Are you moral?
Jay Krieger discusses moral judgement, using several examples. He explains that judgement are made by either by reason/rationale or by emotion. He thought that if we understood how we judge a bit better, we could use that knowledge as a tool to our advantage in winning over people who may be opposed to some of our struggles.
10 comments:
Enjoyed viewing your philosophical tidbit about morals (better termed as ethics.)
Thanks for explaining the basics of ethics...Ethics is often a hard subject to discuss and your examples help clarify a lot what ethics are.
KM
I enjoyed this immensely ; a lot of great examples were brought up.
When I post, I usually like to "think outside of the box" and offer feedback in posts in a neutral way.
Good one! It is good to think outside of box.
It is funny. Even though you may learn or experience it too many times before, it should increase the higher level of understanding humanity. Yet, the level can be either understanding or misunderstanding that too many people impose their moral judgements on others, alienating or hurting others without feeling guilty. Or do they feel guilty at all? Maybe they do but they won't admit it?
Susan's comment above is a fine example by imposing her belief on others. Do I understand her? Maybe yes. Maybe no. It takes much more to understand her moral judgement, where she come from, where she grow up, what she experience in her lifetime that no one will ever experience. It even may take a lifetime to understand JUST ONE's life! You need to relive everyone's life and it takes billions of lifetimes to understand completely if you don't forget every details!
I guess it is best to question and question until you feel satisfied (perhaps, you will never feel satisfied or will never undestand one's emotional/reason/moral thinking!) LOL!
Isn't a life mysterious and amazing!?
Thanks for sharing.
Very interesting examples, Jay. I'm curious, where did you get those examples or stories? Good food for thought. I always enjoy your point of view. You cause me to think!
~ LaRonda
Your story about the moral is an awesome! It involves a lot of "if-and if then," which it is a good psycholigical of thoughts.
It attacks the thoughts about minorities of people, as you've already heard about a "crab theory" of how Deaf people are pulling down other Deaf people.
It could be based on the "moral" because again it is always talking about what it should, could or have to do about it - but at the side of point-of-view, it would say because of it.
I don't know if you'd understand what I am talking about. It's just like it's attacking each other for "moral," but I am glad that you've brought this issue up because at that shoes where Deaf people need to look at each other about our own "real moral"
It is easily to slip into "majority's thought about what's correct about the moral." Unfortunately, many majorities of a super group thought they knew much better than lower group of people.
In fact, it's where we are coming from. I wish there is a key to open a hole to give a whole answer to it. But who did stolen our key? A majority of hearing society in their people because they think we need a help.
We don't need any help. The reality, they need a help if they have more room in their brains! We have to educate them, and it won't be an easy way to do it!
It's going to be hard way, long way, but the world is changing over from time to time. I hope the old people, new people will learn differenlty.
I hope I said it good! Thanks!
Susan (2:42 am):
Thanks -- I have asked DeafRead to correct this -- a vlog not a blog.
Dont worry about rambling on -- I ramble as well.
Bobrrr:
To be able to debate, one must present their opinions and views. What Susan did was okay in my book.
However, there are some situations where one refuses to listen to other POVs, defeating the debate process, then that would be closed-mindedness and imposing, at least for me. Sure, to have a good rapport going, every one needs to debate with full respect of others, their beliefs, etc.
LaRonda:
Came across this article in Discover while waiting in the waiting room. It was discussing whether some of our morals were part of evolution and so forth. Some examples from the article were used here, but I thought if we understood our "enemy" or "opponents", we could manuver strategically to win them over.
Good example of the week, Jay!
Heres one of my favorite moral quote:
"Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts." By Aristotle
While I agree completely that respecting others is critical to stay open-minded and debate deeper, I am sorry I was not clear enough in my previous post.
As a gay man, I have the problem with members of groups that hold views that say gays are immoral, wrong, and capable of being "changed." So like so many LGBT-related issue, it's hard to view this as a situation wherein both positions are ones with which we can agree to disagree. Using religion to deny people of their humanity is not something gay humans can casually accept!
Ahh, been meaning to tell you that I am taking Philosophy of Ethics course.
Very interesting - talking about how ethics is the study of moral decision making.
Ethics is a branch of philosophy. :)
According to the book I'm reading, to investigate the nature of moral decision making in general, and especially the type of moral decision making that requires us to solve moral problems, we must learn something about ethics.
Because ethics is the study of moral decision making, the study of how we ought to make moral decisions.
That said, it does not mean one person is right and the other is wrong, like you said.
There are many different theories, it's really hurting my brain. LOL.
Value theory (Moral and nonmoral values)
Theory of Obligation (Principle ->Rules->Action)
Monistic and Pluralistic Theories of Value (Hedomism)
Ethical Relativism
Cultural Relativism
Consequentialism
Ethical Egoism
Psychological Egoism
Utilitarianism (Principal of utility)
Deontology
Ethics of Kant
I could go on and on and on...
Philosophers actually DO get paid thinking and debating!
Hmm. Time to go back to school, Jay? :D
Interesting Vlog! I would never call myself a good or bad moral. It is really based on conscience.
If I am in a hurry and get paid to give a lecture to the audience of 200 people, I would consider myself a cute monster.I am obligated to give a lecture to keep my word rather to help a lady who fainted. Let other people help her.
If I gave up giving a lecture in order to save a lady, then I will never being asked to lecture.
Sometimes people are selfish.
Sometimes people want to be heroes to save babies' lives and being spotlightters.
We cannot define moral at all.
In return, suppose if I happen to be the lady who needs help, no one would save me. Ugh???
Let me cite one incident. I walked in the tunnel with a huge poster to carry. Two youths were behind me and tried to steal my purse. No one tried to help me. They just passed by. I screamed aloud like a roaring lion to scare the boys. Imagine what deaf voice would like. That time I realized many people are not willing to help people. So I learned the hard way to ignore helpless people. If I get involved, I get trouble.
Call me a cute monster!
Sandra
Post a Comment