Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[Japher]

huh?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
but why should how you feel about the situation matter?

How the hell can it not?

Otherwise what separates one consistent ideology from another?

[KrazyHorse]

The purpose of mathematics is to create logically consistent systems and study their behoviour. The purpose of morality is to create logically consistent systems, study their behoaviour, and then choose the one which suits you. That extra step requires some sort of external metric. In the absence of divine revelation, what is that metric except ourselves?

[Whaleboy]

KrazyHorse

Ideology, in the sense I use it means something religious, something that you have faith in, rather than a logical position you simply concur with. Like OB, I have been of one position, and changed my mind when faced with a superior argument. I'm quite proud of the fact that I can swallow my pride .

Ideology works differently, you have a rigid, fixed conclusion that stands as more of a tautology, and you cherry pick arguments to support it.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
FREE PALESTINE!

strikes when you least expect him

[Az]

How the hell can it not?

Otherwise what separates one consistent ideology from another?

The purpose of mathematics is to create logically consistent systems and study their behoviour. The purpose of morality is to create logically consistent systems, study their behoaviour, and then choose the one which suits you. That extra step requires some sort of external metric. In the absence of divine revelation, what is that metric except ourselves?

I agree that it all has to trickle down to some axioms that we all find that are agreeable - but those should be of very simple and general nature.

I have seen quite a few ethical theories that are self consistent - but have seen few that had axioms that were right ( objectively ) , or not vague enough.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The same as science, morality is ian terative process.

1) Get some observations
2) Create a theory to explain these observations
3) Make predictions based on this theory
4) See how well these predictions match up to future observations

The only real challenge lies in separating cultural taboos from morally unacceptable situations, e.g. incest involving two adult partners without the chance of conception

Good summary.


The part about "iterative process," is spot on, and a very strong concept when applied to most things.


Understanding this helps to defend against rigid thinking. While it is good to have absolutes to have a secure base to live from, sometimes those absolutes are subject to change, when new information and experiences are aquired.

If something has worked well in the past, for many years, but then stops working, it's time rethink old theories.

Sometimes it's alot easier to adapt the theory to the changing world around you, than to try and force the world to adapt to your own personal rigid theory.

[KrazyHorse]

I agree that it all has to trickle down to some axioms that we all find that are agreeable - but those should be of very simple and general nature.

We all?

**** that. I make up my own mind on my morality. I don't base it on what other people think.

I have seen quite a few ethical theories that are self consistent - but have seen few that had axioms that were right ( objectively ) , or not vague enough.

What the **** do you mean, "right (objectively)"?

[Az]

Have you been drinking?

**** that. I make up my own mind on my morality. I don't base it on what other people think.

This don't say ****. We are speaking about HOW you make up your own mind.

What the **** do you mean, "right (objectively)"?

For example, libertarianism, is almost completely self-consistent. Problem is, it's based on bizzare axioms that most people disagree with.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az
but why should how you feel about the situation matter?

Because that's the fundamental basis of morality?

Morality is a codified form of your own behavior.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't hold that universalizability is necessarily desirable in morality though. My morality (in an extended sense) involves society being ordered in a certain way; to achieve this, it is not necessary - in fact, it would probably be counterproductive - for everyone to share my morality.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Az
For example, libertarianism, is almost completely self-consistent. Problem is, it's based on bizzare axioms that most people disagree with.

Yep, an ideology must be both self-consistant AND not violate human nature (the second is why most people find the axioms of Libertarianism disagreeable).

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Morality is a codified form of your own behavior.

Unless you are an extreme Ethical Relativist, you don't really beleive this. Morality and ethics is about UNIVERSAL right or wrongs.

[MORON]

I understand that Ideology is often developed as pure ideas.

But I do not believe it is EVER adopted based on the inherent beauty of its logic.

You can build almost any possible sets of ideas, but none of it needs to have anything to do with the external reality.

All the mess reguarding god aside, you have ideas like voluntary human extinction movement.

They are selected to best suit the necessary behaviour, and to effectively sell the needed behaviour, both to oneself and one's citizens.

Isn't necessarity itself the perfect justfication? Any ideology that bases on it probably is far more "valid" than the alternative.

-----------------------my thoughts on morality:
1. I like Freedom is equalivant to I like Pasta:
Both require some self discovery and is not self evident though general principles.
2. The only logic that is required is when the system have pseduo-contriaditions that require clarifcation, for example when I like pasta but hate seafood, what would I think of seafood pasta.

Thinking about moral systems is more about self discovery than choice. (I don't pick whether or not I like seafood pasta, but I can try if after knowing I'm not sure about it)

[Odin]

I'm still shuffling out my own ethical views. I can't commit myself to either favoring Rule Utillitarianism or something similar to Kantianism.