But it’s not an artificial standard of what we should/could have done. It’s a framework to work within so that in the moment, you have the mental construct that can let you remember/take into account the simple question of ‘Will this be something I later decide I don’t want to have done?’
It is an artificial standard because it is something you create for yourself, that is based purely on your subjective experiences and beliefs, there is no universal or objective basis behind it.
Its also a solution begging the problem, since that sense of regret only exists because of the framework setting an unrealistic standard that is divorced from the present, or past circumstances.
You misunderstand: of course it’s an artificial standard, because you make it.
It’s not an artificial standard of what we should/could have done. It’s an artificial standard of what we should do. Now. Present tense.
And no, the regret doesn’t only exist because of the framework. The framework exists to prevent the regret. Without it, can you tell me there’s nothing you regret? Nothing you look back on and say ‘I really wish I hadn’t done that, but in the moment, I lost sight of XYZ’?
Yeah I’ve made some poor choices along the way. Not sure if I would call any of them regrets though.
I still learned from them, and while looking back I may be able to see some better options. And if I had the information I have now I may have made a different choice. The fact is that at the time I didn’t have that benefit of knowledge, so those choices where not actually available.
It’s effectively just a form of the historians fallacy. We obviously can never know every potential consequence of our actions or know all the potential conditions or factors involved. While we may gain some of that insight later on, it cannot be applied to the decisions made before it was available.
As for choices in the present I still fail to see how setting some arbitrary standard is any better than simply trying to make the best choice available at the time. Right and wrong really only have context in a historical sense and trying to worry about it without having that benefit of future knowledge seems kind of pointless.
At the end of the day we will both make decisions based on what we believe the best course of action to be, yours just seems to have more steps involved.
At this point though it feels like we are arguing in circles. I suspect that our mutual viewpoints are simply too divergent to ever truly understand the other in anything more than a theoretical sense.
I can see the appeal in believing in some objective right and wrong, it just also seems like needless complexity to me.
Arbitrary. Hee.
To be clear, Mr. Tyrson, I’m a moral relativist. I have no problem-- usually-- with people following what’s “right” for them. In some significant way, Directrix Daphiti and I live in different worlds. In hers, God is real, a divine presence behind or within this world. I’d never describe God as an arbitrary source of guidance, considering how real He is to her.
Only, I don’t really live in that world, mentally, myself. My moral inspiration comes from something of this world (the desire not to suffer, or, by extension, cause suffering), and it’s not just me who sees things like this. You could say a Shuijing Achur is essentially a nihilist with a better attitude. Only, even considering the differing sources of our beliefs, I still look to her for moral guidance.
Isn’t it curious?
A lot of it’s because I worked out at some point that just serving as a “consequence,” stilling my own will and flowing with the call of the moment, can itself be pretty disruptive if I attach myself to an aggressive cause. I’m not good at knowing, moment to moment, when I’m really being called to do what it seems like I am, whether I’m “doing the right thing.”
Directrix Daphiti is much better at that.
@Diana_Kim doesn’t believe morality has a part to play in deciding stuff like whether to kill someone. That’s at least largely because she trusts the source of her own target list implicitly; she knows who to shoot at and doesn’t have any qualms about it.
(It’s a little ironic to say I’m trying to foist off responsibility by taking orders, and then to praise me for taking orders. But whatever.)
Well, I now trust the source of my target list implicitly, too. I also did, before, but maybe should not have; I noticed only in hindsight that the work was damaging me (not to mention a bunch of people I kind of strongly regret killing).
If I’m going to be a good “soldier” in Ms. Kim’s terms, I need to be careful whose orders I’m taking. Much like she wouldn’t want her skills placed at the disposal of a pirate or a Gallentean sympathizer, I don’t want to be killing people carelessly for no real reason but the taste of blood.
Being picky about who gives me my orders until I’m comfortable calling the shots myself: that’s really what it’s about.
1 Like
Well, now you’re changing things some. I was with you on the standard being ‘artificial’. It certainly is. But ‘arbitrary’ is a different thing entirely.
The purpose of the standard is to have a short-hand reminder of a number of considerations you have previously decided that you want to uphold. Things you feel you should adhere to. Because after all, you have to choose to be a ‘moral’ person, and define your own morality.
So these are considerations you feel are important, but ones which might not be taken into consideration in the heat of the moment if you don’t have that mental short-hand as a reminder.
1 Like
i regret bumping this thread tbh
3 Likes
Feel free to stop reading it, then.
2 Likes
I consider them arbitrary simply because there is no standard by which you can measure them, as a result, the standards are set to wherever you feel they should be set, that is about as arbitrary as I can imagine something being. you may have reasons for why they are that way, but without anything you can properly compare it to, it is the way it is because you want it that way.
this is why I suspect that we may be at an ideological impass, because I simply don’t understand the point of setting restrictions on yourself like that. Thats not to say that I don’t have certain patterns of behavior, or that I don’t have certain things that I don’t generally consider as a good first option. I’m not terribly keen on the idea of killing children for example, and tend to have a rather negative opinion of anyone who would do so without at least a little reluctance.
But I can also envision several scenarios where that may well be the choice i’d make, so I can’t honestly say I have any sort of moral objection to it. I just don’t think its generally going to be the best option.
Now you could certainly make the argument that, having those preferences is in itself a form of morality. an you are probably right on that account, but if that is the case, I like to keep mine as fluid and loosely defined as possible.
maybe that makes me moral, maybe it doesn’t, frankly I don’t think it matters. just as I don’t really care if anyone else believes their actions or moral or not. since I couldn’t give a damn what their reasons or justifications for doing something are, just the outcome. by the same token, i’ve never really felt the need to justify my own actions against any sort of standard, even to myself, other than what the outcome is.
Sounds to me like you do have a system of morals there, yeah, but the strongest of them is just ‘don’t limit my options’.
can’t really disagree with that on any particular point. still doesn’t make my morals any less ■■■■■■■■ in my opinion.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.