Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1479315759495.jpg (106KB, 650x600px) Image search:
[Google]
106KB, 650x600px
From a certain standpoint of morality people reason about as follows: Either man is led by his sensuality, and is, following it, immoral, or he is led by the good, which, taken up into the will, is called moral sentiment (sentiment and prepossession in favor of the good); then he shows himself moral. From this point of view how, e.g., can Sand's act against Kotzebue be called immoral? What is commonly understood by unselfish it certainly was, in the same measure as (among other things) St. Crispin's thieveries in favor of the poor. "He should not have murdered, for it stands written, Thou shalt not murder!" Then to serve the good, the welfare of the people, as Sand at least intended, or the welfare of the poor, like Crispin - is moral; but murder and theft are immoral; the purpose moral, the means immoral. Why? "Because murder, assassination, is something absolutely bad." When the Guerrillas enticed the enemies of the country into ravines and shot them down unseen from the bushes, do you suppose that was assassination? According to the principle of morality, which commands us to serve the good, you could really ask only whether murder could never in any case be a realization of the good, and would have to endorse that murder which realized the good. You cannot condemn Sand's deed at all; it was moral, because in the service of the good, because unselfish; it was an act of punishment, which the individual inflicted, an - execution inflicted at the risk of the executioner's life. What else had his scheme been, after all, but that he wanted to suppress writings by brute force? Are you not acquainted with the same procedure as a "legal" and sanctioned one? And what can be objected against it from your principle of morality? - "But it was an illegal execution." So the immoral thing in it was the illegality, the disobedience to law? Then you admit that the good is nothing else than - law, morality nothing else than loyalty.
>>
>>34870431
>tfw to retarded two understand any of this
>>
My issue is that legality isnt necessarily a premise for morality
Many times they fall hand in hand for the benefit of society or the benefit of self, but the benefit of society isnt necessarily the ultimate good, merely the most efficient
I dont know the whole situation with this incident or what it is, if you elaborate i can try to wrap my head around but as far aa im concerned there exists murder scenarios that are universally bad but are just the least bad diligence of the people in retrospect
>>
>>34870599
You missed the pointt.
>>
>>34870670
Yeah i figured i did, whats the argument? That you can't wrong him for what he did?
>>
>>34870431
In my opinion, Morality is a very relative term that is used by society to maintain order. It is a human construct, necessary for coexistence with other human groups. It isn't always logically sound, but it doesn't need to be. It is determined by what value is placed upon, the individual, the group, or the code of values itself. (which is can be an erroneous viewpoint if the moral code happens to have internal errors). I personally believe that a proper moral code is one that you can follow explicitly in all cases, but most are not that well constructed.
>>
>>34870939
I should clarify, i don't believe in absolute morality.
>>
>>34871012
So like, youre more of a consequentialist rather than idealist?
>>
>>34870939
I think you confund Normality and Morality, anon
>>
>"Dude, if i do something bad for a good reason, is it still bad lol?"
>>
>>34871167
perhaps so, but I believe my statements remain valid. It is pointless to try and say that one or another moral code is the correct one, because they tend to fit whatever culture or society has created them. Slavery wasn't seen as "evil" in Rome, it was a normal part of their society, and it was a perfectly valid viewpoint. Obviously today that wouldn't be seen as correct, which is also valid.
>>
>>34871051
I am not one myself, but I think that such a viewpoint could be valid depending on your moral code
>>
>Then you admit that the good is nothing else than - law, morality nothing else than loyalty
Well yes of course, the society states in the law which things they consider immoral, some of this considerations come from our nature and some of them are degenerations brought by living in society
>>
>>34871267
Do laws mold the people or the people molds the law?
>>
The law isn't always an exact representation of the public value system, though, depending on what kind of government or culture you are talking about. Laws and public opinion can mold people, but so can many other factors. An unjust law might cause someone to no longer trust the ruling faction, so it can happen in many ways. You also have to understand that the moral code of the ruling class and the moral code of the common people might not always be the same, and you could answer your question with "both".
>>
>>34871267
>Morlaity
Make what you think will honour the human
>Normality
Bunch of human making the same thing consciencly or not
A norm follows by a group can be moral or not. Was slavery moral even if it was accepted by the norm ? No
Does it makes habitan of Rome bad people to not standing against slavery ? Yes, because they didn't honour the human (or humankind).
Were they enough educated to understand that ? no but Morality is Universal, they dont have to learn what is this. They already know/knew.
>conclusion
Can we blame them ? Yes
sorry for my bad Englsih
>>
>>34870431
philosophy is for fags
>>
>>34871507
But what I am saying is that your definition of morality didn't apply back then. Do you honestly believe that you would hold the same values if you were raised in a different time or place? The reason that you believe what you do is because you were raised in the modern day, in a specific area. If you were born in a thousand years you would likely hold different views. It depends on your upbringing and society, the few constants are biological in nature.
>>
>>34871592
I agree with you, but it is the only thing I am kind of decent at...
>>
>>34871629
First; Did you undesrtand What I've worte ? (to be sure if you comprehend me)
Second:
>But what I am saying is that your definition of morality didn't apply back then.
There is nothing wrong with my definition of Morality and I will show you an example.
You have a time machine and you travel back to ancient Rome. A guy injured himeself and you health him ? What would be is reaction ? He will be thankful. Why ? because he is human.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1