The 20th, on Dec 29 2008, 07:41 PM, said:
Terez, the argument is one of a "chicken or the egg" sort. I'm wondering if perhaps the Western form of pragmatism has the underpinnings of "universal truths" due to the stronger culture of the worship of divine beings i.e. some higher power which stands outside of regular human existence. Therefore, ethos stands as some sort of unalterable principle that we strive for. Whereas, the Japanese do not operate as if there are some sort of self-evident idealistic truths.
For the record, there are christian Japanese. They exhibit all of the cultural norms of the majority of Japanese (I know a couple). But they worship as Westerners. Contradiction.
I would even say that the motivator for this strong, quasi-secular pragmatism in Japan is from a history of needing to be pragmatic. About everything. You could say it's been bred into the populace (either in the literal sense or in the cultural sense). Several hundred years of constant internecine warfare, compounded by scarce resources, compounded by extremely limited space, compounded by isolationism. But I digress.
I am going to make an assertion that will annoy many.
So people who act 'morally' do so for a reason. I would posit that it is an inherently self-interested reason.
Having a religiously-based morality system is an easy way to get people to behave 'morally,' that is to say, they don't go raping and pillaging, they're nice to each other most of the time, etc. etc. Which I refuse to do, and refuse to integrate into the discussion. They act this way because there is the threat of eternal (of immense, mind-boggling-magnitude) punishment. It is a self-interested action in the classical sense.
But "moral" actions occur in the absence of this easy way. Intelligent people can see multiple points of view, judge pragmatically that while action A would certainly benefit the actor, it is also in the actor's best interest to retain the support of / evade the wrath of the victim(s) / sufferer(ers) of deleterious effect or that of their community (which will likely oppose you for similar reasoning). This is not to say that this thought process actively goes on. It's natural enough for people to consider without really thinking (i.e. you'd feel bad, you don't want to go to prison, etc). Morality is internalized by the extant crime-punishment system. It is less rigid, and is what we actually see acting in the world (which is one of the reasons there were still police in the devoutly christian nations of Europe throughout history).
The determining factors being
1) The relative severity of the threat
2) The credibility of that threat.
and possibly weighed against the benefit gained by acting 'immorally.'
For Christianity, that goes
1) HIGH (constant, invariant)
2) ?
For more secular systems it goes
1) Low-High (varies with crime)
2) Pretty damn certain (for most crimes of consequence)
Which is more effective? They cover different areas, and it's tough to compare them. But they are both inherently useful, to a degree.
That's a judgment call on each person's part.
<!--quoteo(post=462161:date=Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM:name=Aptorian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aptorian @ Nov 1 2008, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=462161"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->God damn. Mighty drunk. Must ... what is the english movement movement movement for drunk... with out you seemimg drunk?
bla bla bla
Peopleare harrasing me... grrrrrh.
Also people with big noses aren't jews, they're just french
EDIT: We has editted so mucj that5 we're not quite sure... also, leave britney alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Help
