HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-138)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:19:40 -0400
There are 26 messages totalling 816 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immortal moral choices (26)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 15:53:38 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 03:41 PM 7/6/2003, Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>when everyone jumps off the next bridge, will you do so because majority
>determines morality?
That's just the point. Maybe we in this society wouldn't do it. But in
other societies (even some current societies), stuff like that *is* deemed
to be morally right. Some societies use human sacrifice for instance. To
them it's is morally correct. To us it's just plain murder and immoral.
Morality is *not* set in stone and is *not* the same for everyone... never
has been.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:08:41 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dotiran@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Immortal moral choices
> In a message dated 7/6/2003 2:05:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
>
> > what society judges as *moral* depends
> > on the majority, not some innate and unchanging rule
> > from some mythical deity
>
> when everyone jumps off the next bridge, will you do so because majority
> determines morality?
Isn't it the truth to say that there will always be some absolutes in the
morality tables, some 'Commandment' like tomes that we'd all agree are
essential. ie: "It's wrong to rape" etc. It's also true to say that the idea
of morals constitutes an absolute imperative to do the right thing and -
sadly - we live in a world where we are often presented with a choice that
is simply between the lesser of two evils.
Time, society, circumstance, history and an individual perception alters
which of the two evils we consider the lesser to be. So, maybe 'morality'
doesn't change, but the extent to which we perceive an action to be
honourable or moral does.
John
Do the Write Thing.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:16:35 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 2:54:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> Maybe we in this society wouldn't do it. But in
> other societies (even some current societies), stuff like that *is* deemed
> to be morally right.
Because a culture or society deems something "moral" does not mean it is. In
fact, you are using the wrong word to even discuss cultural differences. The
word you are looking for is "mores" and they do change.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:24:57 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 2:52:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> the Romans did consider suicide to be
> the *moral* choice when faced with disgrace
>
Just because the Romans "considered" it such doesn't make it right :)
But of course, your signature line ["Organised religion is a disease..."]
betrays the real reason we will not see eye to eye on this. My own signature line
in this argument would probably be "apart from religion the observance of the
moral law is impossible."
[Oh, and by the way your comment "A loser's arguement." is both untrue and
unkind.]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:27:11 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> diamonique@comcast.net writes:
>
> > Maybe we in this society wouldn't do it. But in
> > other societies (even some current societies), stuff like that *is*
deemed
> > to be morally right.
>
> Because a culture or society deems something "moral" does not mean it is.
In
> fact, you are using the wrong word to even discuss cultural differences.
The
> word you are looking for is "mores" and they do change.
No, she's using the right word - you are making the mistake
of trying to apply your religion and culture's "rules" on the
rest of the world.
There are no doubt many things that you would consider to
be completely and fully *moral* that can do nothing but
horrify me (or others) as horribly *immoral* and (if my religion
had such a concept) *sinful*.
Jette
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
"Organised religion is a disease and the most dangerous symptom is that
those suffering from it believe that infecting others is a Good Thing"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 16:27:42 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 3:09:22 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> Isn't it the truth to say that there will always be some absolutes in the
> morality tables,
not to relativists.
>
> sadly - we live in a world where we are often presented with a choice that
> is simply between the lesser of two evils.
sadly, this is true. I feel that every time I go to vote *vbeg*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:29:56 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> [Oh, and by the way your comment "A loser's arguement." is both untrue and
> unkind.]
Oh, you mean you lost that argument too? Sorry to bring back such
bad memories for you.
Jette
jette@blueyonder.co.uk
"I don't care WHO started it - STOP IT NOW!!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 23:09:06 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
I wonder if anthropologists have done studies across as many
cultures as possible to see if there even are *any* morals
and mores common to them *all*. It would certainly make for
interesting reading.
I think probably the idea that murder is wrong would be common
to all cultures. But that would *only* encompass what we'd call
homicide. Was it the Aztecs who thought human sacrifice to be
perfectly fine? Stoning people was in vogue once. America still
executes people. But I think the Aztecs, ancient Romans, Jews,
etc and modern-day Americans would all still frown on stabbing
someone to death because you didn't like him. I'm talking about
the real world here.
In the HLverse, Immortals go around murdering each other
all the time. But they at least have a reason - the Game. And
I doubt they'd chop someone's head off if they didn't have that
reason. Most Immortals would probably not whip out their
swords and stab anybody they saw just because they felt like it.
And the ones that might are the bad guys or the crazy ones.
It's quite an interesting topic.
- Marina.
\\ "I don't care about their different thoughts; ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// different thoughts are good for me." || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ - Tanita Tikaram ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====|| \\
\\==============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============//
"Why does everybody have to be an elf in fanfic, anyway? Like these
people don't have enough problems." - McSwain (The Fanfic Symposium)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 22:19:26 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> > > Maybe we in this society wouldn't do it. But in
> > > other societies (even some current societies), stuff like that *is*
> deemed
> > > to be morally right.
> >
> > Because a culture or society deems something "moral" does not mean it
is.
> In
> > fact, you are using the wrong word to even discuss cultural differences.
> The
> > word you are looking for is "mores" and they do change.
>
> No, she's using the right word - you are making the mistake
> of trying to apply your religion and culture's "rules" on the
> rest of the world.
>
> There are no doubt many things that you would consider to
> be completely and fully *moral* that can do nothing but
> horrify me (or others) as horribly *immoral* and (if my religion
> had such a concept) *sinful*.
>
> Jette
> jette@blueyonder.co.uk
Isn't it right to say that that if two societies 'deem' different things as
falling into the sphere of 'moral imperatives' that if you ask either of
those followers they will only deem what they consider to be moral to be the
final word on morality -even if they both agreed morality is not transient.
Therefore whether they are right or wrong actually appears to be secondary
to the strengths of their faith in it.
Whichh may be why most wars have been fought over whose God is 'bestest'.
That or oil rights.
John
F-Plan Deity
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 17:27:16 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 4:08:59 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
tmar@sifl.iid.co.za writes:
>
> I doubt they'd chop someone's head off if they didn't have that
> reason
Yes, and it made our "moral" arguments over episodes like "Promises" all that
much more interesting.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:21:18 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
John Mosby wrote:
>Isn't it the truth to say that there will always be some absolutes in the
>morality tables, some 'Commandment' like tomes that we'd all agree are
>essential.
No. It isn't true to say that.
>ie: "It's wrong to rape" etc.
Define rape. Define murder. Define adultery. Do so in the context of 2345BC..... 145 AD....... 1456AD ......2003AD . Do so in the context of Carthage...of Mali....of China ...of Saudi Arabia ...of Palestine....of the Intuit Territories ...of Kansas City....in each of those time periods.
When you find an absolute - call me.
>It's also true to say that the
>idea of morals constitutes an absolute imperative to do the right thing
Define the "right thing" in the context of 5 historical periods spanning at least 5000 years and in all 4 corners of the world. Report back.
>and -
>sadly - we live in a world where we are often presented with a choice that
>is simply between the lesser of two evils.
While this may or may not be true, it has nothing to do with whether any given action is innately immoral or moral throughout all times among all peoples living in all places.
>Time, society, circumstance, history and an individual perception alters
>which of the two evils we consider the lesser to be. So, maybe 'morality'
>doesn't change, but the extent to which we perceive an action to be
>honourable or moral does.
Again...you presuppose some "correct" action that we then choose or don't choose to take based on who and where and when we are. I say there is no "correct action" that exists independently of time, place and culture.
Wendy(I belive it's immoral to vote Republican.)(I consider this innate since my parents feel the same way.)(As did my grandparents.)(This, therefore, must be a truly moral stance.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:26:08 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Jette:
>> the Romans did consider suicide to be
>> the *moral* choice when faced with disgrace
Dotiran:
>Just because the Romans "considered" it such doesn't make it right :)
Well, technically speaking..yes it did. It was both "moral" and "right" under the Roman law and religion.
>But of course, your signature line ["Organised religion is a disease..."]
>betrays the real reason we will not see eye to eye on this. My own
>signature line in this argument would probably be "apart from religion the observance of
>the moral law is impossible."
Ah...I see the light <g>
What you really mean to say is that anyone who does not subscribe to the religious tenets that *you* subscribe to is immoral. You are defining "morality" by your own religious beliefs and judging all people for all time against those religious beliefs. That's kind of narrow minded, isn't it? And it demonstrates a real lack of understanding of world history.
If 50% of the world's population belong to Religion Y and declare that square dancing is immoral and the other 50% of the world's population belongs to Religion Z and declare that square dancing is the pathway to God.. .which action - square dancing or not square dancing - is moral? Explain.
Wendy(It's a trick question - square dancing is absolutely evil.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:37:07 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Okay, my $0.02 since I can't resist jumping into this one:
Many good points made, especially on the changing nature of morality. By
its very definition, morality is decided by society. Society changes, and
so do morals, as Jette so eloquently pointed out.
But I understand what Dotiran is trying to say, although I think what she
is touching on "ethics." While the terms "ethics" and "morals" are used
synonymously, morals are dictated by society; ethics are dictated by
oneself. Throughout history most people behave as though they know they
are doing the "right" thing, only to find out a thousand years later that
they ended up doing the "wrong" thing. Presence or absence of religion
does not completely overcome human nature.
For example, society's morals tells me it is wrong for me steal someone's
money (a morality which has been around in one form or another for a long
time...conquering another nation and plundering it for its riches did not
fall into that category for most of history, but I digress). However, my
ethics tell me that it is wrong to steal someone's money because (a) that
person likely worked for the money and deserves it, (b) that person would
be hurt in some form by losing that money. Note that fear of punishment
(e.g. jail) does not come into the ethical point of view.
Another example, to expand upon Jette's example: a woman can legally
remove her burkha in Afghanistan. Her society's morals dictate that doing
so is wrong. However, the woman might feel that her burkha represents
oppression of women, and she feels that men and women should be treated
equally. Her ethics dictate that removing her burkha is correct.
A third example: the death penalty in some places in the US is legal under
certain circumstances. Is it ethically wrong? Depends on your views. Is
it morally wrong? Depends on society, and possibly even where you come from.
However, even ethics can change over time. Talk to World War II veterans
on how they felt about the War during their time of service, and how they
feel now about their involvement in it. The answers some of them give you
may be surprising.
To bring my argument on topic, Immortals by their very nature cannot afford
to subscribe to immutable morals. What Methos was taught growing up as a
child is probably largely irrelevant in today's society. Methos' only
immutable ethic was survival; everything else he believed in served that
ethic. Today he may not like the person(s) that he used to be ("One of a
thousand regrets, MacLeod...") but that doesn't mean that "way back then"
he didn't feel it was right to murder, enslave, pillage,
what-have-you. While Immortals live by their own ethics ("In the end,
there can be only one" being the best example), they have to adopt whatever
the current society's morals are in order to avoid being outcast or worse.
And while we're on the original topic of this thread, I somewhat disagree
with something Sandy said in regard to Immortals letting each other live in
peace:
"There may be a lot of them who would like to stop the fighting, lay down
their swords, and let all immies live peacefully. But it must be something
agreed to by *all* all them, or it won't work for *any* of them. And it's
impossible to get them all to agree, especially since no one knows how many
there are, who they are, or where they are."
I don't believe this is *completely* true. A group of Immortals could
agree to be pacifists unless they were first attacked, and then would agree
to kill any (outside) Immortal who attacked any one of their
number. Furthermore, they could agree that if one of their number was
subsequently killed by an Immortal outside their group, they would hunt
down the initial attacker. Any fledgling "pre-Immortals" that members of
this group come across would be likewise taught this philosophy, perhaps
adding the caveat that while the "last Immortal standing would get
something, this is really just a myth passed down through the
centuries." Better yet, this group could actively hunt Immortals that "do"
kill other Immortals (other than each other, of course). Of course that
would be completely antithetic to their pacifistic views. Just means they
can't be pacifists immediately.
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Believes That Religion Was Invented To Keep The Poor From Killing
The Rich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:43:30 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 3:05:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> For example, it may be moral to smoke cannabis, especially
> if one suffers from glaucoma or multiple sceloris, but it
> isn't *legal*, in most parts of the world. (though that is
> changing) It is the only treatment that gives relief from
> the condition - and it only became *illegal* half way
> through the last century - before that it was legal AND
> moral.
>
Who says it is moral to smoke cannabis? No one I've ever heard and I still
think that the definition of "moral" is being misused/misunderstood here.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:46:41 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 3:54:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
diamonique@comcast.net writes:
> Morality is *not* set in stone and is *not* the same for everyone... never
> has been.
>
That is where I strongly disagree with your whole argument. Morality IS set
in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change for
different peoples.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:49:19 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 4:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> Time, society, circumstance, history and an individual perception alters
> which of the two evils we consider the lesser to be. So, maybe 'morality'
> doesn't change, but the extent to which we perceive an action to be
> honourable or moral does.
>
Very well said John. Maybe this thread should be about the "perception" of
what people consider moral or immoral, NOT what IS or IS NOT moral. Morality
is what it is and is not wavering. It is only the perception of the people
that make it look different to others.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:50:25 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 4:17:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
> Because a culture or society deems something "moral" does not mean it is.
> In
> fact, you are using the wrong word to even discuss cultural differences. The
> word you are looking for is "mores" and they do change.
>
AMEN! Exactly what I was trying to say.
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:52:41 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 4:26:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> "Organised religion is a disease and the most dangerous symptom is that
> those suffering from it believe that infecting others is a Good Thing"
>
I'm sorry to hear that....... :( (I like being infectious about
somethings!)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:54:10 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 4:29:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jette@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
> Oh, you mean you lost that argument too? Sorry to bring back such
> bad memories for you.
>
Who lost what? Was something lost? OK, tell me what it looked like and I'll
try to find it! Hey is there a reward?
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:56:52 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 5:08:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tmar@sifl.iid.co.za writes:
> It's quite an interesting topic.
>
>
:)
As long as we remember to play fair and no stone throwing; by the way, stone
throwing is a "practice" and is not a question of morality - now killing
someone with a stone would be a moral issue....
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:03:13 -0400
From: L Cameron-Norfleet <cgliser@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Dawn said:
>That is where I strongly disagree with your whole argument. Morality IS set
>in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change for
>different peoples.
As much as I really, truly hate to agree with Wendy, the dictionary
defines "morality" as follows:
mo·ral·i·ty
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious
morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
The phrases "in accord with standards" and "a system of ideas"
clearly indicate that morality is defined by cultural means. And, as
we all know, cultures evolve, change, and take left turns from time
to time.
I do not agree with Mme. Weezul (as she challenges John to essay
questions) when it comes to the assumption that certain actions are
acceptable according to the cultural mores of the times. Rape, for
example, will ALWAYS be wrong in my book, no matter the time or
place. There are, in my book, actions that aren't ever
acceptable--though my list is probably shorter and greyer than most.
I'm *still* having trouble reconciling Broze Age Methos and Adam
Pierson, though. Talk about turning cultural relativism and morality
on its ear...
Liser
--
--
L Cameron-Norfleet ** cgliser@earthlink.net
"I find tongues in trees, books in running brooks,
sermons in stones, and good in everything." Shakespeare: As You Like It
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:01:29 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
In a message dated 7/6/2003 7:20:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> When you find an absolute - call me.
>
>
Can't do that or else I'll get kicked off this list; and I sooo love this
list - have for at least, hummmmmm 4 or more years now!
USTADAWN
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 19:58:16 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 07:49 PM 7/6/2003, Dawn Lehman wrote:
>>Morality is what it is and is not wavering. It is only the perception
of the people that make it look different to others.
Then if what you say is true, who or what made the decision as to what is
and is not moral for all human beings everywhere for all time?
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:02:33 -0400
From: Sandy Fields <diamonique@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
At 10:37 PM 7/6/2003, Gregory Mate wrote:
>And while we're on the original topic of this thread, I somewhat disagree
>with something Sandy said in regard to Immortals letting each other live in
>peace:
>
>"There may be a lot of them who would like to stop the fighting, lay down
>their swords, and let all immies live peacefully. But it must be something
>agreed to by *all* all them, or it won't work for *any* of them. And it's
>impossible to get them all to agree, especially since no one knows how many
>there are, who they are, or where they are."
>
>I don't believe this is *completely* true. A group of Immortals could
>agree to be pacifists unless they were first attacked, and then would agree
>to kill any (outside) Immortal who attacked any one of their
>number.<snip>
You just proved my point. If the laying down of swords is not agreed to
and adhered to by *all* immortals, then they *all* will be drawn into the
game at some time or another.
-- Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:13:39 EDT
From: Dawn Lehman <USTADAWN@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
> >But of course, your signature line ["Organised religion is a disease..."]
> >betrays the real reason we will not see eye to eye on this. My own
> >signature line in this argument would probably be "apart from religion the
> observance of
> >the moral law is impossible."
>
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> Ah...I see the light <g>
>
> What you really mean to say is that anyone who does not subscribe to the
> religious tenets that *you* subscribe to is immoral. You are defining "morality"
> by your own religious beliefs and judging all people for all time against
> those religious beliefs. That's kind of narrow minded, isn't it? And it
> demonstrates a real lack of understanding of world history.
>
Although I am not the originator of the first statement, I don't think that
is what was meant at all.
I think that the real meaning behind the statement was that some people tend
to shut out all possible explainations for issues simply because people hold
different beliefs other than ones own. These same people then get defensive
about the differences and fail to engage in a civil debate without malice.
Of course, this is JMHO.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 20:26:49 -0400
From: Morgan <morrigan13@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Immortal moral choices
Sandy:
>> Morality is *not* set in stone and is *not* the same for everyone... never
>> has been.
Dawn:
>What is where I strongly disagree with your whole argument. Morality IS set
>in stone and IS a fundamental aspect of all humans that does NOT change for
>different peoples.
I've been following this thread with interest, and I'm wondering what
exactly is your:
A) definition of "moral", and
B) explication of this morality that "is set in stone and is a fundamental
aspect of all humans"
I'm sure I've missed something. I had thought myself a fairly
well-educated person (raised Protestant Christian with plenty of Sunday
School and well-read in other major religions and others considered
not-so-major), but I have not run across a "fundamental" morality. Would
you be so kind as to explain the code of morality that is universal to all
humans? The one that is "set in stone"??
Thanks!
Morgan
morrigan13@earthlink.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 6 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-138)
***************************************************************