Burning Giraffe

Well, I pretty much reject all moral systems as being utterly idealistic and the unfortunate after birth of Rationalism (See Plato, Augustine, and Kant). Trying to apply moral absolutes to your life takes the thought out of living, whereas Honor and Virtue requires a great deal of consideration of each specific situation. Each act exists in relation to the situation and each situation is peculiar to the parties and environment involved. Trying to apply moral principles essentially removes the humanity from being human.

Advertising

Desidude666

Rationalism rests on reason, that is the key to understanding the process of action. How can you reject a system (see Categorical Imperative) that is universal in application just because you, despite trying to study Kant, think it is not right in application? What I've read thus far is that you've tried to converge personal qualities with social norms that's a, according to my understanding, a major flaw in what you've written.

Of course, you could try and further prove your stance with more arguments though...

@ res:

Animals, human or otherwise, do not fornicate all over the place by 'exchanging' males and females of tribes. Darwinian theory suggests that the fittest male will be chosen by the female for reproduction, so in a tribe, we will have a good number of pre-historic human beings dying with offspring. Of course, with mating rituals, we tend to differentiate ourselves until recently, where a good percentage of evolved human beings have rejected the idea of ritualized mating processes, are we going backwards...? It does make me think.

We, neither do the animals, have ever treated fornication as an aspect of social normalcy prior to modern times. Even the animals have to compete to procreate - if you want to understand how it worked, the animal kingdom offers a good view to how we may have been in the past.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Burning Giraffe

Kant's entire moral philosophy was based on non-reason, or what he calls "pure reason". Plato imagined his moral understanding from a magical ideal called "The Form". Augustine believed morality came directly from the mind of God into the Mind of Man. These are unreasonable and subjective foundations for "moral" action.

Honor systems, on the other hand, are typically relative to cultures. Of course, in America, there is no dominant cultural standard. Instead, there is a slew of weak ideals being mixed and manufactured into various ethical conglomerates applying, typically, Rationalist principles to human behavior. Our society and European Society are excellent examples of the consequences of these sorts of intellectual errors.

A series of competing honor systems based on desired goals for ethical behavior would encourage more ethical consistency because honor systems require a constant state of critical, rational thought and consideration. One must always know what one is trying to achieve by acting in a particular way and upon what values those achievements rest.

Gender Roles are based on Honor Codes and exist (and have existed) for a purpose. I'm not purposing that the honor codes of the future reflect the honor codes of the past. To the contrary, I think we need to develop new honor codes predicated upon current circumstances and needs. But the virtues I've outlined as prioritized for the masculine and the feminine respectively, are intended to strengthen relationships between men and women, and therefore strengthen families and communities, and society as whole.

caffeine

Actually, our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom do fornicate all over the place, and they tend to exchange females between groups; who establish close relations with the females in their new group by a bit of muff-rubbing.

The above from Scientific American, available online here. Emphasis mine. Any claims about how any human society was structured prior to a few thousand years ago are highly speculative, but bonobos clearly establish that casual, regular fornication as a basic part of social interactions isn't unknown in animal world.

Desidude666

There is a system of dominion in a social group, no matter the form of animal, this system decides who mates with whom. If you think enclosing a flange of whoop of gorillas/chimps in a cage and then disrupting their natural habits on mating is right, then it is not. Its normal as how infanticide is commonly practiced over someone else's offspring.

In that case, I would refer you to here:

Mating system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Large human brains evolution may be due to mating competition | Evolution Diary

Competition exists... even in the level of the sperm, it's proven. In natural settings, competition exists at both macro and micro level, in almost all levels of biological existence.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

caffeine

And....? I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me here. Note that the link you referred me to includes, as one of the mating systems generally recognised in animals:

• Promiscuity: Any male within the social group mates with any female.

Desidude666

I have read his critique of reason, and he tends to argue against reason of existence. His argument was more on the 'natural' reasons than common individual or social reasons that act as benchmarks for society. The fundamental differences in our understanding of his differences are that you seem to think that his argument was for universal reason, while I think it is for 'natural' reasons, these encompass a sense of 'automation' in the paradigm of existence and why things are as they seem to be. In fact, Kant has actually endorsed societal 'reasoned' control, it's pretty much the evidence in his Categorical Imperative.

He was deeply influenced by the likes of Hume, who were empiricists. Looking at evidence and empirical data for anything, and if you do believe in empirical data, you are looking for a individual reason to belief. Not 'natural' reason but empirical evidence to reason.

If you think that social trends are influenced by profit-motivated corporates, you have a certain degree of understanding on the matter aligned to mine, but then, the extent of this understanding differs greatly as the social choice of actually electing to be influenced is our own. That said, the social and commercial units have their parts to play and it acts as mechanisms that assist each other on the area of function and existence. When you claim manufactured ethics, I don't agree with you. Certain ethical issues have been around since civilization, and they are, at least, at individual desired qualities such as honour, that you've been highlighting. When you cross the social system with the personal behavioural traits then you have a radical assessment framework because it's perfection that you require. It's like looking for a beautiful girl who has tree eyes, she doesn't exist.

Again, do not mistake personal traits and models with social moral mechanisms. Honour is a personal trait. If a person isn't honourable, he isn't held out as a person who isn't moral. If you are immoral and cheat someone out of a couple of millions, in our system, this is termed explicitly immoral and you are held accountable. But if you do not honour a promise to a child, are you still held accountable? No, but it's obvious you aren't honourable. When it comes to your personal level, you are *not* accountable to *anyone*. However, in the public space, if you affect someone else, then the moral question arises. You can easily lie your way individually, but when your lies start affecting millions of people, then it's a different story, and this is where the central moral mechanisms protect our *general* interest.

If you face social implications that result in prejudice and discrimination, you are more likely look at legal steps to stop these processes, since in Tort Law, there's an obvious and direct linkage of protecting certain 'rights' against immoral or judged immoral processes. Now if you are given those rights, it's obvious that others would be given those rights as well, this is a sense of moral obligation to us all. That is where society needs a say on the rules and ethical moral issues that are the benchmark to behaviour.

Now when I say it's behaviour, it doesn't mean that it also encompasses at the individual level but rather, your behaviour at this level that affects the social sphere in *general*. You aren't charged for walking naked at home or in front of your wife, but will be charged if you expose yourself deliberately to someone outside you personal space. Is it right?

If it is right, you agree to my point, if you don't, would you want some eccentric person exposing himself/herself to you and/or your family? For me, it's obvious, no.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666

It's funny you should say this, but mating is two-way process. Males will mate with any female in the animal kingdom (usually of the same kind) I've even seen a documentary where an elephant attempts to mate with a rhino - that said, the resistance and the choosing process lies with the female. Only the fittest male will be elected, which assures species survival. The process involves in various rituals and processes that best demonstrate the male's 'dominion' to the female and that his gene pool is the best for her offspring.

The point I am disagreeing with is the part where the mating process seems to be suggested as indiscriminate. Considering my understanding thus far, the process of competition in mating and procreation starts at the micro-level and then extends outside in the macro environment. In short, there is no time, in any environment, at any time and at any point of growth stage for any life form that it doesn't need to compete.

You compete as a micro organism and then have to extend your battling endeavours to the macro level. Whether you consider mating or not, in general, competition always exists, no matter which stage of existence you are at.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven