The amorality of badness

[AiA in Atlanta]

Morality and amorality of goodness and badness respectively is a lot like a sentence... There is the actor, the action and that which is being acted upon. The first consideration of morality is to decide what is being acted upon.

Wouldn't "to decide" first need someone wise enough to recognize his intent and to take full responsibility?

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

So you are saying that self-awareness is secondary or maybe even not necessary at all? Or are you saying that it takes awareness to know what is acted upon?

[boxy]

That is, their poor work ethic is threatening my employment by threatening the viability of my work unit. The collectivist argument that Boxy made ties in here. In this regard perhaps morals are simply a matter of reciprocating that which you wish for in others. "Do as you would be done by?", or again, is that simply echoing the non-Christian but yeah lets face it eavily influenced by Christian upbringing I had?

Isn't the "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" ethic simply a formalisation of our natural empathetic tendencies?

"Bad" people tend not to relate to their victims, don't see them as worthy of consideration.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

So you are saying that self-awareness is secondary or maybe even not necessary at all? Or are you saying that it takes awareness to know what is acted upon?

No, I'm saying that before you can make a moral judgement, you must first decide if a moral or amoral action has occurred.

[AiA in Atlanta]

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

So you are saying that self-awareness is secondary or maybe even not necessary at all? Or are you saying that it takes awareness to know what is acted upon?

No, I'm saying that before you can make a moral judgement, you must first decide if a moral or amoral action has occurred.

Okay. Yet that decision needs more self-awareness than the average person has.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

double post

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

No, I'm saying that before you can make a moral judgement, you must first decide if a moral or amoral action has occurred.

Okay. Yet that decision needs more self-awareness than the average person has.

Yes. And that awareness should be derived from knowledge born of moral education.

Neither of us are saying that the average person is incapable of moral awareness, just that they haven't been taught. Over the past few decades there has been an mass exodus from religion across western nations. WASPS are no longer vogue.

That means people aren't getting their weekly dose of moral education, which has been the traditional place of teaching morality to the masses for centuries. But there has been nothing to take its place... and it only takes a couple of generations for a society to loose social knowledge.

The moral life is necessary for civilizations to thrive and survive. Perhaps it's time to teach secular morality in our schools.

[Outlaw Yogi]

If you can't be good, be good at it.

[Super Nova]

Isn't bad the new good.

[boxy]

No, I'm saying that before you can make a moral judgement, you must first decide if a moral or amoral action has occurred.

Okay. Yet that decision needs more self-awareness than the average person has.

Yes. And that awareness should be derived from knowledge born of moral education.

Neither of us are saying that the average person is incapable of moral awareness, just that they haven't been taught. Over the past few decades there has been an mass exodus from religion across western nations. WASPS are no longer vogue.

That means people aren't getting their weekly dose of moral education, which has been the traditional place of teaching morality to the masses for centuries. But there has been nothing to take its place... and it only takes a couple of generations for a society to loose social knowledge.

The moral life is necessary for civilizations to thrive and survive. Perhaps it's time to teach secular morality in our schools.

I don't think the problem is mainly due to a reduction in religious indoctrination, but rather the fact that we have moved into a society where you don't know your neighbour. It used to be that we lived in small to medium sized communities, where everyone knew of any "immoral acts" that you perpetrated. Now we live in mega cities, consisting of millions of others. It's far to easy to hide your immorality when you can just screw people over, and then move on to a fresh start with a whole new set of suckers.

[Neferti]

I don't think the problem is mainly due to a reduction in religious indoctrination, but rather the fact that we have moved into a society where you don't know your neighbour. It used to be that we lived in small to medium sized communities, where everyone knew of any "immoral acts" that you perpetrated. Now we live in mega cities, consisting of millions of others. It's far to easy to hide your immorality when you can just screw people over, and then move on to a fresh start with a whole new set of suckers.