Moral question

Suppose I'd buy him back the item for 50 and then watch the silly ass sell it for a fiver. In wine, poetry or virtue, as you wish, but enivrez-vous! The art is to be absolutely yourself -Charles Baudelaire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmhEMPN7y1I

There again little capacity for the consideraton of morality.Are the people who contribute to these forums particulary facetious? I would have thought that writing has to touch on a truth somewhere or it moves no one.

If Jack is truly repentant he should admit to John that he has stolen the item and sold it for £50 and ask John to consider what form his penitence should take. In most societies council of some kind usually considers such matters because Jack might simply be able to unduly influence John, whereas a council or court should, (in theory,) be able to administer justice. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Its just like a knocker who defrauds old ladies of treasures with"it isn't worth much but I'll take it off your hands."If he just bought it knowing it was worth a lot more he should return the full fifty.If adding to that he actually stole it he needs to make some other restitution as well.Perhaps by some charitable actions or the giving up of something he himself values to remind himself about the importance of honesty.It sounds a bit like the sort of sharp dealings an adolescent might perpetrate.I'm sure Jacks attitude would make him a heavy hitter in some jobs that require er moral flexibility,but he really needs to know the difference.

Knowledge of wrong and evil goes to the heart of moral philosophy. In Plato's dialogues (Meno 77e) Socrates says "So it's clear then, that these are not the ones who desire the bad things - those who are ignorant of them - but they desire rather those things which they supposed to be good but are in fact bad." The difficulty, as I understand it, is that if one such as Adolf Hitler believed in the superiority of a Master Race and the subjugation of the whole world was a good thing. Then he would not see that those things were in fact bad. And, (as far as I can understand what Socrates is saying,) if Hitler realised that his course of action was in fact bad rather than good, he wouldn't undertake it. He would undertake a better course of action. Personally I think this rather noble view of mankind is not correct. I think when Hitler knew that the war was lost he continued to fight knowing what destruction it would cause. So I believe that people do bad actions quite securely in the knowledge that what they're doing is bad. I think it's a shame but it's true. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Oooer PJ knockers and old ladies! I'm going to have to lie down now.

Hume was a stickler for details, wasn't he? - as all the Empiricists after him have been. And in his Treatise of Human Nature he complains that thinkers jump from observing what is to supposing what ought to be. And Hume says that's not allowed. I think later thinkers developed Hume's principle into the argument that morality comes from feelings. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Yes because Jack then squares his conscience and is able to profit from a lucky find or a knowledgeable one.It seems to be quite different from deliberately misleading an individual. I think morality comes from feeling which I think is often currently underepresented in the application of law.

I don't know how you can compare the two either. We can blame Hume for that again! It was he who introduced the notion of 'utility' in Part Three of his Treatise of Morals. Bentham and Mill copied him! Of all the philosophers I like Hume the most, (by far,) and Mill among the least, well, excluding all of the existentialists. And on moral philosophy in general, it still concerns me that Socrates should have thought wrongdoing stemmed from the miscreant's mistaking of evil or harm with goodness. I'd have thought he'd have come across his fair share of 'wrong-uns.' My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"...among the least, well, excluding all of the existentialists." Existentialism isn't philosophy, really. Enzo.. http://nano07.wordpress.com/

Personally, I think Philosophy can easily run away with itself into Existentialism, Post-Structuralism and Heaven knows what all else! But, having said that, Aristotle's Politics laid the foundations for political classifications. Plato's dialogues are a starting point for studies in Ethics. You'll see medical law is founded on principles of ethics as defined even today by ethicists. It's an ongoing discipline. Hume and the Empiricists founded a method of enquiry which fought against Rationalism led by Descartes, and points towards the heart of scientific measurement and observation. (Of course Bacon and Newton predate him. But Hume makes a valuable contribution to the nature of enquiry.) So personally, I'd say that not all philosophers are founders of great things. But some are. And they're rightfully remembered for the contributions that they've made. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Science, scientific measurement, rationality... all great things, but not top of the tree by any stretch. Science can't help Jack! Enzo.. http://nano07.wordpress.com/

Science can't help Jack, no! But thinking can! I'd suggest that our Jack has been a bit of a thoughtless chap. And if he's taken something that he shouldn't have and then regretted it, well, he should confess and seek forgiveness and absolution. Repentance is not a new phenomenon. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Agree with you there. This Jack character sounds like an idiot. Enzo.. http://nano07.wordpress.com/

Yes! An interpretation of Socrates' dictum: "they desire rather those things which they supposed to be good but are in fact bad," might suggest that miscreants, like Jack, are merely thoughtless. However, successful genocides, brutes and sadists such as Timurlane and Genghis Khan turned evil into an extraordinarily prosperous and successful art form. Perhaps those Mongols would have dismissed Socrates saying: "the miscreants that the great Greek Philosopher was referring to simply aren't doing it right!" My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"The Sunday Philosophy Club" series by Alexander McCall Smith is charming.The heroine edits a Journal of Philosophy or Applied Philosphy and ponders right and wrong all the time.

At the point where the matter of morals becomes truly philosophical I think one has to ask from what point of view can even philosophy or its philosophers judge? Nietzsche realised this long before we have done and he claimed that Philosophy itself must take a stand beyond Good and Evil. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I think Nietzsche pondered the place and even characterization of good and evil in comtemporary life where "If God is dead, everything is permitted" so, religion as a governor on ethics and morals and goodness disappears and we are left with only free will. Free will is a big Nietzsche and Christian concept. Beyond Good and Evil was his transcendant-like replacement for religion and the God idea, to yeild the modern superman. A very misinterpreted notion. I'm interested that Jack does have a pang of conscience after all, so it's a matter of the degree of restitution. How guilty does he feel? He's not a "bad" person after all. He will repent. How much? The others mentioned above have no such conscience occur to them, a criminal mentality, they are not beyond evil in the Nietzsche view.

Not only did Nietzsche say that "God is dead." He said that "We have killed him." But Nietzsche saw Christianity, God and Society's restrictions as part of the old way, (the way before Science.) And he believed that it was through the knowledge of natural science that man would "Overcome" what had hitherto been regarded as his nature. This is why he writes of life as an "experiment for the seeker of knowledge" My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"Not only did Nietzsche say that "God is dead." He said that "We have killed him." But Nietzsche saw Christianity, God and Society's restrictions as part of the old way, (the way before Science.) And he believed that it was through the knowledge of natural science that man would "Overcome" what had hitherto been regarded as his nature. This is why he writes of life as an "experiment for the seeker of knowledge"" Nonsense.

The argument is put forward by Edward Andrew in the Journal of Political Theory Vol 3 1975 If you don't like it, I suggest that you take the matter up with him! Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Although I am sure we've had enough of Herr Nietzsche, you have reminded me that overcoming was also a big theme of his. The primary thing Nietzsche claimed we had to overcome was our parents. Here is a good Nietzsche & Christianity essay: http://goinside.com/00/6/nietzsche.html I pasted the ending below, it's a concise feat of logic: In 1888, Nietzsche turned mad, because of the effects of syphilis. Since then he was dependent of his sister and mother. Ironically, Nietzsche became absolutely dependent on empathy and love -- the cardinal virtues of Christianity. In 1900 Nietzsche died. God could ascertain that Nietzsche was dead.

Overcoming is precisely right. And it was Shaw's 1903 characterisation of the Übermensch as Superman, rather than the more correct "Overman" that gave rise to so much misunderstanding of Nietzsche's work. And scholars, such as Walter Kaufmann, have spent their whole lives pointing this out and setting the record straight. "Overcoming" is indeed a central Nietzschean philosophy. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

The first thing you said about Nietzsche was a misinterpretation, Pat, and was politely corrected by Dendrite. The second was a poor interpretation - the man clearly never 'writes of [sic] life' as anything, he spent a lifetime trying to grapple with it - and the third is seemingly a random result of a Google search. (Nothing wrong with Google searching, btw, just better when the result is meaningful to the discussion.) Not to mention the fact you seem to end up defending the man, having stated earlier that you hold existentialists as the worst philosophers (or words to that effect). Dendrite's right though... I'm sure everyone's had enough... not that there's that much else going on here at the moment anyway... Enzo.. http://nano07.wordpress.com/

Reads like Nietzsche writing about life to me! lol Perhaps you can't read! Never mind! There are always adult learning classes. From Nietzsche's The Gay Science, (trans. W. Kaufmann), s. 324 "No, life has not disappointed me. On the contrary, I find it truer, more desirable and mysterious every year -- ever since the day when the great liberator came to me: the idea that life could be an experiment of the seeker for knowledge -- and not a duty, not a calamity, not trickery." - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), The Gay Science (1882) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

How on earth that quote demonstrates Nietzsche 'writes-of' life as anything I don't know. Sounds like he values it quite highly to me. And save the playground insults for someone who gives a fuck. I'll leave it there. Enzo.. http://nano07.wordpress.com/

Your nonsensical reply of 'nonsense' to an argument proposed in a journal is hardly grown-up! lol He who casts the first stone and all that... Incidentally: writes of = writes of (not writes off, which means something else.) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I still want to know if John gets compensated? I could do with some extra dosh at the moment...

Assuming that John and Jack began as friends: What possible compensation could there be for having been betrayed by a friend? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Well in this case, we are talking about some kind of un written rules that exist between friends? In my view, we are not born with a sense of morality. Morality is something that is handed down to us and is of Social construct. But that's just my view. As for the friend equation? Who Say's that a person can't profit from another's ignorances? It happens all the time in all sort of social relationships.. I think their is a world of difference between friendship and the concept of morality..

Wow! JRC The simplest answer to that one is do to other people what you would have them do to you. In the specifics: (a) Born with morality? No; we learn right and wrong from parents, teachers and members of our communities who explain things to us. A social construct? Yes. (b) Profit from ignorance? A professional person offers services to laypeople in return for a fee. That's profiting from ignorance. But it's not the same as deceiving a friend though. (c) Friendship is a bond that includes trust. And morality is a code. They're not the same. No, you're right. - My question then is how can someone be compensated for the loss of trust which occurs when a friend betrays them? I think the answer is they cannot be compensated for it. Betrayal is a great hardship, I believe. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

'Betrayal is a great hardship' Agreed patmac. But in this sence... Did Jack betray John? And if so, Would john not firstly need to be implicit about what he would consider to be a betrayal of that friendship? I'm not sure on this one..:-)

If Jack and John were friends then: As a friend Jack had a duty to be honest and loyal to John, (according to my understanding of the bonds of friendship.) Jack failed in his duty to John and abused his trust in that he stole from him. And insofar as he was disloyal and dishonest in his trust towards John, Jack betrayed him. This I deduce from what friendship means. I don't believe that we exchange contracts with our friends and write - You will not steal from me. You will not sleep with my wife and so on. And insofar as you do not breach these trusts you can be my friend. I believe that we take it on trust that our friends understand their duties, (and we ours,) and when our friends breach their duties we either forgive them, or we stop being friends with them. That's the way I understand it. Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Patmac. Just so you know, I don't necessary disagree with your thoughts on this.. Marley exploring the consepts..(-: My problem with this argument pat, is that i am not sure that we should assume some pree defined set of rules between 1 to 1 or 1 to main relationships. Yes. We have such rules.. But what about other social context? Other Cultures? Would you not agree that the set of rules that we imply in to a relationship are no different in origin than the ones we find within any social framework? For me and in the first instance, John lost something that is tangible.. but as friends.. the only thing that was lost was a concept based on a set of artificial rules. Just my thoughts. (-:

Hi JRC [1] Jack and John are in a one to one relationship. So I don't think that the many reference is necessary or relevant. [2] Another social context? Since the context is defined by the proposal that Jack has stolen from his (presumed friend) John, that is the context. I'm happy to assume that if the context was different the analysis would be different also. (But it isn't.) [3] I would disagree strongly. The relationship between two ordinary friends is very different from that between a private soldier and a general, a torturer and his victim and between a judge and the prisoner in the dock. [4] The value of friendship as an artificial construct I think is a different debate, (albeit an interesting one.) Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I prefer you use my real name Pat. Its John. And I still want me money back Jude! has the potential of a good debate Pat.(-: Regards.

I should imagine that the manager of the hospice would be able to recommend a suitable solution. Kind regards, Pat (Or, if your conscience just won't be quiet at all, then perhaps you could find out how to go about making a financial donation to them and send them an anonymous donation of fifty quid.) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Hi Jude. (-: you know... Even although I know, or shall we say 'Have a sense' when I have done something that may be considered as wrong. I still find my self pondering over the nature and origin of this thing called morals. A part of me knows that compensation should be made. But another part questions, or 'tries to analyze' the compulsions that define right from wrong. Perhaps I just over analyzes things?

Presumably we're speaking only of human biology and not biology in general. (Male lions kill cubs from other males and the Booby Bird allows one chick to kill its sibling. So I'd guess there's no necessary force in biology at large to necessitate morality.) And, if it's human biology in particular, which leads to the formation of morals, do we have any idea specifically what aspect of biology causes its formation? (Personally I suspect the necessity is much more sociological than biological.) Kind regards, Pat My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

This leads me to consider how far we could carry the idea that morality has a basis in pre conscious life. Could we argue for instance, that the procariot plant kingdom possesses at some level a morality and therefor a consciousness? Or is consciousness exclusive to the Eucarriot kingdoms? In other words, could it be argued that morality is intrinsit to consciousness. Could we therefor argue that in some way, or at some level, consciousness, compassion, morality etc. May also have a basis at the atomic and sub-atomic level? For me the idea that morality could have a basis at the social and biological level would by implication require a biological precursor. I will have to give this idea further thought Jude my brain is too tired for rationable thought so will get back to it tomorrow. D: