Moral licensing! Are you a victim of it?

oakapple said:
What IS the norm Underock?
Click to expand...

Well we all get to define that, don't we. Its way too complex to explain my upbringing here, and in the end would not be understood anyway. Lets just say that I have never met anyone who had a similar one. My parents always treated their kids with love. We were poor but never hungry. I am not going into the rest of it.
 
Underock1 said:
Well we all get to define that, don't we. Its way too complex to explain my upbringing here, and in the end would not be understood anyway. Lets just say that I have never met anyone who had a similar one. My parents always treated their kids with love. We were poor but never hungry. I am not going into the rest of it.
Click to expand...

Did you attend church? Did you attend school? Did you listen to the radio or watch TV? Did you have friends? Did you obey all the laws?

If YES to any of those things you've been exposed to social conditioning.
 

Dame Warrigal said:
All culture is social conditioning.
That's how society is forged but individualism survives conditioning for the most part.
Click to expand...

Does it? Does it really?

Aren't you following the rules on this forum? Aren't you suppressing your individuality to some extent here?

And I disagree that ALL culture is social conditioning. Some of it is pure survival instinct (or lack thereof), hence why some societies are no longer here - their citizens followed their conditioning to their deaths. Others followed their instincts successfully and survived.

But that wasn't social conditioning.

And, individualism survives conditioning? Really? I know very few people that I could truly call individuals, who are 100% free of the chains of society. More often I see the huddled masses moving along in their proper lanes, dressing the same, eating the same and thinking the same.

And morality? "Thous shalt not" do this and that? C'mon - tell me those kinds of rules allow for an individual to flourish.
 
My thoughts in blue.
SifuPhil said:
Does it? Does it really?

Aren't you following the rules on this forum? Aren't you suppressing your individuality to some extent here?
Of course, because I am in control of myself. I have my own reasons for tempering my posts that are actually expressions of my individuality. My reasons are not your reasons.

And I disagree that ALL culture is social conditioning. Some of it is pure survival instinct (or lack thereof), hence why some societies are no longer here - their citizens followed their conditioning to their deaths. Others followed their instincts successfully and survived.
Instinct is not conditioning because it is innate. Culture is transmitted and is malleable. Schooling is first and foremost about the transmission of culture but the products of education are not all the same. Students can be individuals within their cultural framework and are encouraged in expressing there individuality. By this I'm not talking about their haircuts, make up or fashion choices but about their own inner integrity. Even the level of integrity varies with the individual which suggests that social conditioning isn't all powerful.

But that wasn't social conditioning.

And, individualism survives conditioning? Really? I know very few people that I could truly call individuals, who are 100% free of the chains of society. More often I see the huddled masses moving along in their proper lanes, dressing the same, eating the same and thinking the same.
100% free? I'm surprised that you know anyone who fits that description except a madman and he is unlikely to experience freedom for very long unless he takes himself into the wilderness to live by himself.

And morality? "Thous shalt not" do this and that? C'mon - tell me those kinds of rules allow for an individual to flourish.
Those rules are just a starting point and are the foundations on which higher levels of morality can develop. Rules are supplanted by ethical principles in most people and the application of principles is where the individual must decide what is the correct choice for himself.
Click to expand...
 
Besides society there is Mommy Nature working on us, and at times we can't control the urges that she provides...
 
Dame Warrigal said:
My thoughts in blue.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on your blue thoughts in green ...


Of course, because I am in control of myself. I have my own reasons for tempering my posts that are actually expressions of my individuality. My reasons are not your reasons.

Methinks you might just be hiding the fact that you cannot fully express your true feelings here, because of The Rules. One cannot fully, freely express themselves when restricted - just ask a few of the more controversial artists. I'm sure Duchamp, Picasso, Christo and a few others would agree ...

I could be wrong.

... but I doubt it. :eek:


Instinct is not conditioning because it is innate. Culture is transmitted and is malleable. Schooling is first and foremost about the transmission of culture but the products of education are not all the same. Students can be individuals within their cultural framework and are encouraged in expressing there individuality. By this I'm not talking about their haircuts, make up or fashion choices but about their own inner integrity. Even the level of integrity varies with the individual which suggests that social conditioning isn't all powerful.

I didn't claim that instinct is conditioning - much the opposite, in fact. Look at tigers - they aren't really a social bunch, yet they get along quite famously on instinct alone.

I've always believed that schooling is about creating people that will acquiesce to society's rules. I don't know where you attended or taught school but where I went individuality was crushed faster than flies at a picnic.

Integrity is forged from those we interact with - thus, conditioning.

100% free? I'm surprised that you know anyone who fits that description except a madman and he is unlikely to experience freedom for very long unless he takes himself into the wilderness to live by himself.

There is a thin line between madness and genius, one created by (of course) TPTB.

Those rules are just a starting point and are the foundations on which higher levels of morality can develop. Rules are supplanted by ethical principles in most people and the application of principles is where the individual must decide what is the correct choice for himself.

A starting point? I always thought they were the end-all / be-all - why else give 'em out on stone tablets? Why else would Cecil B. hire Charlton Heston for the plum role? Why are drilled harder than fresh recruits on Parris Island into the heads of the "faithful"?

Ethics are merely a coagulation of rules, commonly accepted by the masses - they're still just society's rules with a gloss coating of feel-good.

Individuals actually have a limited range of options when it comes to making a choice for themselves - like the Matrix, we only think we're in control of ourselves.
Click to expand...
 
This is fun, isn't it?
My thoughts on your green thoughts in red.
Of course, because I am in control of myself. I have my own reasons for tempering my posts that are actually expressions of my individuality. My reasons are not your reasons.

Methinks you might just be hiding the fact that you cannot fully express your true feelings here, because of The Rules. One cannot fully, freely express themselves when restricted - just ask a few of the more controversial artists. I'm sure Duchamp, Picasso, Christo and a few others would agree ...

I could be wrong.

... but I doubt it. :eek:
Actually, I seldom express my feelings on forums because the threads I like to post in call for a more cerebral approach. I choose this approach and I choose where I let my feelings have free reign. To some extent this is due to my social conditioning and my education. It is also my choice.

Instinct is not conditioning because it is innate. Culture is transmitted and is malleable. Schooling is first and foremost about the transmission of culture but the products of education are not all the same. Students can be individuals within their cultural framework and are encouraged in expressing there individuality. By this I'm not talking about their haircuts, make up or fashion choices but about their own inner integrity. Even the level of integrity varies with the individual which suggests that social conditioning isn't all powerful.

I didn't claim that instinct is conditioning - much the opposite, in fact. Look at tigers - they aren't really a social bunch, yet they get along quite famously on instinct alone. So do ants and bees because they are entirely conditioned by their DNA to be social creatures, but so what? We are not tigers, nor insects. We are something very special. We possess self awareness, opposable thumbs, a highly developed brain and language. We are unique on this planet and possibly in the galaxy and beyond.

I've always believed that schooling is about creating people that will acquiesce to society's rules. I don't know where you attended or taught school but where I went individuality was crushed faster than flies at a picnic.

At age 10 I went to a special school for bright kids and we had a very progressive teacher who introduced to us to new ideas and encouraged us to have our own opinions. Up to that point I too had experienced the stifling of individuality. After that no teacher could ever crush us again. The genie was out of the bottle and not willing to go back.

Integrity is forged from those we interact with - thus, conditioning.
And what we read for ourselves, which is the antidote to a lot of inappropriate conditioning. By the way, I'm not talking about operant conditioning as per Skinner bus something a lot less directed. Fuzzy conditioning to coin a new term.

100% free? I'm surprised that you know anyone who fits that description except a madman and he is unlikely to experience freedom for very long unless he takes himself into the wilderness to live by himself.

There is a thin line between madness and genius, one created by (of course) TPTB. TPTB?

Those rules are just a starting point and are the foundations on which higher levels of morality can develop. Rules are supplanted by ethical principles in most people and the application of principles is where the individual must decide what is the correct choice for himself.

A starting point? I always thought they were the end-all / be-all - why else give 'em out on stone tablets? Why else would Cecil B. hire Charlton Heston for the plum role? Why are drilled harder than fresh recruits on Parris Island into the heads of the "faithful"?
Just as cognitive development can be described using stages, so can moral development. The concrete stage of cognitive development coincides with rule based ethics. Some people get stuck here but others develop higher orders of intellect (Piaget - formal processes, Kohlberg - social contract then universal ethical principle) There is even a development theory to describe stages of faith (Fowler) but that is another story for another time.

Ethics are merely a coagulation of rules, commonly accepted by the masses - they're still just society's rules with a gloss coating of feel-good.
We don't agree on this point. Well developed ethical behaviour is based on principled decisions making.

Individuals actually have a limited range of options when it comes to making a choice for themselves - like the Matrix, we only think we're in control of ourselves.
We are always partly in control, partly out of control. Only the percentages of each vary depending on how disciplined our minds are at any one time. You do know that The Matrix isn't real? :grin:
Click to expand...
 
Small potatoes, get back to the topic, and we want more examples of your personal shortcomings...
 
Rationalizing is another one of shortcomings. This could become a lengthy list...:D
 
The curtain has been pulled back and what most suspected has now been revealed. You should apologize to one and all for your sins that are too numerous to mention and beg for our forgiveness...
 
Ralphy1 said:
Small potatoes, get back to the topic, and we want more examples of your personal shortcomings...
Click to expand...

Does anyone know what the topic is anymore? The original post only mentioned exercise and food, and seemed to be about trading off self denial against indulgences. I made a short response to that and was rewarded with an argumentative post about social conditioning and morality that had nothing to do with anything I had said.
DW did not start the long debate. I was happy to have her take over an unwanted debate that to my mind was basically a long complaint about the obvious. Many thanks, DW.

So, getting back on topic; pizza, anyone?
 
Dame Warrigal said:
This is fun, isn't it?
My thoughts on your green thoughts in red.
Click to expand...

I love it. :D

My replies to your red thoughts are in Indigo.

Of course, because I am in control of myself. I have my own reasons for tempering my posts that are actually expressions of my individuality. My reasons are not your reasons.

Methinks you might just be hiding the fact that you cannot fully express your true feelings here, because of The Rules. One cannot fully, freely express themselves when restricted - just ask a few of the more controversial artists. I'm sure Duchamp, Picasso, Christo and a few others would agree ...

I could be wrong.

... but I doubt it. :eek:
Actually, I seldom express my feelings on forums because the threads I like to post in call for a more cerebral approach. I choose this approach and I choose where I let my feelings have free reign. To some extent this is due to my social conditioning and my education. It is also my choice.

You have been taught - nay, indoctrinated - to believe that it is your choice. You're really only following the rules of posting of that particular forum. If you were truly liberated you would post whatever you wanted wherever you wanted.

Instinct is not conditioning because it is innate. Culture is transmitted and is malleable. Schooling is first and foremost about the transmission of culture but the products of education are not all the same. Students can be individuals within their cultural framework and are encouraged in expressing there individuality. By this I'm not talking about their haircuts, make up or fashion choices but about their own inner integrity. Even the level of integrity varies with the individual which suggests that social conditioning isn't all powerful.

I didn't claim that instinct is conditioning - much the opposite, in fact. Look at tigers - they aren't really a social bunch, yet they get along quite famously on instinct alone. So do ants and bees because they are entirely conditioned by their DNA to be social creatures, but so what? We are not tigers, nor insects. We are something very special. We possess self awareness, opposable thumbs, a highly developed brain and language. We are unique on this planet and possibly in the galaxy and beyond.

Ants and bees are examples of insects that have evolved into social constructs. Tigers have not. As a result, we could say that tigers are "freer" than bees and ants.

No, we are not tigers. Like the bees and ants we have evolved a society wherein we all know our place, never LEAVE that place and will never taste the freedom of the tigers.

We are not unique - the mathematical odds of similar life forms appearing somewhere else in the universe are clearly seen to be favorable (in the millions) from the Drake equation.

I've always believed that schooling is about creating people that will acquiesce to society's rules. I don't know where you attended or taught school but where I went individuality was crushed faster than flies at a picnic.

At age 10 I went to a special school for bright kids and we had a very progressive teacher who introduced to us to new ideas and encouraged us to have our own opinions. Up to that point I too had experienced the stifling of individuality. After that no teacher could ever crush us again. The genie was out of the bottle and not willing to go back.

You were one of the lucky few - congratulations.

Integrity is forged from those we interact with - thus, conditioning.
And what we read for ourselves, which is the antidote to a lot of inappropriate conditioning. By the way, I'm not talking about operant conditioning as per Skinner bus something a lot less directed. Fuzzy conditioning to coin a new term.

Reading can help to a degree but social pressure is far stronger. Skinner et al are guilty of foisting so many of the fake labels upon society, hence why traditional psychotherapy is so ineffective and nowadays relies primarily upon chemical interventions.

100% free? I'm surprised that you know anyone who fits that description except a madman and he is unlikely to experience freedom for very long unless he takes himself into the wilderness to live by himself.

There is a thin line between madness and genius, one created by (of course) TPTB. TPTB?

Those rules are just a starting point and are the foundations on which higher levels of morality can develop. Rules are supplanted by ethical principles in most people and the application of principles is where the individual must decide what is the correct choice for himself.

A starting point? I always thought they were the end-all / be-all - why else give 'em out on stone tablets? Why else would Cecil B. hire Charlton Heston for the plum role? Why are drilled harder than fresh recruits on Parris Island into the heads of the "faithful"?
Just as cognitive development can be described using stages, so can moral development. The concrete stage of cognitive development coincides with rule based ethics. Some people get stuck here but others develop higher orders of intellect (Piaget - formal processes, Kohlberg - social contract then universal ethical principle) There is even a development theory to describe stages of faith (Fowler) but that is another story for another time.

See my earlier comments re: formal psychobabble.

Ethics are merely a coagulation of rules, commonly accepted by the masses - they're still just society's rules with a gloss coating of feel-good.
We don't agree on this point. Well developed ethical behaviour is based on principled decisions making.

Said principles having been derived from the rules - a vicious cycle.

Individuals actually have a limited range of options when it comes to making a choice for themselves - like the Matrix, we only think we're in control of ourselves.
We are always partly in control, partly out of control. Only the percentages of each vary depending on how disciplined our minds are at any one time. You do know that The Matrix isn't real? :grin:

Agree on the in/out of control.

What do you mean, the Matrix isn't real? How do you know? How WOULD you know? Laboring under a practically perfect illusion would equal life as you know it.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top