This reminds me of our earlier discussion about the family and I was talking about men becoming "worthy" of having a family.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
A lot of people think that that worthiness only applies to materialist things such as having a good job, being in shape, having the right body type or physical attractiveness, but really I think in most societies where there was a choice in the matter, virtue, morality, and the common vision for the future are all also important factors. I'm sure this lady did not envision being in this situation when she married a guy she thought would become rich, but having the money and using the money for the right things are definitely separate.
My interpretation is that morality is the specific code of rules you live by, where ethics is more intellectualized and can represent principles for deriving morality but not necessarily morality itself.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
I think in this case of a husband with an excellent job making his wife pay rent during her maternity leave, it is a question of morality and not ethics. There's a standard set of rules that you'd need to share with your spouse to get along well together.
There are plenty of ethical arguments that the husband is being just fine. Their arrangement is fair in the sense that they share expenses equally, and during this time he's also taken over the rest of the bills.
On the other hand, is it moral to force your wife to pay rent during maternity leave if you can afford not to? For some systems the answer is yes, for other systems the answer might be not only a hard no, would go even further to say she shouldn't have to work at all if he's got a quarter million dollar a year job.
Western civilization is based (even now) on a guilt based morality where it isn't really the other people who will judge you, but God. Therefore, you want to behave morally not because you might be judged by others (as occurs in a shame based morality) but because you will let God down.
The thing is, the moral code is still a moral code whether it's enforced by others or by yourself. In fact, there are situations such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union where you will be encouraged and rewarded for violating your morals. In the case of the Soviet Union in particular, they had many very charismatic texts explaining why violating your personal morals was the ethical thing to do. Yet some people chose to do what they personally thought was moral regardless, often to their personal detriment.
You can say that, but that strikes to the core of what I've been saying.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
You better choose to marry a man who has a similar moral outlook to you, or you'll have to "walk away". If you want a man who will take care of you when you're pregnant, you have to marry that sort of man with that moral code. If that's the way he behaves because that's what he believes, then you won't have to make demands because you can trust him to do the right thing without prompting. If you marry someone with a much different moral code than you then you'll be stuck either gritting your teeth as you watch them take actions you find reprehensible or nagging them or leaving.
What you're talking about in my view isn't the difference between morality and ethics, it's the difference between guilt based morality and shame or fear based morality.
In a guilt-based morality, you're always being watched by God and ultimately it's your business between yourself and God how you are acting.
In a shame-based morality, you're always being watched by others and it's ultimately your relationship between yourself and your clan (or your ancestors, or whatever) and it's everyone's business how you are acting.
In a fear-based morality, you're always following the religion because you're afraid of something terrible happening if you don't, including getting killed.
That's where many of the liberal aspects of western civilization come from, this sort of idea that you will be judged for being immoral by a force other than the community or the state. Then it stops being the responsibility of the community or the state to enforce your morality, it becomes your personal responsibility. Then the role of the state ends up being resolving damages or dealing with harm to others.
Frankly, I totally agree with you in that regard. a guilt based morality is the best humanity has ever created, and that's why I advocate for it in The Graysonian Ethic (which I've been referencing it a lot today). If you behave like someone is watching you'll do the right thing when nobody else cares if you're doing the right thing or when nobody is watching, and that'll mean a lot more than trying to look good when you know someone's watching. Doing the right thing regardless of whether society cares and regardless of being or not being punished is how you end up as the best person.
In a guilt-based morality, you're always being watched by God and ultimately it's your business between yourself and God how you are acting.
In a shame-based morality, you're always being watched by others and it's ultimately your relationship between yourself and your clan (or your ancestors, or whatever) and it's everyone's business how you are acting.
In a fear-based morality, you're always following the religion because you're afraid of something terrible happening if you don't, including getting killed.
That's where many of the liberal aspects of western civilization come from, this sort of idea that you will be judged for being immoral by a force other than the community or the state. Then it stops being the responsibility of the community or the state to enforce your morality, it becomes your personal responsibility. Then the role of the state ends up being resolving damages or dealing with harm to others.
Frankly, I totally agree with you in that regard. a guilt based morality is the best humanity has ever created, and that's why I advocate for it in The Graysonian Ethic (which I've been referencing it a lot today). If you behave like someone is watching you'll do the right thing when nobody else cares if you're doing the right thing or when nobody is watching, and that'll mean a lot more than trying to look good when you know someone's watching. Doing the right thing regardless of whether society cares and regardless of being or not being punished is how you end up as the best person.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
The idiots doing things like gluing themselves to roads are doing so because they're narcissists seeking attention and social validation. That's why they're doing something that'll let them be seen instead of changing their own lives to be less damaging to the planet in their conception.
It has more to do with shame based Asian systems of face than western guilt based systems.
Jesus said to pray in private because those who yell and scream in the streets have already gotten their reward. That's the essence of a guilt based moral system, that it isn't about others it's about your own behavior. "Judge not lest ye be judged the same, dont point out the mote in your neighbor's eye while you have a log in yours"(paraphrased, all of this), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone[...]go, and sin no more" -- all of it advocating what you're talking about. Having a moral code isn't bad in itself as long as it's an ok moral code, but the expression of that code and the emotions behind it matter a lot.
It has more to do with shame based Asian systems of face than western guilt based systems.
Jesus said to pray in private because those who yell and scream in the streets have already gotten their reward. That's the essence of a guilt based moral system, that it isn't about others it's about your own behavior. "Judge not lest ye be judged the same, dont point out the mote in your neighbor's eye while you have a log in yours"(paraphrased, all of this), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone[...]go, and sin no more" -- all of it advocating what you're talking about. Having a moral code isn't bad in itself as long as it's an ok moral code, but the expression of that code and the emotions behind it matter a lot.