Morality and the Social Imaginary

[deevaa22]

you're cute

[RicenCoal]

No two people are equal becuase no two people are the same.

Who is best suited for a task depends on the task just as it depends upon the nature of the person. Purpose, morality, importance, etc. are all imaginary; ie they may not influence physical reality without the aid of the mind. Furthermore, all these things are depend on the objective of the mind that creats them.

The interesting question is how is the objective chosen.

[anniexam]

(continuing) Abortion is just another means of power.

And I get mad when people don't realize how many women and girls are raped and forced to bear children dispite horrible conditions, and how many are just exercising the rights assigned to their male friends (to have these casual sexual encounters without worrying). Shouldn't men Have to think about their actions a bit more if women have to?These expectations of gender is one of the modern social imaginaries that Taylor talkes about I believe

[anniexam]

Everything is what we (humans) say it is. Animals are not important until we say they are. Women are not entitled to their bodies until we say they are. Babies are not consious until we say they are. Sadly it is not women or children that essetially rule the world since men has made it very clear there is no point, therefore women cannot rule their own bodies and children are percieved as what men need them to be for the time being.

[HaleyMary]

Informative video. I wouldn't take a pro or con side when it comes to abortion. It depends on the situation. And, I think the choice should be left up to individuals. I don't think it's right for someone else to tell another what to do.

[polit1calsense]

You constantly hear about "Women's rights", that they have the right to control their body. Well, why didn't they control themselves and not have sex? Are they going to deny the child within them the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? When will people speak out against mothers murdering their unborn children? If the mother and father refuse to take responsibility for their actions, or cannot raise a child, there is always adoption. But murder?Whatever happened to being humane?

[ThePirateGrog]

roflcakes. if it's murder to kill a potential human being, almost every man murders millions every day.

[mainsqueeze1977]

Overall an informative posting. However there is a misconceptions (whether by the author or the poster, I do not know): morality in the 1500s or the middle ages was not based on "God said this and thus" and certainly not on the Bible as the ultimate rule book. Many elements contributed to morality, among them custom and REASON. There is nothing new about that.

I strongly agree with your point that Reason alone can never be enough.

[mainsqueeze1977]

"However I feel strongly for womans rights."

Only that killing another human being, except for self-defense, ist not among these rights.

"... time to know that they are pregnant after a condom bursted and be able to avoid what was never meant."

That's too bad but that such an accident can be no basis for such an act. Both parents should take responsibility for their actions.

[matn79]

The objectivity here has a phenomenological basis; it is part of our 'best account' of what we perceive to be the good; something we can't escape as human beings.

The reason why the question is disturbing is that if morality should somehow be proven merely subjective, it would lose its force. To get around this startling metaphysical dilemma we should adopt with Taylor a phenomenological approach.

[matn79]

I think you haven't really emptied Taylors cup yet. The problem behind with the generally agreed upon moral values (human rights etc.) according to Taylor is NOT the jurisprudence (application in specific situations) but the underlying 'sources' or 'moral ontology'. The question of an objective morality according to Taylor is at this level. There are several rivaling candidates; theistic, rationalistic, romantic etc.

[Censeo]

Thanx for this post!

Discussing morality is tough.

My view on abortion is from three things. Human life preservation, avoiding physical pain, avoiding mental pain. Experts are pretty sure no physical or mental pain is made on a fetus aborted that is 12 w. old. It also has not deluded itself with an ego at that stage. So abort before 8 weeks should be a good rule. We should have a little margin on issues like this I mean.

[cardellacole1]

i eaw a fetus growing in a ,electrical energy

[cardellacole1]

i saw a fetus growing in its early stages,elecrtical energy switched on in its brain ,some energy any way, this is the stage for me in which it should be considered alive ,does anyone know what age it is at this point,but for me any way most abortions are considered imoral,that life has a right to dignity ,most reasons for an abortion give the fetus none, we should treat women with dignity

[Censeo]

Abortion is always sad and there is so many aspects to this. However I feel strongly for womans rights. Unless a woman don't do abortions  regularly as "birth control", they should be able to have time to know that they are pregnant after a condom bursted and be able to avoid what was never meant. Life quality and not quantity and all that shit.

[cardellacole1]

ultimatly i do agree but an unplaned pregnancy shouldnt mean the termination of life, the moral idea of the dignity of life should be uppermost in the mothers mind she should just feel it, the reason she dosnt is because her own dignity has not been valued, the rest are social factors she is dictated with,her job prospects, his responsibility to the child should not be guilt riden by the burden,of its up ceep ,somthing should be aranged somehow

[cardellacole1]

of course social factors also encourage women to side step the dignity they do have, they are tricked out of there true feelings by complications and burdens in arguement that shouldnt exist .....there should be no presures at all and i realy mean that...if this was the case women would not terminate

[cardellacole1]

if the state cannot accept the moral responsibilitys of its subjects then the state is moraly bankrupt and has no right to govern morality

[cardellacole1]

hi cosabio ,mat i think its a bit like time travel, and its strange to see this english gentleman go on to conquor 2 thirds of the world thers a deep message and a rich benefit from reading such books

[cosabio]

What else do I think? I think you're a genius. Be well my friend.

[cosabio]

I'm skeptical of there being so little variation in mindsets in the 1500's, otherwise the changes would not have happened. I'll also offer that one of the key issues with objective morality lies in the fact that every situation is different. There are exceptions to every rule and thus the need to respect the spirit. What would be "better" is relative. And even with respect to a particular cause, predicate outcomes will never be visible to all involved in the moment.

[redliterocket4]

Yeah I didn't mean to imply that every single person believed exactly the same thing in 1500, just that the "social imaginary" was rooted in the Christian/Aristotelian cosmos and that alternatives to this worldview were much more difficult to come by than they are today.

[cosabio]

What I've discovered recently is the contemporary view of the Christian/Aristotelian cosmos does not at all match the actual wisdom of it's authors and founders. I guess that's a separate issue, but thought I'd throw it in the hat.

[redliterocket4]

I would agree that we threw the baby out with the bath water by totally rejecting the wisdom of antiquity. I wasn't really trying to judge the move away from that model as I was trying to describe it.

[redliterocket4]

The "disenchantment" of the world that has been such a huge part of the move to secularity has a good side and a bad side. I want to make a video about this specific issue...

[cardellacole1]

another good tip ,if you want to read about psychology, books fron the 1940s are delivered to the reader as explaning to the masses this new lively science ,and ytou can understand the topic much faster im sure with your book your experiencing the same rich clarity of the sence of meaning ,i will follow your advice an look the book up

[cardellacole1]

hi mat ,i have read a fishing book from the 1700s, the religious metaphores were densley spread with rich religious explanations from bible text that would put to shame any modern fanatic the sence of class order,was intergeated as the contextual norm in the writers meanderings as he delivered his message to his richly captivated readers

[redliterocket4]

that's a great example of what I was saying about the social imaginary in earlier centuries taking for granted certain norms that people of our age would probably find rather backward.