| # |
Message |
Posted By |
| 59722 |
Answers for Puti!
Regarding your example of a man lost in the middle of wilderness, I doubt that he still use morality. In fact, if he is alone, with no other human presence, he does not need morals. To clarify, a man is said moral or immoral only judging his behaviour towards other men. As there is nobody to deem his acts, this man is "abmoral" and not immoral, that is to say he is deprive of morality.
Morality is more or less depending on the others. It is their eyes that represent the barrier we call morality. For example, one cannot do anything he wants in society because there is always obstacles, even though they are only mental ones.
In nature there is not such a constraint, because nature does not require a way of acting. There is no rule at all except this: you can do everything your physical abilities allow you to do. No judgement at all.
I agree with your theory on the tight group and it is not contrary to the fact they arrived in the island without any link. The danger comes from the fact they found themselves assembled without any previous link and had to constitute new bonds since they had to live together in a little place.
Are you sure they would have succeeded if they had been organizing their survivals on their own? I doubt it since it is always better to join forces, especially for the youngest children's interests.
I am glad that my messages cause such a controversy and I am pleased to debate with you.
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
|
| 59799 |
Morality in isolation, part 1
> Regarding your example of a man lost in the middle of wilderness, I doubt that he still use morality.
It is admittedly true that a person in solitude does not use morality for interaction, and therefore his morality has no social dimensions. However, he still carries with him his education and past life, which may make him obliged to follow some code of morality so that he does not become ashamed of himself. A devout protector of animals might hesitate to kill animals even if no human being would ever see him to kill one, and even in the case that the animal would be convenient for him as food. Some other person might come to another conclusion with his own morality, though.
This ingrained morality (among other reasons) keeps us humane when we live outside society. In children its shielding effect would be weaker than in adults.
However, I am a little bit off-point here, because I understand now that you are discussing of isolated groups rather than isolated persons. I will continue in part 2...
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59722
|
|
|
| 59800 |
Morality in isolation, part 2
It is now almost 30 years that I last saw the book "Lord of The Flies", and my memory of it is getting a bit vague. I hope I have not forgotten any crucial points.
> To clarify, a man is said moral or immoral only judging his behaviour towards other men.
Perhaps I have used a different definition for "moral". I would include in it also conscience, covering the cases about how a single person behaves towards himself.
There is also a difference in Euro-American and Oriental cultures here: my Japanese wife told me that western moral control is based on conscience and eastern one on shame in front of the public. This provided, I would expect different attitude from these two cultures, when their people live long time in solitude.
> For example, one cannot do anything he wants in society because there is always obstacles, [...] In nature there is not such a constraint,
This is true, too, but I do not think it tells the whole story of morality. Morality may arise also from internal needs and longings.
A group separated from a large society may deteriorate morally, but the opposite is also possible. In a totalitarian, completely rotten state governed by a mad dictator people may choose to escape in wilderness to live a more healthy life, and I would presume that their moral is better that that of the society they left. On the other hand, criminals and immoral people appear also in the middle of the society, and the culture is unable to rescue them from their immorality.
Continued...
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59722
|
|
|
| 59801 |
Morality in isolation, part 3
> There is no rule at all except this: you can do everything your physical abilities allow you to do. No judgement at all.
Nature can be much harsher teacher than human beings. Part of our morality arise from natural laws and simple logic: some kinds of behavior causes us trouble or danger and must thus be avoided, even if the avoidance goes against our desires.
Laziness might be an example. If I am lazy in a society, I am immoral, because other people have to do my work. I am punished by scolding. If I live in solitude and become lazy, Nature may punish me by death. In solitude my laziness may not seem to be a moral thing, because I am alone, but the effect of laziness is the same: it endangers one or more human beings. Thus my punishment for laziness would be just an extension of the natural law, and if I want to live happily in solitude, I must carry on the diligence I learned in the society.
> The danger comes from the fact they found themselves assembled without any previous link and had to constitute new bonds
It may produce positive as well as negative results. Among children the results are often negative, because they bring their ingrained egoism with them, but have no good tools to control it. However, the solitude itself does not force them to make bad decisions. Impulse to this comes from other sources.
Continued...
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59722
|
|
|
| 59802 |
Morality in isolation, part 4
> Are you sure they would have succeeded if they had been organizing their survivals on their own?
They would be safe from group violence, at the cost of suffering and danger because of their unskilled efforts of survival.
> I doubt it since it is always better to join forces, especially for the youngest children's interests.
This is true if the joining is not more costly than its benefits. Mobs can kill.
> I am glad that my messages cause such a controversy and I am pleased to debate with you.
I enjoy it, too. I have heard that France and Mediterranean countries have a long tradition of debate. Does it come from Greek and Roman traditions?
I apologize for the length of this quadruplet.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59722
|
|
|
| 59872 |
Re:Morality in isolation, part 1
Don't you think that a long period of isolation for a man can deprive him of all the things he learnt from civilization, such as morals?
As things become less useful in everyday life, they are forgotten step by step. A book written by Michel Tournier, a French author, studies Robinson Crusoe's behaviour on his remote island from a philosophical point of view. The character increasingly forget his past abilities, even his langage turns into basic articulations. At the beginning, Robinson tries to maintain his past life style by organising a calendar and some ceremonies. Nervertheless, he realizes how his acts are useless and eventually relinquish them. Part by part, his personality collaspses, which is frightening. In the end, he lives like a primitive being, giving up all kind of willing. He often believes that he is mad because there is nobody else to tell him the contrary.
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59799
|
|
|
| 59973 |
Re:Morality in isolation
> Don't you think that a long period of isolation for a man can deprive him of all the things he learnt from civilization, such as morals?
He may lose a couple of things, and perhaps learn a few new ones through his hardships. But I agree that in general he will appear less civilized, though not necessarily less moral.
My uncle has lived abroad since his youth, and he has been visiting Finland only a few times and quite briefly. Abroad he has no use for Finnish language (as far as I know), but he still speaks fluent and nearly perfect Finnish when he visits us. If a forest-dwelling man can preserve his morality even nearly as well as my uncle preserved his Finnish, then I would say that loneliness is not a great risk for the man's humane attitude (and related moral topics) towards other human beings.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
This is a reply to message # 59872
|
|
|
