contradicts what they usually claim to believe) indicates a refusal or an inability to adhere to their true beliefs. Maybe it's just a difference in how we assess human behavior, but I'd be more inclined to suspect that someone who habitually rationalizes immoral behavior is incapable of adhering to their beliefs than to conclude that they don't really believe what they claim.


Okay, let's use the example of a guy who claims to believe infidelity is wrong, but cheats on his wife. Not a crime of passion as it were, but a premeditated, ongoing affair with another woman while keeping it a secret from his mate. All the while maintaining that cheating is wrong. How would I explain that behavior?

Well first, there are a lot of unknowns. For example what else do I know about him? Is he a casual accquaintance or co-worker of mine, or my best friend since childhood? Does he have a history of behaving similarly in this or other circumstances? Does he have a healthy relationship with his wife? Etc.

All these things are going to contribute to my judgement, and so the more I think about it the less I feel like I can answer the question generally. If I had to, though, I would say that the guy appears to be very "weak-willed" - which I'd describe as lacking the mental or emotional fortitude to live up to his principles.

Okay, fair enough. But you know, maybe it just catches my eye a lot but it seems to me that insinuations or outright accusations of 'hypocrisy' (especially directed to Christians) are extremely common here. I don't think I've seen you do it, but does that have something to do with why you're asking these questions? Is there any reason anyone needs to know whether someone really does believe what they claim to believe except to make a personal judgement of their character?

I'm not trying to be subtle, I think most of the time accusations of hypocrisy around here are merely insults or part of sloppy ad hominem arguments. Given the inherent difficulty with reading people's minds and motives in general, it seems especially unproductive to try to do so in the midst of a philosophical discussion or debate on an online discussion board.

Happy New Year, diana.

The AntiChris

Hi Diana.

At the point at which he uses any form of physical coercion to stop others from acting similarly or if he uses (what I consider to be) unreasonably condemnatory language to describe others who act in a similar manner.

Nope. Not necessarily. In my experience it's quite possible for someone to continue an activity which they genuinely believe is wrong - "Do as I say, not as I do!".

Think of the parent who's hopelessly addicted to nicotine advising her children on the evils of smoking.

No. If they violate one's personal (moral) ideal then they cannot, I would've thought, be moral.

So, by your own admission, anything you actually do is never immoral.

Do you not see the problem with this way of thinking? Despite your denials, you are in fact allowing your actions to define your moral beliefs.

In light of your previous statement, this doesn't make sense to me. If whatever you do reflects what you believe to be moral, why would you need to "rethink"?

I'd certainly say that someone who violates their own moral code but admits he did wrong is more principled than someone who simply adjusts their moral code in order to suit their behaviour.

Ok, I'll try to explain. I think the problem here may be that you're disregarding the role competing desires play in influencing our beliefs and behaviour. Either that or you simply don't accept that competeting desires play any role at all?

The person who says adultery is wrong does so because he believes that people can get hurt and, as a general rule, he doesn't think people should be hurt if it can be avoided. It's important to note that he doesn't believe it's wrong because the potential negative consequences outweigh the pleasure he may gain from committing adultery - he does so simply because he believes, as a general rule, that we should avoid making people unhappy.

However, if he does commit adultery, he does so simply because of the desire for sexual gratification. He doesn't do so (necessarily) because he's suddenly ceased to be concerned about the happiness of others. The desire for sexual gratification may be stronger than the desire not to harm, but the desire not to harm still exists.

Agreed.

For the same purpose you'd morally condemn something you wouldn't do - in order to encourage others not to do it. Think of the nicotine-addicted parent and her kids.

Chris

diana

Excellent example, Chris. Food for thought.

I am, alas, at the end of my vacation from school, and I must busy myself with my thesis. I'd like to thank you and Jinsky and vm and others who contributed to a lesser degree to this thread for providing the contradiction I so desperately needed to drive my thoughts on this matter further. I very much appreciate your not responding emotionally in lieu of good solid logic. 'Tis logic I need.

As with all things in my life, I will take your objections with me and digest them, perhaps in time changing my theory as a result. If not, my theory will be stronger for it, and I'll bring it back for a spin when I have time and it's on my mind again.

I've enjoyed and benefitted from our discussion. Happy new year, all.

v/r,

d

Jinksy

Ok, one more response. If I have any self-control, it'll be my last.

You've gone straight back to implying that your experience relates to mine, ergo I'm also deceiving myself. It's just as annoying as it was before. For the sake of clarity, I'll resort to being more blunt:

I don't consider your position complicated, or original. It suffers from a very simple flaw, which several people have pointed out to you; that you've just defined morality as actual behaviour. Since it's true by your definition, there's nothing we can infer, learn or prescribe from such an approach. There is no question of 'truth' or 'falsehood' in your argument (since there's no inherently 'correct' way to use language), just the worthlessness of tautology.

Your comments about guilt are equally trite. They're a straightforward fallacy of composition, in that you assume that since Christian beliefs are characterised by guilt, any philosophical belief that seems likely to engender guilt must be some sort of hangover from Christianity. Guilt is an emotion, not a religion. We're all capable of experiencing it for all sorts of reasons (unless we're psychopathic), regardless of our views on ethics.

You're also being myopic. Take this paragraph:

(where again, you've set yourself up as some kind of pedagogue by starting with 'I understand your position and ending with 'Do you see what I'm getting at?' It's infuriating. If your ideas were simply so ahead of their time that no-one agreed with them, there'd be certain telltale signs - such as them not being a caricatured form of internalism)

Anyway, we can just as easily turn the quoted paragraph on its head. If you don't have a moral system which you're capable of falling short of, how can you take pride in your achievements? If all behaviour is moral, then nothing you do is ever worth anything, even to you. Climbing Everest or curing cancer is no more noteworthy than sitting on your sofa watching Days of Our Lives.

The difference is I recognise the lack of substance to any such claim, so I don't make it. You're still implying better-than-my-own knowledge of my motives, even though you've yet to present anything more than an argument from incredulity and a penchant for rewriting the dictionary.

diana

Jinsky,

Again, thank you very much for your very clear input. As I've stated several times, my point here was to explore this POV. Each time I offer a reason the competing POV may be flawed, I'm exploring further. That's all. There's nothing, really, to get het up about.

I'm sorry you took it that way. My goal there was to simply rephrase your input as a form of feedback, so you could be assured that I do, in fact, understand where you're coming from (or I'm trying to, anyway) and not ignoring or discounting you. Then I asked if you understood where I was coming from. It was a basic attempt at communication and was meant as nothing more.

So far, I've gotten no charitable attempt from you to understand my position, or why I would think it. If I have, it was so early in the thread that I've long since forgotten it. Regardless, you have provided many good counter-arguments to it, and for that I thank you very much. It has been my pleasure to discuss this with you, because you have provided much of what I needed. I'm sorry the experience was not mutual.

d