Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az
how about repugnance to taking life?

"Man is the measure of all things"

Human life has inherent moral value. Axiom 1.

[Az]

Human life has inherent moral value. Axiom 1.

I agree (not axiomatically, though ) - however this isn't the full picture - Are there instances in which you support taking a life of a human?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The moral code is the measure. Logic and experience are the means by which I compute probable consequences. Discipline and decency are what cause me to pursue the proper course of action, independent of my own selfish interests.

Do we have to plod?

Both you and Kuci think that the moral code is what measures good and bad.

As Az has been trying to point out to you, this is false.

A moral code is a set of rules or guidelines for behaviour. One of the main reasons they vary is that the judgement of what is a positive and negative outcome varies. The other reason is that very different behaviours are necessary in different environmental situations.

Everyone judges outcomes against ideas of what is "good" and what is "bad". A moral code tends to supress actions which are considered likely to produce negative outcomes.

E.G.
Observant Jews may not eat pork. This is not a measure of anything.

Getting sick and maybe dying is bad. Pork often makes you sick (well, 3000 years ago...) Therefore, the activity of eating pork has a certain likelihood of a very bad outcome.

(This is clearly a piece of "genetic" moral code that no longer serves its original, evolutionary purpose of supporting the Darwinian survival of a particular culture. However irrational it appears today, it still provides a sense of belonging to a discrete group, by which members share in a sort of mutual protection pact. )

What is a "sense of decency"? A consideration of the negative impact your behaviour may have on others. An implicit understanding that this is likely to be harmful to you, either immediately or at some future time.

Ideology remains an after-the-fact add-on; a post-rationalization. Whether adopted at a personal level (less important, really) or at a cultural level.

You have an understanding or belief about what is good for you. And your personal ideology justifies acting in a way that supports that belief.

A culture has certain shared values; it has historic practices; these develop into a behavioural code that is designed to promote the survival of the culture. The code may change, often very slowly, to adapt to changes in environment or lessons learned about how historic practices and values are no longer helpful to the society.

[Az]

A moral code is a set of rules or guidelines for behaviour. One of the main reasons they vary is that the judgement of what is a positive and negative outcome varies. The other reason is that very different behaviours are necessary in different environmental situations.

Well, to be honest these are just semantics. What they were meaning was 'ethics', I guess.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Both you and Kuci think that the moral code is what measures good and bad.

As Az has been trying to point out to you, this is false.

What a bunch of horse****. If you want to get off by arguing with definitions then go bug somebody else.

We need two different words for the systems of judging the value of ends and for the system which prescribes the means to achieve those ends.

Personally, I use morality for the first and ethics for the second. We can call them fleep and gleep if you'd like.

[KrazyHorse]

Huh. Az and I finally agree on something in this thread...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az


I agree (not axiomatically, though ) - however this isn't the full picture - Are there instances in which you support taking a life of a human?

Yes. I never said that the taking of a human life was always an absolute wrong, if there are further consequences. I simply said that human life has value. If I were to take one I require justification.

For instance, if by killing one man I save two others. And that's just using the first axiom. There are others...

[Sandman]

This is clearly a piece of "genetic" moral code that no longer serves its original, evolutionary purpose of supporting the Darwinian survival of a particular culture. However irrational it appears today, it still provides a sense of belonging to a discrete group, by which members share in a sort of mutual protection pact.

I disagree. It's not logically inconsistent for cultural mores (such as not eating pork) to serve no purpose whatsoever. They just are.

[Kuciwalker]

Cultural mores do serve a purpose. They establish a means of identifying outsiders and establishing a cohesive society.

It's like the proteins on the outside of cells in the body that identify the cells as "self" to the immune system.

[BeBMan]

Re: Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Individuals and societies do what they believe they need to do in order to survive and prosper.

Do you think this drives all actions? Then I disagree. I would accept it as basic though.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Cultural mores do serve a purpose. They establish a means of identifying outsiders and establishing a cohesive society.

It's like the proteins on the outside of cells in the body that identify the cells as "self" to the immune system.

Obviously that doesn't hold for the pork taboo, since Muslims (and others) do it as well.

[Az]

Obviously that doesn't hold for the pork taboo, since Muslims (and others) do it as well.

Yes, but ( again borrowing from biology), the reason they evolved may have not been enviromental selection, but some other reason - and this trait has additional, powerful purposes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
Obviously that doesn't hold for the pork taboo, since Muslims (and others) do it as well.

It may have served a purpose at its inception, and it can still serve as an aid to group cohesion.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az

Obviously that doesn't hold for the pork taboo, since Muslims (and others) do it as well.

Yes, but ( again borrowing from biology), the reason they evolved may have not been enviromental selection, but some other reason - and this trait has additional, powerful purposes.

It would be environmental selection, but more subtly than "this idea makes our economy more efficient" or whatever.

[Az]

It would be environmental selection, but more subtly than "this idea makes our economy more efficient" or whatever.

There is no enough societies to actually see this as real evolution in term of survival of the fittest. Esp. when "memes" of societies mix all the time - their ideological 'genomes' being wide-exposed.