On the priority ordering of values

[ultimatepsi]

A few different thought streams just merged in my head, and I'd like to share.

Comments

[mariaklob]

Hmm. If I were to make up an ordered list of the top values I consider moral

[mariaklob]

I don't particularly value respect for authority, but I hold contracts sacred. (See: honesty.) And to be a citizen of a place is to enter into a contract with that place. You're obligated to uphold all laws that are not egregiously unjust and harmful. In the end, one's own careful judgment wins; but you had better think twice before flouting rules that you agreed to live under when you got to benefit from a group or society.

[ultimatepsi]

I like your list of values. Thank you for sharing them.

[endlessgame]

That'd be an advantage of countries being smaller, but larger in number:
Big countries, alliances and international unions mean fewer options as to what contract you can choose. And there are no longer enough unexplored Terran terrains for those who want to strike out and create their own contract.
I mean, I guess people like that could pull a Galt's Gulch... But that's rather unrealistic for most people, especially given countries' normal takes on secession.
It'll probably happen more often once we start inhabiting new worlds, though.

[oneagain]

I'm not sure giving money to beggars is irresponsible; to the contrary, it is someone accepting some responsibility to help people in need, to whatever small degree.

[ultimatepsi]

A valid point. What I was trying to say is that some people would argue that by giving a handout you're encouraging irresponsible behavior.

[oneagain]

May those who would argue that be inflicted with the very special mental illness/poverty/hideous life circumstances that the homeless have to deal with until they get a clue.

Forgive the harsh, this is a trigger point for me as I used to be homeless.

[ultimatepsi]

*hugs*

[sirroxton]

I appreciate your pluralism of principles. Let me just add something.

These are important concepts to discuss. But one thing I worry about is the propensity to codify one's moral view in an attempt to gain asylum from the moral weight of one's decisions. "I'm just following orders, granted, I issued them." It's important to feel that weight. One place this is particularly important in regard to preserving the status quo. This is where Gödel kicks you in the ass -- inaction falls under the moral sphere. A codified set of rules can inspire action, but not creatively, and sometimes creative action is the most important. A code of rules relegates us to the role of social critic instead of social architect.

Totally not accusing you of this. These exercises are important from an exploratory perspective, but they have real limits.

[mariaklob]

I do believe you've mentioned this caveat before

[sirroxton]

A given framework may apply in a given situation, but so will a multiplicity of others. Selecting a framework because it's useful and familiar is an insidious form of confirmation bias. A moral choice consists of having a respectful cognizance of the multiplicity of frameworks, selecting one, and living with the consequences. As adults, we can cultivate cognitive dissonance and become connoisseurs of multiplicity

[sirroxton]

Let me clarify my last point. Just because my comment addresses the least favorable possible interpretation of your comment does not mean that I think you espouse such an interpretation. I swear I'm not a total jackass. I'm just bad at not sounding like one. =)

[mystick358]

It's not easy to have a perfect set of morals that you always adhere to. There's always a more complex situation just around the corner. Passing judgement on two abstract people is one thing, but when a problem is directly affecting you, you might find your morality isn't as concrete as you think it may be.

The problem becomes when the line between morality and the law becomes blurred. If the government passes a law that you think is unjust, is it your right to defy it?

[marmota]

The problem with expressing it that way is that right and wrong become defined merely by personal inclination, essentially creating 5 billion independently crafted cultures. Worse, there is no inherent framework or mechanism to enforce or discourage whether those personally chosen values actually create positive results, because most people lack the self control to define as wrong things that they enjoy doing even when they're aware of negative consequences (and frankly, many actively avoid considering consequences at all, or just don't care if it only affects other people).

[ultimatepsi]

I'm not sure I can even list the number of ways you are missing my point entirely. Let me try and get the main ones.

1) Whether it is good or not, people *do* have individual personal morals and ethics.

2) The main point of my essay was to give people a way of discussing differences, which shouldn't imply that I think all values are equal. (I don't. Mostly, I think mine are better, and that's why I hold them.) But if we can't discuss our difference we can't tell the when they are large differences and when they are small.