NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right, I've narrowed it down to just those two. Here's why:

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Me, I'm culturally imperialist.

That's right, I've narrowed it down to just those two. Here's why:

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Me, I'm culturally imperialist.
I do not accept this definition of law.

I do not accept this definition of law.
Ditto.

I do not accept this definition of law.

So if no one breaks a law then what is its purpose? For example, what would be the purpose of requiring people to breathe?

I do not accept this definition of law.

Same here.

So if no one breaks a law then what is its purpose? For example, what would be the purpose of requiring people to breathe?
Likely, none.

Personal morals are not imposed on you from the outside. You may LEARN them from outside sources, but to make them yours, you must internalise them. You do not have to break them in order for them to be valid.

Nor must you break a law in order for it to be valid. The law may have no point. It may NOT be valid. It may be broken often...this alone does not create validity.

The validity of your morals, or your personal 'laws' comes from your own set of beliefs. Not from some action or inaction on your part in respect to those 'laws'. The validity of laws come from the beliefs of a group of people who have created, abide by, or enforce those laws. They can be created, or discarded, made valid or invalid whether people break them or not.

So if no one breaks a law then what is its purpose?

To discourage people from doing something that is considered unacceptable (case in point: nobody attempts to kidnap and eat giraffes from the zoo. There is a law against kidnapping and eating giraffes, which serves the clear purpose of stopping people from kidnapping and eating giraffes).



EDIT: Good lord, that was a load of crap...

So if no one breaks a law then what is its purpose? For example, what would be the purpose of requiring people to breathe?

The purpose of the law is to prevent people from an action. The action is not considered "breaking the law" until after the law is made.

To discourage people from doing something that is considered unacceptable (case in point: nobody attempts to kidnap and eat giraffes from the zoo. There is a law against kidnapping and eating giraffes, which serves the clear purpose of stopping people from kidnapping and eating giraffes).

Hmm... interesting example. Just to continue the debate, though, wouldn't such a law be made because otherwise people would kidnap and eat giraffes? This would imply that the theoretical non-hypocrite would still want to break their own moral code, and would do so were the moral code not in the way. The problem of course is that the person is constantly adapting their code to what best serves them. A non-hypocrite non-cultural imperialist would be in a similar situation to a dictatorship charging itself of war crimes. Unlikely if not impossible.

Likely, none.

Personal morals are not imposed on you from the outside. You may LEARN them from outside sources, but to make them yours, you must internalise them. You do not have to break them in order for them to be valid.

Nor must you break a law in order for it to be valid. The law may have no point. It may NOT be valid. It may be broken often...this alone does not create validity.

The validity of your morals, or your personal 'laws' comes from your own set of beliefs. Not from some action or inaction on your part in respect to those 'laws'. The validity of laws come from the beliefs of a group of people who have created, abide by, or enforce those laws. They can be created, or discarded, made valid or invalid whether people break them or not.

The point is that a moral code must prohibit certain actions. If someone doesn't apply their code to others there must be some chance of them breaking it. If a person creates their own moral code and want to break it they are a hypocrite. Make your choice.

Hmm... interesting example. Just to continue the debate, though, wouldn't such a law be made because otherwise people would kidnap and eat giraffes? This would imply that the theoretical non-hypocrite would still want to break their own moral code, and would do so were the moral code not in the way. The problem of course is that the person is constantly adapting their code to what best serves them. A non-hypocrite non-cultural imperialist would be in a similar situation to a dictatorship charging itself of war crimes. Unlikely if not impossible.

First of all, a law in itself does not prevent anyone from doing anything. The ENFORCEMENT of the law can sometimes deter people from doing the prohibited action, but the law itself, simply by existing is not enough. If people agree that the law is valid, and do not do this action because it is prohibited, it is still not the law that has created this consensus. That had to come from the individuals themselves. People don't automatically do things just because they aren't prohibited. For example...there does not exist a law against kidnapping and eating giraffes in my province. AND YET PEOPLE DON'T DO IT. Weird, huh? Making a law about it would not guarantee that someone would break it. Moral codes are not just about prohibiting you from things you WANT to do.

Second, the only way you would be a hypocrite in terms of your morals is if you DID break your moral 'laws'. If you abide by your belief system, you are not a hypocrite. Not the other way around.

If someone doesn't apply their code to others there must be some chance of them breaking it.

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't push their morals down other people's throats are hypocrites?

can i be the one who arbitrarily decides what law is and posts a stupid poll on a website?

So if no one breaks a law then what is its purpose? For example, what would be the purpose of requiring people to breathe?

Just because a law has no purpose doesn't mean it isn't a law.

Does the law against necrophelia have any purpose in California? Only one person has ever been found to have commited necropheilia, and he can't be prosecuted for it because the law was only made after they found him with a bunch of naked corpses.

Yet California has a law against necrophelia. It's an actual law. It had a vote and everything.

The point is that a moral code must prohibit certain actions. Or enable certain actions. For example, if by your moral code, it was a bad thing to watch a person be beaten by others and not do anything, your inaction would in fact be breaking your 'law'.


If someone doesn't apply their code to others there must be some chance of them breaking it. No. This is not guaranteed. My morals dictate that I not look an elder in the eyes when speaking to them. That's part of my culture, part of my belief system of respect. I understand that this is not part of everyone's culture. I have no desire to break this 'law'. I don't care if someone else does it if that simply isn't part of their morality.


If a person creates their own moral code and want to break it they are a hypocrite. Make your choice. Yes, if they broke it, they would be a hypocrite. But being a person with a moral code who does NOT want to impose that moral code on others, does not automatically make you a hypocrite. It can not be one or the other, because the two are not polar opposites. They are different issues entirely.

Are you saying that anyone who doesn't push their morals down other people's throats are hypocrites?
Yeah, that's what he's saying. Funny, isn't it?

And Nadkor...someone beat you to it. Sorry!

And Nadkor...someone beat you to it. Sorry!
bah...

No. This is not guaranteed. My morals dictate that I not look an elder in the eyes when speaking to them. That's part of my culture, part of my belief system of respect. I understand that this is not part of everyone's culture. I have no desire to break this 'law'. I don't care if someone else does it if that simply isn't part of their morality.

Yes, if they broke it, they would be a hypocrite. But being a person with a moral code who does NOT want to impose that moral code on others, does not automatically make you a hypocrite. It can not be one or the other, because the two are not polar opposites. They are different issues entirely.

Maybe I should have added another option on the poll titled "Designer Personality". Look, a moral law that everyone who it applies to wants to follow may be able to exist, but it serves no purpose. You could get along just fine without having a moral law about looking people in the eyes because you want to, so the only purpose of it being a "moral law" is show.

So just wondering, any of the people who put "culturally imperialist" care to explain themselves?

Why is there not an option for both…… I am BOTH I SAY BOTH!!!

I wonder, Vegas-Rex, if you have a different definition of a hypocrite than the rest of us.

When someone does not think their moral beliefs should always hold true for others, it does not always mean that they believe in or carry out their own morals any less.

This thread bastardizes the nature and the purpose of polling. Polls are supposed to gather public opinion not create it. Often, when a poll does not adhere to the highest standard of this ideal, it is merely caused by an honest mistake by the poll taker. Sometimes, however, a poll is so biased that it could only possibly exist to alter public opinion. This thread is an example of the latter. While attempting to alter public opinion is one of the most fundamental rights of a free society, it is underhanded to label such an attemt as a "poll." It is similar to creating a poll with the options of "Are you a conservative or are you an evil ugly loser who would try to destroy the universe but is to lazy to get off the couch even to go to the restroom?"

It is similar to creating a poll with the options of "Are you a conservative or are you an evil ugly loser who would try to destroy the universe but is to lazy to get off the couch even to go to the restroom?"

Hahaha! :)

I actually picked the "hypocrite" option. If a hypocrite really is someone who doesn't force their beliefs on others, then I'm proud to be one.

I vote hypocrate as well, as a matter of principal. I do, however, find it ironic that I'm calling myself a hypocrate in order to adhere to my personal moral principals.

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Wait, so let me see if I've got this straight. If I think killing people is morally wrong, but I don't tell other people that killing people is morally wrong... then I must be a murderer? Did I get that right?

That's right, I've narrowed it down to just those two. Here's why:

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Me, I'm culturally imperialist.

Any reason why I can't be a hypocritical cultural imperialist? No, no there isn't.

Cake, and I get to eat it too.

what if i dont do either of the 2?

What the author failed to take into account was moral relativism, a conception of morality that dictates it's unfair to judge everyone by the exact same moral standards given differences in environment or genetics. If consistently applied, relativism is neither imperialist nor hypocritical. For example, the Supreme Court ruling in the United States that outlawed the execution of the mentally impaired is a perfect example of consistently applied moral relativism. In the US, people are generally up for the death penalty if convicted of first degree murder. However, after the Supreme Court ruling, the mentally retarded are consistently judged by different standards because of the application of a definite moral and legal judgment.

Therefore, with a third option, this poll would make a great deal more sense.

BTW, the definition of law given earlier was ridiculous.

I'm a cultured, imperial hypocrite

Culture and morals are two different things. A cultural imperialist is someone who imposes his culture on people, not his morals--of course, culture and morals are two related things, but they're still different altogether.

A moral system that isn't universal isn't a moral system, so yes, by your definition, I'm a "cultural imperialist" since I believe that my moral system applies to all of humanity, although I resent the pejorative undertones of the expression.

And I didn't get your reasoning why someone with a personal ethics system would be a hypocrite?

What the author failed to take into account was moral relativism, a conception of morality that dictates it's unfair to judge everyone by the exact same moral standards given differences in environment or genetics.

Since we're trying to be scientific sounding... Moral Relativism is not based on differences in environment or genetics, but differences in the morals and ethical values of varying cultures (and consequently runs into the problem of defining what is and is not a culture. leading to individual moral relativism). Nor does it say that it is 'unfair' to judge everyone. It says people can't be judged because there is no moral truth upon which to judge them. IE its not 'unfair', there simply is no right and wrong. So long as the 'culture' sees it as right, it’s ‘right.’

If consistently applied, relativism is neither imperialist nor hypocritical. For example, the Supreme Court ruling in the United States that outlawed the execution of the mentally impaired is a perfect example of consistently applied moral relativism. In the US, people are generally up for the death penalty if convicted of first degree murder. However, after the Supreme Court ruling, the mentally retarded are consistently judged by different standards because of the application of a definite moral and legal judgment.

Er. No. That’s not 'moral relativism.' That’s a culture that has decided that retarded people can not be held completely responsible for their actions. Doesn't have much to do with moral relativism at all. Perhaps you need to expand on your example to try and get to what you are trying to get at.

That's right, I've narrowed it down to just those two. Here's why:

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Me, I'm culturally imperialist.

Er, no.

While Deleuze there got the wording of it wrong, he did identify the right concept. Let’s pretend I'm a moral relativist. I've got my own particular moral code, simply cause I do. No other reason. I don't personally think there is any kind of moral truth. Whatever you want to believe is right or wrong is fine by me. In fact my own moral system is simply the one I grew up with, and since there is no right or wrong anyway, I just stick with it cause it makes life easy. You can stick with yours because everything is equal, just different.

That makes me neither a cultural imperialist nor hypocrite. The problem is that in reality most 'moral relativists' happen to believe other people should be moral relativists as well. Which does make them hypocrites.

I put cultural imperialist even though I'm also an avowed hypocrite and I think the question s peculiar at best and illogical regardless.

This thing pre-supposes it's conclusions and forms a chain of circular logic. The first pre-supposition is that law and morality are connected. Many may blithely accept this notion, however it's highly unlikely law has anything to do with morality. Laws are passed by groups. I'd love to here how groups of people can have morals. Morals are intensely personal. Groups may have the distillate of the morals of their individual members, but they can't really have morals of their own belonging to some Jungian group conciousness. I.e. Portugal can't really have morals, the people of Portugal can; conversely Juan de la Portugal can't really have laws whereas the nation of Portugal can.

The other huge pre-supposition here is that both morals and laws are static and live in a simplistic world of single valued logic. I have yet to see or hear of a static legal system or personal morality. Both change all the time. What was illegal or immoral yesterday is no longer so today. Does breaking yesterday's bygone law today make one a hypocrite? Single-valued logic that treats words and concepts as having only one single meaning (like some tautological mathematics) are completely inadequate to answer the question I pose. The definition of hypocrite being pre-supposed is just to narrow to cover higher variable situations like that posed in the question.

As with most philosophy, it devolves back to the definitions. This question only gives either or definitions of hypocrite and cultural imperialist. It hides from the complexity of the question of rigor in morality and law in a tattered cloak of simplicity. Superposition and devolvement are more realistic. The only serious answer to such a question would be "both and niether". That mainly beause of the pre-supposition of concrete identity also presumed in the question (is the Juan of yesterday the Juan of today?).

I picked cultural imperialist because at the crudest level I am always a cultural imperialist (by this definition) whereas I am only sometimes a hypocrite (again by this poor definition). Since it is unlikely I can not judge others without my own identity (including the cultural aspect), then i must always be a cultural imperialist (because "I" am always doing the judging). Since law and my personal moral code only sometimes conflict, I am only sometimes a hypocrite. All this is just based on these definitions, which are limited at best.

(PS--I just picked Portugal of the top of my head for the example nation. No comment on that fine nation or it's people, or any particular Juans :) )

Since we're trying to be scientific sounding... Moral Relativism is not based on differences in environment or genetics, but differences in the morals and ethical values of varying cultures (and consequently runs into the problem of defining what is and is not a culture. leading to individual moral relativism). Nor does it say that it is 'unfair' to judge everyone. It says people can't be judged because there is no moral truth upon which to judge them. IE its not 'unfair', there simply is no right and wrong. So long as the 'culture' sees it as right, it’s ‘right.’
*YAWN*. Next time you try to be arrogant-sounding, at least check on the potential other applications of the terms you're being arrogant about. While in the strictest sene, you're correct, when one applies the discussion at hand, concepts lend themselves to different sorts of explanation. "Unfair," as you point out, was an oversimplification. However, it's your very first line where you run into trouble. The factors I stated were ones which which construct the "differences" you discuss later. Therefore, I was explaining the root which I think makes the explanation more lucid whereas you were explaining a manifestation.

Er. No. That’s not 'moral relativism.' That’s a culture that has decided that retarded people can not be held completely responsible for their actions. Doesn't have much to do with moral relativism at all. Perhaps you need to expand on your example to try and get to what you are trying to get at.
Yes, yes it does. Again, broader applications. If you take off the anthropologist lens and treat culture and moral concepts as ideas that don't differ solely in different geographic locations, you'll see that this example makes perfect sense. There are "differences in moral and ethical values" between those classified as retarded and those not, or at least these differences are perceived to exist in American society. Therefore, they create one set of rules for one set of values, and another for another. Perhaps this is the requisite example.

Maybe I should have added another option on the poll titled "Designer Personality". Look, a moral law that everyone who it applies to wants to follow may be able to exist, but it serves no purpose. You could get along just fine without having a moral law about looking people in the eyes because you want to, so the only purpose of it being a "moral law" is show.

No, maybe you should have another option that says, "My definitions are flawed, but please ignore that and just vote the way I want you to".

It's a moral 'law' because it is part of my morality. It is not a moral 'law' for others because it is not a part of their morality. Do you see the difference there?

This thread bastardizes the nature and the purpose of polling. Polls are supposed to gather public opinion not create it. Often, when a poll does not adhere to the highest standard of this ideal, it is merely caused by an honest mistake by the poll taker. Sometimes, however, a poll is so biased that it could only possibly exist to alter public opinion. This thread is an example of the latter. While attempting to alter public opinion is one of the most fundamental rights of a free society, it is underhanded to label such an attemt as a "poll." It is similar to creating a poll with the options of "Are you a conservative or are you an evil ugly loser who would try to destroy the universe but is to lazy to get off the couch even to go to the restroom?"
Exactly. Which is why I refuse to vote.

Culture and morals are two different things. A cultural imperialist is someone who imposes his culture on people, not his morals--of course, culture and morals are two related things, but they're still different altogether.
You can not separate morals from culture. They are not different things altogether. Morality is part of culture...personal culture, family culture, community culture, national culture, ethnic culture...

A moral system that isn't universal isn't a moral system, Then no moral system exists at all. No moral system is universal.

Of course, this is incorrect. A moral system can apply to one or many. There is an argument to be made that a moral system can not apply to NO ONE, however...

That's right, I've narrowed it down to just those two. Here's why:

If you apply your standards of morality to others, you are defined as being culturally imperialist. If you don't you must apply your standards of morality to yourself. Since a law is meaningless unless it is broken you must break your own laws of morality. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.

Me, I'm culturally imperialist.

Yes the Laws of thermodynamics are totally meaningless as is the law of gravity.
And what if one of your "moral laws" is giving others free will to break your "moral law?"