Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[KrazyHorse]

Odin, I can only tell you what I believe about a moral issue. I apply this belief across all humanity. If you live according to my moral code then I will say that you do good. If you don't then I will say that you do evil.

I am not responsible for what another person might believe, except insofar as I can persuade him.

So far, you and Az have presented external yardsticks by which to judge moral codes. Az apparently suggests that we take a poll. You suggest that we rely on ethicists to dictate to us. I simply suggest that people rely on their own judgment. I know I will. And I know that I will try to convince others to my own system. And I know that if somebody does a grave enough evil under my system then I will try to stop him.

[Odin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

You suggest that we rely on ethicists to dictate to us.

Ethicists AND anthropologists AND biologists.

Edit: AND Historians AND social and political scientists

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No it doesn't, you freak. That's exactly what I said it doesn't mean.

What I'm saying means that female genital mutilation is wrong because I think it's wrong.

No, it's wrong because I think it's wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
INCONSISTANCY ALERT! If you say it is wrong, and another person say's it is permissible, who is right?

Me.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So far, you and Az have presented external yardsticks by which to judge moral codes. Az apparently suggests that we take a poll. You suggest that we rely on ethicists to dictate to us. I simply suggest that people rely on their own judgment. I know I will. And I know that I will try to convince others to my own system. And I know that if somebody does a grave enough evil under my system then I will try to stop him.

I would just try to convince others to a system that will cause them to behave in the way that my system says they ought to; this system is not necessarily identical to the system that I follow.

[KrazyHorse]

I am, unfortunately, intellectually honest enough to avoid that in all but the most extreme cases.

[Kuciwalker]

The issue is that this is the course of action implied by some moral codes.

I'd imagine that this is a very big issue for major political figures, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

It's both a moral issue and a practical one for me.

I have a feeling that a lot of times that will end up biting you on the ass.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, clearly. It's more difficult to argue something you disbelieve, or to convince someone of it. On the other hand, you can certainly conceive of somewhat extreme situations in which it is the necessary course of action, as you said. Persuading a terrorist to disarm a nuke or release some hostages comes to mind.

[Az]

tomorrow, MFs. tomorrow. Now I have to go to school.

tah!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by joncha
We need to rationalise our posts now? What is the OT coming to.

Why do you say that?

[KrazyHorse]

Bravo.

[The Mad Viking]

KH, you are doing rather a good job of supporting my assertion by your arguments against it.

You select your ideology by how you "feel" about it.

And what determines how you "feel" about it?

Whether or not it personally benefits you. Humans are extremely unlikely to "feel" positively about something that does not promote their personal interests and desires.

I think you are living in an orgy of self-indulgence, and that Ortega y Gasset is doing barrel rolls in his grave.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most would presume, however, that before they chose to inflict their opinion on every human being on earth, that they should at least examine the basis of their opinion a little further than "That's how I feel about it."

"How you feel about" it is based on assumptions and axioms that you aren't even examining and questioning!

Finally, the notion of individual ideology is rather problemmatic. Why does an individual need their own ideology? Ideology is needed to priortize and balance the needs of an individual and the needs of the society they inhabit.

Morality is NEITHER completely personal NOR universal.

Morality is by its nature about how an individuals actions effect others in their group.

Moral systems are developed to balance these needs in a way that attempts to ensure the survival of the group, and by extension, individuals within the group.

There are no universal human morals. Within a given human culture, virtually everything has been tried, somewhere, sometime, in the attempt to come up with a winning system for a given population in a given environment.

Don't you dare argue that "Murder is wrong" as a refutation. The word "murder" means "immoral killing". Murder is not an action, it is a judgement. The word implicitly carries with it a moral judgement.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You select your ideology by how you "feel" about it.

And what determines how you "feel" about it?

Biology. Genetics and upbringing.

Whether or not it personally benefits you.

False, or at least incidental. See above.

[The Mad Viking]

While I think it has been all but proven that genetics have no influence on values, in that humans of differing genetic stock inserted at birth into foreign cultures develop the values of that culture.

Individual personality certainly may be a product of an individuals unique genes and may influence their personal values.

Upbringing certainly effects morals. Upbringing is the process by which the groups moral code is imprinted, however imperfectly, on the individual. However, this remains an ideology adopted by a group for the benefit of the group.

Now that voluntary human extinction thing is interesting and sound contrary. Anyone have a good link?