Morality and the Social Imaginary

help from Charles Taylor's new book "A Secular Age"

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• objective
• morality
• charles
• taylor
• secular
• age

[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]

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.

[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.

[ThePirateGrog]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.