miriku.com

Tagged: morality RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  .e 4:04 am on April 9, 2010 Permalink
  Tags: language ( 3 ), morality   

  the grammar of morality 

  this one is kinda weird, hang with me.

  think about how you know grammar rules. the weird ones in english. things like how “you oughtn’t do that” looks right, but “you ought’nt do that” doesn’t. there are rules, lots of them, but that’s not how you learned is it? you just know that some things are right just by looking at them, and some things are not. it’s instant, and often hard to explain people who are still learning english.

  now, consider the possibility that morality works in the same way as language: absorbed at a formative age by what we see in others, with rules being created later to explain our own reactions to ourselves. note that when you see something that requires a moral judgement, you don’t consult a rulebook, but instead know. even in ambiguous situations, our response isn’t to start following a logical process and try and resolve it, but usually to freeze and be not sure what to do.

  what if all our rules for morality, all the religious, philosophical, societal, etc ponderings are all just navel gazing of the “is it ok to split an infinitive” type? what if we already know the answers based on what feels right to us, and instead just argue because black-and-white rules make us feel more comfortable with ourselves?

  ambiguity is scary, and so is the idea that everything holding our societies together might not actually be imposed by laws, gods, or anything of the sort, and the moral failings of others are as mutable as their desire to spell ‘you’ as ‘u’

  .e, and Gene are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Gene 4:29 am on April 9, 2010 Permalink

    I do like to think there are principals behind my morals. Like, say The Golden Rule, or Work Shall Set You Free. They have to flex a lot, but mostly they are there. The principles are fair game too, but they help me feel less arbitrary as I go along. And the apostrophe replaces the removed vowel, so I always know where it goes.

  • 

    .e 4:32 am on April 9, 2010 Permalink

    It’s possible, but it’s also possible that the principals were created afterwards to explain to us why we feel good when helping others, and feel bad if we hurt them for our own profit.
• 

  .e 8:54 pm on January 22, 2010 Permalink
  Tags: cats ( 2 ), morality, pets   

  dark cats 

  i don’t think cats are capable of understanding right and wrong in the way we anthropomorphize them to be able to. i doubt dogs are too, but i’ve spent much less time with them.

  we often say things like “he knows he shouldn’t be up there” or “he knows he shouldn’t do that” after catching the cat sneaking into some place we don’t want him to be, and that word choice implies that the cat is doing something consciously immoral. however, it’s probably more accurate to say “he knows that if i see him up there i’ll forcibly remove him / squirt water at him”. the cat isn’t aware of the right/wrong of his actions, just that he needs to weight the pros and cons of this action against the risk of you getting out bed, walking over, and squirting him with water

  btw, this is totally hypothetical and not at all related to loki waiting until i turn off the reading light before leaving the room and jumping up on the kitchen counter.