Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era

[Bradskii]

I don’t want my ethics and morality dictated to me. I find anyone who needs to be told how to be weird.

Likewise. Even if you are told, surely you have to consider whether what you are told is correct?

 

[o_mlly]

I'd never heard of "vertical morality" so I did a quick search.

What I am trying to pursue with you in the other thread is rational morality, making no appeal to a higher authority, only to reason.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The people decide what's right or wrong and that's a bottom up system. They then vote for people who will run society the way they want.

Democracy, eh? Useless system. Well, until something better comes along (and that excludes theocracies).

I smell the odor of axiomatic unbelief permeating your breath in this post, Bradskii.

Jesus Rules. And you'll just have to get over it; sooner rather than later would be preferable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd never heard of "vertical morality" so I did a quick search. There certainly seem to be a bunch of people who associate it with authoritarian movements. Perhaps more importantly, the anchor is unproven.

As I said to Bradskii, Jesus Rules. And you'll just have to get over your hesitancy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And just in passing, your post implies a morality decreed by...whoever is considered to be at the top of your vertical ladder. Are we to then assume that you would automatically accept all the ethical rules and commandments that would be issued without thought? Or would you personally decide if they are justified or not

Obviously, for me to swallow the "authority" of the Christian message hook, line and sinker would be to also recognize that I've ALREADY thought and questioned God's ethical rules and commandments--------------------just like some of Jesus' disciples did when He put His two little historical feet upon the earth the first time.

If anything, I've been contesting with God my entire life. Why? Well, it's not merely because I'm naturally inclined toward philosophical questioning of darn near everything and everyone, but also because I'm a snot-nosed, sinful little punk, just like the Bible tells me I am.
Apparently, I need to be LED by the nose for my own good, or at least I need to be given a hanky, and I just happen to have the sagacity to admit it. Not everyone does.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t want my ethics and morality dictated to me. I find anyone who needs to be told how to be weird.

That's strange to me, because I see a lot more weirdness being played out in the lives of people who aver for a sort of personalized moral and civil anarchy. It's almost like...........they know not what they do.

On reflection the above response is in some ways a place holder answer. I need to think about my answer a bit more.

I can respect that. Take your time.

 

[Bradskii]

I smell the odor of axiomatic unbelief permeating your breath in this post, Bradskii.

Jesus Rules. And you'll just have to get over it; sooner rather than later would be preferable.

Jesus offered some ideas on how to live a moral life. I agree with almost all what he is reported to have said.

Do you REALLY think that answers my question? No. You know it doesn't.

So why post it? Please don't waste my time.

 

[Bradskii]

Obviously, for me to swallow the "authority" of the Christian message hook, line and sinker would be to also recognize that I've ALREADY thought and questioned God's ethical rules and commandments...

Ah. So you've decided if they are worth following.

I'm glad we've confirmed that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah. So you've decided if they are worth following.

No, I didn't say that I've decided they're worth following, at least not per the generalizing definitions, however glittery they may be, of the terms you employ, such as: "decided" (whatever that referred mental process actually means fully and epistemologically for any one individual), or "worth" (whatever that referent actually means discernibly and axiologically for any one individual).

Do I "know" that the values and commands that Jesus is reported to have given are "worth" following??? No. I don't "know" that they are. Like I've mentioned earlier, I'm an individual stinker. But I do know that the literary and historically represented ideas and words of Jesus of Nazareth, as they are reported to have been, offer me more hope than **cough** your merely descriptive, insistent (and partly invasive) statements about the dominance of the natural outcomes of Evolutionary Psychology do.

I'm glad we've confirmed that.

I think you and I hold different definitions about what "confirmed" or even "falsified" or "verified" mean, as well as to their actual efficacy when we think we've achieved these epistemic states.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As I said to Bradskii, Jesus Rules. And you'll just have to get over your hesitancy.

Lots of dead guys have rules. I see no reason to take the word of any of them as final. Their ideas must all be evaluated and considered for their consequences.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lots of dead guys have rules. I see no reason to take the word of any of them as final. Their ideas must all be evaluated and considered for their consequences.

Consequentialism is just one mode of defining and framing Ethics and Moral Choices. It alone isn't some kind of litmus test by which to measure the ontological 'realness' of a set of moral values, especially not where our evaluation of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is concerned. At best, it is but one nuanced type of measure that can be applied among many. There isn't any 'must' about it, except where technologists or engineers try to apply ethics in their everyday teleologically informed work (think of a Boeing plant).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Consequentialism is just one mode of defining and framing Ethics and Moral Choices. It alone isn't some kind of litmus test by which to measure the ontological 'realness' of a set of moral values,

I don't like "isms" and try not to do them. Not even "atheism". I wasn't trying to map to an "ism". I can also evaluate these moral ideas relative to my prior ideas and preferences, goals, etc.

especially not where our evaluation of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is concerned.

The sources on his moral teachings (at least) are relatively consistent, and there is a good deal of internal consistency. That doesn't mean there aren't bad ideas. (such as "turn the other cheek") Of course the theological and apocalyptic aspects are far less compelling or interesting.

At best, it is but one nuanced type of measure that can be applied among many. There isn't any 'must' about it, except where technologists or engineers try to apply ethics in their everyday teleologically informed work (think of a Boeing plant).

I could have used the "jesus.txt > /dev/null" method.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I didn't say that I've decided they're worth following, at least not per the generalizing definitions, however glittery they may be, of the terms you employ, such as: "decided" (whatever that referred mental process actually means fully and epistemologically for any one individual), or "worth" (whatever that referent actually means discernibly and axiologically for any one individual).

Oh, gimme a break. Please. Now you want to debate what we mean by 'decided'? And 'worth'? Good grief. Let's say that you, personally, came to a conclusion about the validity of what Jesus said. Just like we all have. No need to obfuscate. It's a given.

Do I "know" that the values and commands that Jesus is reported to have given are "worth" following??? No. I don't "know" that they are.

But you decided (oops), came to a conclusion that they were better than other values which have been presented to you. Again, we all do an internal comparison of values, so no big deal. You're no different to the rest of us. Get a lot of different opinions, have that internal debate, filter out what you think is not worth keeping and decide which ones are right for you.

It's how a lot of people come to religion. It's actually why I left, but different strokes as they say.

 

[Bradskii]

Consequentialism is just one mode of defining and framing Ethics and Moral Choices.

Consequentialism wasn't being offered as a means to determine morality. But we all consider the consequences of our decisions. IF this THEN that. Else we'd never make a decision at all. We choose what suggests what we each determine to be the best outcome. The outcome being the consequences of making that decision.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Consequentialism wasn't being offered as a means to determine morality. But we all consider the consequences of our decisions. IF this THEN that. Else we'd never make a decision at all. We choose what suggests what we each determine to be the best outcome. The outcome being the consequences of making that decision.

My response about Consequentialism was directed at Hans since he brought it up. Moreover, I don't think the term "choose/decide" is substantive enough to refer to all on its own to robustly signify a firm referent without either vagueness or ambiguity.

There's a lot that cognitively and conceptually happens in any one person's brain in the deliberative process. Some of it is autonomic, some of it is not.

 

[Bradskii]

My response about Consequentialism was directed at Hans since he brought it up. Moreover, I don't think the term "choose/decide" is substantive enough to refer to all on its own to robustly signify a firm referent without either vagueness or ambiguity.

There's a lot that cognitively and conceptually happens in any one person's brain in the deliberative process. Some of it is autonomic, some of it is not.

Hey, we're using the normal, everyday, standard word 'decide'. You know, when you have options and you pick one. So if Jesus suggests a moral position and l suggest another, you choose the one that you prefer after due consideration. As in 'Hm, I think this one is the better option'.

 

[RDKirk]

The rise of Trump has led me to believe that America has become more and more callous with disregard to the most needy. I've recently been looking into this area and found this. It's relatively recent in a decently respected Journal. This snippet sums it up quite well.

• Conservative political ideology represented by symbolic and operational ideology and positive view of Trump
• Psychopathic traits and malevolent disposition predicted increased conservative political ideology
• Benevolent disposition predicted decreased conservative ideology--i.e., more liberal ideology
• Those viewing Trump favorably reported elevated malevolent and reduced benevolent dispositions, and less empathy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704?via%3Dihub

Clearly, this not saying that all Trump supporters are psychopaths.

Whattaya mean? We have the most benevolent administration money can buy!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey, we're using the normal, everyday, standard word 'decide'. You know, when you have options and you pick one. So if Jesus suggests a moral position and l suggest another, you choose the one that you prefer after due consideration. As in 'Hm, I think this one is the better option'.

And what exactly constitutes "due consideration" within the deciding process according to your epistemological estimation?

I don't think the decision process is simple for any one human being and I don't believe in a "normal, everyday, standard' denotation for 'decide.' The simple denotation is, to me, rather epistemologically non-descriptive and only refers to what orientation toward a potential act has been reached, not WHY or HOW it has been justifiably reached.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My response about Consequentialism was directed at Hans since he brought it up. Moreover, I don't think the term "choose/decide" is substantive enough to refer to all on its own to robustly signify a firm referent without either vagueness or ambiguity.

I didn't bring up "consequentialism" because like my spell checker, I am not familiar with it. I could probably guess, but I knew better than to guess when people start capitalizing "isms".

There's a lot that cognitively and conceptually happens in any one person's brain in the deliberative process. Some of it is autonomic, some of it is not.

Autonomic, eh? Ever wonder if you still know how to breathe?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Whattaya mean? We have the most benevolent administration money can buy!

Bene-volent, or male-volent?