Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do feelings count?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 10 of 135 (292300)
03-05-2006 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
03-04-2006 5:23 PM


Yes n No
The question is whether these strong feelings we have matter--i.e., whether they are an indication that, though we cannot build a case, that perhaps some moral judgements and some aesthetic judgements are after all objective.
Of course strong feelings matter, and they are in a sense objective... to you. Objectively you as a person feel strongly about X, and that makes it important to you.
That does not however make it objectively external to you, like a true or intrinsic characteristic of X.
Actually I find that the fields of morals and aesthetics have had their heads turned upside down. Feelings (which really are the basis of all m and a judgements) are thought to signify or define the reality of whatever they are focused on. Thus that I don't like gambling therefore it is bad, or there is some quality about it that is bad.
I believe that it is quite the opposite. Feelings don't define the object, they define the beholder. And that is the most objective statement you will find morally or aesthetically for anything in the world.
Example, you announce that you find impressionist paintings to be awful in their lack of skill. You think you have defined them, it may even feel that way, but you have actually defined yourself and your private world. Such paintings are not truly ugly, but you are a person who finds ugliness in such paintings. Here we find two truths. Within your world such paintings are ugly, and to anyone outside your world they know what to expect when you are confronted with them.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-05-2006 11:52 AM

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 03-04-2006 5:23 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 135 (292403)
03-05-2006 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by robinrohan
03-05-2006 11:28 AM


my ire when witnessing deliberate cruelty--that it makes me think that there is something intrinsic to the act of cruelty itself that I am recognizing objectively.
You may be recognizing an intrinsic quality of an act, that being its cruelty. The rest is recognizing your place in relation to cruelty. Again I would say you are recognizing the objective fact that, you are opposed to it.
That someone is doing it, sort of shows that your feelings are not representative of an objective assessment regarding a quality of cruelty. Some people apparently like it.
Thankfully most people do find most forms of cruelty odious, though that usually depends on who its being done to. Most people seem to make exceptions which allow for cruelty to be used against someone. So I am in a way backing Faith's statement regarding a common feeling about it, though one may find many loopholes where it is alright. Can you think of someone you'd enjoy seeing tortured, or not care if they were?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by robinrohan, posted 03-05-2006 11:28 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 03-05-2006 2:26 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 18 by robinrohan, posted 03-05-2006 5:11 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 135 (292600)
03-06-2006 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by robinrohan
03-05-2006 5:11 PM


That "thankfully" suggests some kind of objective standard.
Not a standard, but two truths. I do not like cruelty, and I am glad not to be facing a world that supports a practice I do not like.
Some may enjoy it and think "unfortunately" most people are not appreciative of cruelty. Certainly the Abu Ghraib affair, the recent Iraqi secret death squads, the unnecessary beating by British soldiers, and the original torture tactics of Saddam's troops (ironically which all the former mentioned troops were supposed to replace and not be cruel), shows somewhat that cruelty can and does get enjoyed. Most particularly where there is a great difference in power.
In the face of pressures against regular sex S&M is rising as fashionable. Heck S&M dominatrix can be paid to inflict extreme cruelty completely legally, but if that same woman gave even a bit of overt sexual pleasure she would be arrested within the US. We can even let kids see and buy images of graphic torture. Adults may even be able to do that with kids (spanking isn't illegal to be sure). But pleasure is most definitely out.
I said thankfully most people find most forms of cruelty odious. As far as I can tell the world is changing and that might not be the case within 20 years or so.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by robinrohan, posted 03-05-2006 5:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by JavaMan, posted 03-06-2006 8:26 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 24 of 135 (292624)
03-06-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by JavaMan
03-06-2006 7:38 AM


Re: Do feelings count?
Someone who didn't feel that way we would consider a sociopath.
That's not true at all. Someone who did not feel that way towards those most believe should not be treated that way would be considered sociopaths.
Cruelty is most certainly allowed against some group, anywhere you go. Indeed sympathy or empathy for the out group could itself be considered a form of mental disorder.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by JavaMan, posted 03-06-2006 7:38 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JavaMan, posted 03-06-2006 8:29 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 135 (292891)
03-07-2006 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hangdawg13
03-06-2006 11:06 PM


Since I can keep feeling the trees just as well as the right and wrong, I believe both exist objectively.
But the tree is external and others can feel as well, while the moral feelings are internal and not accessible by others.
How do you explain that others cannot feel the same moral "bark" that you do, and indeed you cannot feel the same that they do?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-06-2006 11:06 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 1:51 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 31 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 3:25 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 135 (293028)
03-07-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by robinrohan
03-07-2006 1:51 PM


most people have some similar feelings--such as ire when witnessing cruelty--which would suggest that their feelings are responding to something objective.
Two problematic exceptions. First, as I have pointed out most people allow for cruelty to some class of individuals (which usually vary between cultures). Second, there have been some cultures where cruelty was not considered odious.
Thus there is no such thing as a common focus of disgust with regard to cruelty, neither the action nor the target of the action. Where then is the objective entity?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 1:51 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 3:35 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 3:48 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 41 of 135 (293049)
03-07-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hangdawg13
03-07-2006 3:25 PM


In the same way, some people may have been "burned" mentally causing them to not have a conscience.
Okay, given the diverse nature of feelings on all subjects, including morals, and even the specific example of cruelty... who is right and who has been burned?
As I have suggested even tight moral rules usually have convenient exceptions, thus even things like theft, murder, and cruelty become acceptable under some conditions (done to some specific people). And there have been cultures at various times where majorities simply did not us the same moral rules we do today. This suggests a different formula than that there is some moral reality which people can sense if their moral "faculties" are functioning properly.
Even if a person doesn't feel right and wrong, there will be consequences if he runs smack into immorality.
So let's say someone feels willful ignorance is immoral, and religion to be a prime example of willful ignorance. Does that mean religious people are not functioning properly, or the person is not? Who decides?
One could certainly argue that religious people are running smack into the consequences of their immorality with the terrible violence commited for no reason and rejection of common knowledge regarding the world. Would that be correct?
All feelings and senses can be fooled, but we have to start accepting things as real at some point.
My position is that feelings are objectively real, only they are objectively real characteristics of an individual and not the external world. Not all feelings, though objective, suggest anything about the outer world.
For example, just because a person has a headache, does not mean that there is an objective entity called "headache" that only that person is sensing. Indeed if we have a majority of peopled suffering from a headache, it is still a statement about their internal condition, rather than an indication of a real external entity called "headache".
Here's another example, a heavy metal concert. Many will find it "loud", with some being too loud and some not loud enough. In the end it will be based on the individuals and not some objective reality regarding the sound. The only objective reality is that there is a certain amount of vibrations coming from certain speakers located in different positions. The individual judgements of "loudness" will be based on where they are in relation to the speakers, what their experience has been regarding sound vibrations, and some personal physical differences within their ears.
Many may also find the concert "morally charged". Some will find the content morally correct, some morally incorrect, and others morally incorrect and so very cool. Like with "loudness" its "morality" is not a set quality of the content (or onstage activity) but rather characterizes the individuals based on their personal characteristics.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 3:25 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 7:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 135 (293051)
03-07-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by robinrohan
03-07-2006 3:48 PM


Perhaps an entire culture can be morally coarse
And perhaps not. This is a possibility, not a conclusion, and it does not work with the first point I mentioned.
Okay let's roll with your argument. Muslim communities across the world were morally outraged by the printing of the danish cartoons. Are they correct and westerners morally course?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 3:48 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 4:20 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 135 (293076)
03-07-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by robinrohan
03-07-2006 4:20 PM


We need something more obvious.
Uhm... I don't see how that wasn't obvious. To one culture an action was morally reprehensible. It is your claim that feelings represent an observation of some external moral reality. So were they right or not? Your second claim was that some cultures could be coarse, would that not make the western cultures coarse for not realizing their action's immoral properties?
I might add that one could consider the cartoons just one example in a series of morally reprehensible actions taken by the west. While there is no question western nations were attacked by AQ, the response has been to invade nations wholly unrelated to AQ killing many thousands more innocent people, the capture and torture of many innocent individuals, and growing reductions in civil rights. The conflict is often pitched as a clash between cultures, which is similar to how stalinism or nazism were pitched.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by robinrohan, posted 03-07-2006 4:20 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 6:41 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 53 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 5:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 52 of 135 (293142)
03-08-2006 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hangdawg13
03-07-2006 7:47 PM


The one who is right is the one with the purest heart.
And who measures that?
I've heard this argument so many times... its retarded. It has to do with equivocation on the meaning of "absolute". Since an action is inextricably tied to its context, ethics are inevitably situational
Don't be so quick to throw around names. You didn't understand my point. The only way your objection holds up is if the contexts are similar across different beliefe systems, which they do not. Let's take cruelty. Xians once believed cruelty was wrong against Xians but okay against unbelievers. Jews once believed cruelty was wrong against jews but okay against unbelievers. The only similar context is cruelty okay against unbelievers. So where is the moral objectivity in that?
By saying that feelings of morality are objectively real, but correspond to no objective reality, you are essentially saying that these feelings are meaningless.
Wrong. They absolutely have meaning. The question is to who. And the answer is to the individual. Unless individuals are meaningless to themselves, their feelings have meaning.
The feeling is objectively real and is attached to the individual. Just as if you have an image of a tree in your mind. Is that not objectively true, and yet have no objective reality outside yourself?
it means there is an objective entity called "head" that the person is sensing in an unusually unpleasant manner.
Heheheh... You are absolutely right. Just as there is a painting and some sense it as unusually unpleasant and some do not. Just as there is an activity that some sense as unusually unpleasant and some do not. You have described my position, and countered your own.
Whether or not there is an objective standard for loudness depends on whether or not the One who created sound set that standard.
Well isn't it funny then that it usually relates to tthe qualities I mentioned? How can you be sure that gods did not make the world with many different subjective experiences, and part of our "fall" was the mistaken belief that our subjective experiences were indications of some objective quality?
If a person loves loud rock music and the culture of rock and all that jazz... then we might say that person is characterized as a "hardcore rocker."
I agree with this, but not with...
Similarly, if a person loves killing babies and Jews, we might say that person is characterized as hardcore "evil".
People from many different cultures can all agree that a person fits hardcore rocker, but that is not the same as for hardcore evil. That's the problem we are facing here. Rock music is not the same as evil. It is much less defined, and usually on an individual basis.
Indeed I don't believe there is any such thing as evil at all. Its a pure fiction, or at best convenient shorthand for persistent activities I don't like and will foster more such activity. But the real definition is of me and when I apply that term to something. Same for you.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-07-2006 7:47 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 9:55 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 78 by Hangdawg13, posted 03-08-2006 6:27 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 135 (293164)
03-08-2006 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 5:28 AM


Well western culture includes the inquisition, the crusades, nazism, wiping out native cultures of the Americas, as well as suppressing nations of the far east.
If this is not enough, then I want to know what one CAN use to judge a culture as coarse?
I might add that chiro is correct that this new line of argument is contradictory to your original argument.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 5:28 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 60 of 135 (293179)
03-08-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 8:02 AM


Re: knowledge and moral judgement
Our strong feelings tell us.
I have a strong feeling that your argument is not correct. Does that make me or anyone else sharing this feeling correct, based solely on our feeling (or the strength of them)?

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 8:02 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:40 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 135 (293236)
03-08-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-08-2006 9:55 AM


You are making the mistake of using exceptions to the over all picture to argue that the over all picture is invalid.
What I am arguing is that the various natures of the exceptions are so wide and sometimes contradictory, such that the "overall picture" (aka generalization) being painted is false.
If the exceptions were entirely similar, the general rule might have a case.
When 2 people share and understand meaning things change. Or have you not noticed this in the course of your lifetime? Again you are looking at the parts and missing the reality of the whole. It is like saying that no force of physics is real just because we can detect thier effects. Then physics is only real to who?
I'm sorry, but none of this addressed the point I was making which was how feelings, while objective, are limited to each individual. Physics is more objective because we CAN detect the effects. Everyone can. That's different than the image of a tree in your head, or a sense of moral outrage.
The term evil reflects things that directly undermine the overal picture of what is morally good. This objective reality is in a certain state of flux.....go figure....lol All the major religions share a basic moral code.
Well I don't have any concept of good and evil so I stand as a direct contradiction of your argument. There are many, and much greater in the past, who share my view and so stand as a contradiction.
As far as your last comment goes, three of the major religions are branches of the same one, and they have been steadily squashing all societies with conflicting moral codes... so go figure. As it stands there are people who don't share the same basic moral code as any of those religions, and a time when most did not.
You are taking a very narrow view and missing the big picture of how diverse the world actually is.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 9:55 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 135 (293259)
03-08-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 10:40 AM


Re: knowledge and moral judgement
The strong feelings only apply to moral judgements and aesthetic judgements.
If any one group of feelings is supposed to be considered as sensory input from an objective reality, why wouldn't all feelings be the same?
But let me change my example. A creationist may feel that evolutionary theory is morally outrageous, highly offensive. Does that mean there is some reality to that? An atheist may feel that religious instruction of children is morally outrageous, highly offensive. Does that mean there is some reality to that?
Once you introduced the device of "coarse" morality, you have already begun the road back to relativism. At the very least a practical relativism. That is if there is an objective nature to anything, it is opaque to our knowledge.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:40 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 70 of 135 (293350)
03-08-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters
03-08-2006 2:06 PM


Chiro already responded correctly for me, but I'll see if I can tack anything on...
Your exceptions were not just similar but identical.
How can the exceptions be identical? Name them and show how they were identical.
In what instance in reality do exeptions make the rule?
I didn't argue exceptions make the rule. That seems to be what you guys are doing. I am arguing that the exceptions break the rules. I certainly did not build the system I use on exceptions.
So if I understand you correctly you feel there are no inherantly good or bad human behaviors?
Yes. And in fact I don't even have subjective feelings of good and evil. Those are overstatements or placeholders for more accurate descriptions regarding personal feelings.
So anyone can do anything to you or your family and friends and it will mean nothing to anyone.
I thought I was the one arguing that it will mean many different things to many different people and they will all be accurate. You were the one arguing that only one type of feeling will be correct and the rest will be mistaken (or I guess feel nothing).
If someone tried to do something harmful to someone I liked, and maybe even someone I didn't know, I would likely care and try to stop it. That defines me. The person choosing to do harm, exhibits a characteristic that defines them. We are both right.
Try doing anything to anyone and see how far you get.
In addition to social sanctions, there are such things as laws. I live in the real world. But lets flip this around. Try to make everyone do (or feel) one thing and see how far YOU get.
Is there something wrong with this supposed squashing you are reffering to? You wouldn't be having feelings about that now would you? I did not single out any particular religion but you were quite quick to.
You brought up that a basic moral system underlies the major religions. I pointed out that three of the top ones are essentially the same religion (at least they share the same basis), and that they have all spent quite a bit of time wiping out and/or suppressing all religions who do not share their basis. That is a factual statement, meant to undercut your observation. It is not that people naturally chose to have religions with the same moral basis.
As far as whether the squashing was wrong... wasn't it? I mean from your moral vantage point. Personally I found it repellent and would have fought it, as I try and fight it where I see it going on now. But be that as it may, it was missonaries and colonialism which resulted in the religious demographics we see today. Was that okay?
That it was people doing it, doesn't change a thing. They were singularly religious people.
I believe your above post is very telling of your view and mine. I will let the example stand for itself.
Okay. But you still haven't dealt with the fact that other people have used totally different moral systems, including ones without concepts of good and evil, nor sensed outrage or disgust in the same way as others.

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 03-08-2006 2:06 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024