Entmoot
 


Go Back   Entmoot > Other Topics > General Messages
FAQ Members List Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2002, 06:37 PM   #521
Lady Vixen
Sapling
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 8
You people have gone so far into this debate since the last time I was here. Enough is truly enough, 26 pages of constant ramblings from the (typically) same 4-5 people.
OKAY there is NO possible way to end this discussion, so I suppose it can now be dead.
Blackheart...Haggis?
__________________
My sad companions on the beach I found
Their wistful eyes in floods of sorrow drowned - Homer
-Despite his titles power and pelf
the wretch concentered all in self
living shall forfeit fair renown
and doubly dying shall go down
to the vile dust from whence he sprung
unwept unhonored and unsung. - Scott
Lady Vixen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2002, 10:12 AM   #522
Blackheart
Elf Lord
 
Blackheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Darkness
Posts: 1,211
No thanks.

I'd rather dine on thee now.
__________________
I have harnessed the shadows that stride from world to world to sow death and madness...

Queer haow a cravin' gits a holt on ye -- As ye love the Almighty, young man, don't tell nobody, but I swar ter Gawd thet picter begun ta make me hungry fer victuals I couldn't raise nor buy -- here, set still, what's ailin' ye? ...
Blackheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2003, 08:37 PM   #523
afro-elf
Hoplite Nomad
 
afro-elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
have posted this here too

The "Yuk Factor"

The other tension in moral reasoning that we hope this activity helps to elucidate has to do with the role of reason and emotion in moral judgements. One of the interesting things which Haidt et al found when exploring people's reactions to the scenarios featured in this activity is that people who have very strong emotional responses to these stories frequently find it difficult to provide an explanation or justification for what they are feeling. According to Steve Pinker, this is because our moral convictions are rooted not so much in reason, as in the evolutionary make-up of our minds. In his words: "People have gut feelings that give them emphatic moral convictions, and they struggle to rationalize them after the fact. These convictions may have little to do with moral judgements that one could justify to others in terms of their effects on happiness or suffering. They arise instead from the neurobiological and evolutionary design of the organs we call moral emotions." (The Blank Slate).

The dangers of rooting moral attitudes in emotion are obvious. It means that a "yuk-factor" might lead us to condemn actions - and even people - we have no good reason to condemn. For example, consider the fate of the untouchables in the Indian caste system. They were not allowed to touch people from the higher castes; they were not allowed to drink from the same wells; on public occasions, they had to sit at a distance from everybody else; and in some regions, even contact with the shadow of an untouchable person was seen as polluting and necessitated a purification ritual. Such prohibitions might sit easily with a certain kind of raw sentiment. They are much harder, if not impossible, to justify in the light of reason.

However, one must be careful not simply to assume that emotion has no role to play in moral reasoning. Indeed, some philosophers claim that it is just a mistake to think that moral judgement involves anything other than emotion. A. J. Ayer, for example, in line with the dictates of his logical positivism, argued that ethical statements are nothing more than the expression of emotional attitudes. He denied that it was possible for ethical statements to be factually true. Rather, they are exclamations of the form 'Hurrah for X!'.

Even if one does not accept this kind of extreme "emotivism", it is still fairly easy to see that emotion can play some kind of role in good moral reasoning. Empathy, for example, would seem to be an important component of a proper moral outlook. It is hard to imagine that the atrocities of the holocaust would have occurred had its protagonists been more able to imagine themselves in the emotional position of their victims. Indeed, the philosopher Jonathan Glover has argued that many of the atrocities of the last century were possible precisely because people's moral emotions had been switched off.

Nevertheless, it is probably right that we are suspicious of moral judgements which are rooted in the "yuk-factor". Steve Pinker, in The Blank Slate, puts it like this: "The difference between a defensible moral position and an atavistic gut feeling is that with the former we can give reasons why our conviction is valid. We can explain why torture and murder and rape are wrong, or why we should oppose discrimination and injustice. On the other hand, no good reasons can be produced to show why homosexuality should be suppressed or why the races should be segregated. And the good reasons for a moral position are not pulled out of thin air: they always have to do with what makes people better off or worse off, and are grounded in the logic that we have to treat other people in the way that we demand they treat us."
__________________
About Eowyn,
Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means?

She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight.

'Dern Helm"

Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer.
afro-elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm writing an essay on relativism in LOTR IronParrot Lord of the Rings Books 152 02-11-2005 05:38 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 1997-2019, The Tolkien Trail