Shanghai Disneyland will close in effort to contain coronavirus

Unless its somehow associated with a religious institution (and even then only at the margins) its not about any type of religious morality. More a matter of good versus bad behaviors. Trying hard, working together as a team, supporting teammates, anti-bullying, pay attention, do your best (win or lose), learn from mistakes, win with class, gracious in defeat, etc. Varies based on age of kids. For the very young kids, paying attention for 2 minutes straight is often a huge victory.

I guess my definition of morals is different. For me it means more than doing your best and trying hard and shaking hands at the end of a game.

I'm super late to this party (that's what I get for actually working for a day), but I reject the notion that most morals are subjective. Obviously some are, but how is it controversial or subjective to say "don't be an entitled, selfish a-hole" or "think about the impact your actions have on the people around you?" I mean, if those are subjective statements, then we've failed pretty hard as a society.

(Side note: If your definition of morals excludes sportsmanship, teamwork, grace, and class, and what you call "good and bad behaviors," then that's an absurd strawman or some other fallacy or something. What is left of morality if it's not "good and bad behaviors"? What are we even talking about then?)

Now all that said, I don't think it's particularly relevant, because unified mitigation efforts would have and can still save lives AND save jobs. I suppose you could argue, one's freedom to be an entitled, selfish a-hole is more important than both of those combined, but then I would say you are immoral. In the same way, your right to take a dump on the sidewalk does not supersede the need for clean sidewalks.

I was talking with someone today about the same thing. There's a whole category of things it seems that are, for reasons I don't understand, political or controversial. Some high level things, like not wanting people to die unnecessarily, be hungry or unsafe, I would assume are pretty universal wants for other people. Wanting equal rights for all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, religion, etc., seems like it also shouldn't be controversial.

You may have seen the ad that Salt Lake County, Utah put out regarding Thanksgiving gatherings, and the comments were borderline insane. "They're just pushing their agenda!" What "agenda" does a health department have other than trying to minimize death in its community?

The funny thing about morality is that it is situational, and not necessarily a "level" that one reaches. The same person can appear to behave relatively immoral in one situation, and then behave at a perceived higher level of morality in another. For the purposes of what I am talking about, there is a general agreement that advanced examples of morality put the considerations of others (or humanity in general) above the self. For instance, Rosa Parks; a textbook example of "good trouble".

What muddies the water is a person's beliefs and perspectives on a particular topic.

I personally believe that wearing masks and limiting personal gatherings is the right thing to do, not just for myself, but for my next door neighbors and for others that I don't know. But that's because I believe that an expert like Dr. Fauci is someone who should be listened to, because no matter how much research I personally do, his experience trumps my ideas.

That makes me sound pretty moral.

My brother in law (one of them) thinks this is all overblown, and doesn't wear a mask very much, doesn't understand why I believe what I do, and thinks Dr. Fauci is part of a shakedown of Trump and his presidency. He has no qualms about having a big family gathering involving older high-risk people in the family circle.

That makes him sound pretty immoral.

That said, this same brother in law would bend over backwards to help a stranger, has adopted more than one child from disadvantaged backgrounds to give them a better life, and is (genuinely) one of the kindest-hearted people I know.

I just think he is wrong, and he thinks I am wrong. But am I more moral than him? I don't know. Do I find his beliefs bat-**** crazy? Yes. But he thinks the same of me...and those different beliefs shape our behaviors and attitudes to a great degree.

I'm also late to this party in a meaningful way and just thinking and typing out loud at this point.

Ok, then I really do just operate on a different level. I don't see how morality is anything other than subjective.

So much so that I'm not even sure how to add to the discussion because I seem to be nowhere near anything happening in the last page or so.

I've typed and deleted about 50 different things here. I'm stuck. I just don't know how to play if we're not even using the same rulebook.

I'mma try though.

OhioStater said:
Do I find his beliefs bat-**** crazy? Yes. But he thinks the same of me...and those different beliefs shape our behaviors and attitudes to a great degree.

This is the crux of the whole thing as it pertains to the pandemic, at least, I think.

Both sides think they're "right" and honestly they are. They're right for themselves.

"Don't be a selfish entitled asshole"

Agreed. 100%.

If I'm concerned about the risks associated with the virus that means "those people" that don't care about mitigating the risk as much as you.

If I'm ok with the risk to whatever degree and for whatever reason then that means "those people" that don't want me to work or have Thanksgiving or whatever the argument is.

It's not morally wrong to want to reduce the risk of pandemic-related ****ty outcomes.

It's not morally wrong to accept the risk of pandemic-related ****ty outcomes.

It's just not in either case. There's no morality play in either approach to wading through the pandemic ****storm.

Is it morally wrong to go to work and put people at risk? Is it morally wrong to have a birthday party and put people at risk? Is it morally wrong to dry hump and put people at risk? (you're welcome 😉)

Is it morally right to force someone out of work to reduce your risk? Is it morally right to force people out of a birthday party to reduce your risk? Is it morally right to force people not to dry hump to reduce risk?

If you can answer any of those questions definitively, then you're inside playing the game and not out here with me watching and discussing it - and even if you have a belief in regards to those questions (and I do), you certainly have to be able to understand how someone might see it the other way and not be immoral.

Does desire to avoid risk give you the moral high ground? I think a lot of people believe it does. I don't think it's that simple and I find it very frustrating that others do.

The acceptance of risk is not the same as the desire to put others at risk...even if that is a (or the) potential outcome.

Expecting someone to take actions against their perceived best interest to reduce your risk to a level you see as acceptable is being a selfish asshole as much as not considering others acceptable level of risk when taking personal actions is.

Morality is a slider...and worse, not everyone's slider has the same scale or settings. We can define the word selfish, but it's a lot harder to definitively say when someone is being selfish. There's a lot of nuance. A lot. Tons.

Morality is not a universal truth. The concept is a human construct. The practice is a social contract.

And just because I do things like this:

Gonch said:
(I think it's possible to try to refute my take with specific examples where arguing against it just makes one look like an asshole - specific humanities issues come to mind - but the reality is that those are a moral call too.)

And then Jeff said:
Some high level things, like not wanting people to die unnecessarily, be hungry or unsafe, I would assume are pretty universal wants for other people. Wanting equal rights for all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, religion, etc., seems like it also shouldn't be controversial.

Yeah. Like that.

At very high levels you can find objective agreement. Do good. Don't do bad. Strikes me as a reach for the objective because without definitions which are also objective its meaningless.

Talk to people with kids at small liberal arts colleges in the northeast. Students tested 2-3 times a week. "Outbreaks" of covid to them are colleges with 5 cases during the semester for 2-3k students. They look at other colleges across the country with hundreds or thousands of positive cases and think its horrific. Notre Dame just finished up its fall semester. 1750 positive cases. You can talk with a lot of people who think those are just a bunch of entitled selfish a-holes to use Andy's phrase (after all they had in person classes for most of the semester). Friends I have with Domer kids though all think it was a very successful semester for their kids (several of whom were among the postive cases). If its objective, how can we have different people viewing the same situation differently in terms of being entitled selfish a-holes?

Its like cutting wasteful government spending. Everyone is on board for that. Objectively a good idea. Until you look at what to cut. Your wasteful program is my essential public service well worth the investment. The objective good idea is meaningless.

It still sounds an awful lot like y'all are arguing that there's no right or wrong, and I tend to agree with Andy that it's just not true.

OhioStater's BIL, the way I see it, believes that his opinions outweigh those of experts, and I find that to be narcissistic and arrogant, neither of which are admirable qualities. Is that immoral? Maybe not, but it's a ****ty way to exist in a society where everyone thinks they're qualified to know everything.

I have a racist uncle (don't we all?) who goes as far as to say that mask wearing is "virtue signaling," that people do it just so they can say they're better than him. I don't even know what to do with that, but I doubt very much that anyone is trying to outrank anyone by wearing something that is uncomfortable and constant reminder that we're in a pandemic. When I suggested to him that wearing a mask is simply to prevent the transmission of a potentially fatal disease, for the wearer and those around him, he said he's not responsible for anyone but himself.

That's the part I just can't roll with. The idea that humans are not accountable to each other when forced to occupy the same planet is an idea that keeps us primitive as a species. Are we really any better than animals?

Let me consider just a few of Lord Gonchar's points, heavily edited here...

Lord Gonchar said:
Both sides think they're "right" and honestly they are. They're right for themselves.

(...)

If I'm concerned about the risks associated with the virus that means "those people" that don't care about mitigating the risk as much as you.

If I'm ok with the risk to whatever degree and for whatever reason then that means "those people" that don't want me to work or have Thanksgiving or whatever the argument is.

It's not morally wrong to want to reduce the risk of pandemic-related ****ty outcomes.

It's not morally wrong to accept the risk of pandemic-related ****ty outcomes.

It's just not in either case. There's no morality play in either approach to wading through the pandemic ****storm.

Is it morally wrong to go to work and put people at risk? Is it morally wrong to have a birthday party and put people at risk? Is it morally wrong to dry hump and put people at risk? (you're welcome 😉)

Is it morally right to force someone out of work to reduce your risk? Is it morally right to force people out of a birthday party to reduce your risk? Is it morally right to force people not to dry hump to reduce risk?

(...)

Does desire to avoid risk give you the moral high ground? I think a lot of people believe it does. I don't think it's that simple and I find it very frustrating that others do.

The acceptance of risk is not the same as the desire to put others at risk...even if that is a (or the) potential outcome.

Expecting someone to take actions against their perceived best interest to reduce your risk to a level you see as acceptable is being a selfish asshole as much as not considering others acceptable level of risk when taking personal actions is.

To put that another way... (note that for this discussion "you" means anyone who is not "me"; don't take this personally)

Is it right to force me to reduce my risk to a level which you find acceptable?

We're to a point where it's not about my actions protecting you. I'm employing a vast array of mitigation strategies to both control my risk, and to control the hazard which I may present to you. Where it gets sticky is when you decide that my assumption of risk, because it seems to be at a level which is different from yours, or because it manifests itself in ways you don't happen to agree with, is now a problem...not because I present a hazard to you, but because I seem to be assuming a level of risk which you consider unacceptable. Worse, you would now apply to me a risk mitigation strategy which stands directly at odds with the strategy I would prefer to employ and which I understand to be a more effective risk management strategy. Or at least more balanced in terms of the risks I am willing to accept versus the ones I am not.

And to take it back to the issue most recently at hand...is it morally right for you to decide which risks I may or may not assume: to force me to assume risks I would sooner avoid in order that I avoid risks I am willing to assume?

Statistically, I know we both...you know what I always say...but with that in mind, wouldn't the moral choice be for us all to make decisions in as informed a manner as we are able, in an effort to manage our own risks, instead of trying to manage each other?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Jeff said:
It still sounds an awful lot like y'all are arguing that there's no right or wrong, and I tend to agree with Andy that it's just not true.

There is no objective right and wrong. That's exactly what I'm saying.

The idea that humans are not accountable to each other when forced to occupy the same planet is an idea that keeps us primitive as a species.

But at what point and to what degree we're accountable to each other is everything.

Your racist uncle makes ****ty arguments. I can't even use them as basis for what I'd like to say next...and I'm trying to come at it from that side in general. Sheesh.

And while I was typing that line, Dave came in and hit "submit" on a post that says what I was about to better than I would have.

In a nutshell, accountability to your fellow humans runs two ways. The indignation you feel towards others that don't share your approach to surviving the pandemic is the same as they probably feel towards you.

You can argue saving lives vs economic impact or whatever, but even something as simple as "I'm scared and want to feel normal" is...I don't know...deserving of the same accountability you demand. It's not a invalid thought or approach.

There's not a "right" answer, let alone a morally correct one.
(although, "kill everyone before the virus does!" is probably pretty close to wrong - both morally and objectively)

We are primitive as a species? Compared to?

I don't find humanity to be particularly evolved when it has spent its entire recorded history killing each other.

There is objective right and wrong, and plenty of things in between that we might disagree on.

Lord Gonchar said...

There is no objective right and wrong. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Jeff said...

There is objective right and wrong.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

This was part of my point (I think, I was tired) above. My BIL doesn't think his ideas are opinions; to him they are facts. I think my ideas are facts, and he thinks they are opinions. People that suffer from Schizophrenia experience delusions. When they are in a delusional state, their ideas are not opinions, they are facts. A different reality.

I had a couple in therapy once. Both dentists.

We got to the "root" of the problem pretty quickly when I asked them a simple question: "What does marriage mean to you"? They had two opposing objective definitions of what marriage was. She felt that marriage was forever, and that there was "one" person put on this planet for everyone by someone she referred to as God. He felt that marriage is nice if it's forever, but that divorce is an option, and that there is more than one person a human can be compatible with.

Who's right?

But I get it; this would go into that large expanse of "things we can disagree on", but to that couple it was the only reality that mattered, and that's a fact.

The problem with claiming that right and wrong are objective is that unless you attribute it to a higher power or deity, right and wrong are defined by humans. If humans are defining right and wrong, then, the implication is that if they are somehow objective, the humans defining them are somehow better than others. What is the determination, therefore, of who the superior humans are? Majority consensus? Elected officials, government or otherwise? I see nothing but problems with saying that there is such a thing as human-defined objective right and wrong. What is wrong today is right tomorrow and vice-versa over and over again throughout history. Jeff, as you stated, humanity has spent its entire history killing each other, but then you go on to say that they can make objective judgments about right and wrong? I don’t see how one can reconcile the very flawed nature of humanity with granting people the ability to make determinations on an objective right and wrong, especially when that right and wrong fluctuate over time. You have to believe that you possess some degree of superiority in yourself or someone else to think that.

Let me use this example. To many people, it was morally wrong to vote for Trump, attributing a vote for him to being a show of support for racism, fascism, etc., or at the very least an acceptance of those characteristics. To many people, including people on here, that’s cut and dry, and there’s no gray area there. Or, if there is, it isn’t really conveyed that way.

Conversely, many people who voted for Trump can’t actually stand him or what he stands for, but see abortion as murder and a vote for Biden, who apparently said he would codify Roe v. Wade, as a show of support for, or at least acceptance of, legalized murder. There’s also the whole matter of socialism, where even if Biden himself is moderate, he’s the leader of a party with a vocal subset who staunchly supports socialist policy, and that has a whole host of moral implications of its own.

Looking at things objectively, though, I would contend that people would consider racism and murder to both be objectively wrong. How, then, can either side declare themselves morally correct? Both have equal claim to believe what they stand for, even if proper analysis of either candidate should make it abundantly clear that nothing is as simple as people would like it to be. Given that each side has a right to believe what they do, it’s unfair to claim any sort of moral high ground in the argument.

Now, there’s merit to the complaint that many pro-life people are only pro-life until the baby is actually born. There’s also merit to the complaint that a vote for Biden/Harris, who have apparently contributed to/voted for policies that have done disproportionate harm to the black community, is hardly a vote to combat racism. However, it’s essentially the same argument: one can’t really claim that there is an objectively right answer here if it’s humans that are making the determination unless one views oneself as somehow a superior being to others.

I know I used the recent election as a reference, but you can apply the same logic to any sort of moral situation.

So a few of the previous posts beat me to it, as I had thought about all of these discussions but didn’t type anything out yet.

I was reading an article some while ago about beheading in one of the Middle East countries. Article wasn’t important but what caught my eye was a few comments about how unacceptable it was. Unacceptable for you maybe, but not for that group of people. That led me into a few other thoughts.

The whole right and wrong argument. They felt it was right, you might think it is wrong, but who is correct? Everyone has their opinions, those opinions are based on value and ethics, those values and ethics are based on cultural norms which are most often rooted in religious beliefs at one point or another. Killing in the name of religion is not a new concept. So again who is right?

Who gets to make that decision? Another person who is basing their decision on cultural norms and personal values? That person is just as flawed as the next. So what to do? We can use religion and the power of a higher being as justification for our actions. Rightfully so, who am I to judge someone else? Every single one of us is subjective and flawed. Bias is everywhere. But what happens when that religious text, which in the first place was written by subjective people, is interpreted by more subjective people?

Perception is reality, your beliefs are rooted in your experiences along with your values and ethics. You can argue them all you want but you are no more right than the person standing next to you.

Anyway, to tie this back to everything going on, who is right about how to mitigate a virus, everyone has their opinions, they attach political affiliation, religious affiliation, expert opinion, whatever to try and back and justify their views but none of it matters, at the end of the day it is all opinions. You can go with pure science, but that is also a moving target as things are continually learned and modified. There is one truth behind it all though. We are along for the ride.

Here is the really cool thing about this virus, it reminds all of us that we are not in the drivers seat, but we are passengers instead. We might think that we are superior beings but we are really no different than any other animal on this earth. We try and act like we have control, but that is just an illusion. What we are good at is changing our environment to suit us, but what we should be looking at is how to better change ourselves to suit our environment. That would lead to much greater sustainability.

For those who think we are better than the animals, just remember that we are really good at impression management and that what other see is what we want them to see. Everyone has thoughts that they would think twice about saying around certain groups of friends, parents, or co workers. If we saw everyone else for what they were we would see a group of animals, driven by the same basic needs as all others.

sirloindude said:
Jeff, as you stated, humanity has spent its entire history killing each other, but then you go on to say that they can make objective judgments about right and wrong? I don’t see how one can reconcile the very flawed nature of humanity with granting people the ability to make determinations on an objective right and wrong...

I'm using this as a jumping off point. It's inspired what I'm about to say. I have a vague idea going into this post, so let's see if I can convey it by the end.

Jeff said:
I don't find humanity to be particularly evolved when it has spent its entire recorded history killing each other.

I think that alone suggests the subjective nature of morality.

You seem frustrated by this fact and, in terms of this discussion, some of that can be attributed to what we're calling morality at this point. "Killing is wrong. We should know that. We're not animals."

You expect that and see it as an obvious and objective issue.

It's seems to be a point of contention.

In sort of sitting here reading and thinking this, I was reminded of a post I made a while back:

Gonch said on October 6th:
At some point, maybe the problem isn't that people (as a whole) won't lockdown/mask up long term, but rather that we expect them to...

To me, this is exactly the same idea in play.

"Why wouldn't everyone do everything they can to reduce transmission? It's the right thing to do. It's what we should do. I'm frustrated that everyone doesn't. It's an obvious and objective issue."

It's a point of contention.

It's also expectations that don't match the reality of the situation.

What's funny to me, is that this current wave of discussion sort of took off when I questioned the inclusion of the use of "moral" or morality to the discussion. And I questioned it because it seems to imply a superior stance. A sense of greater morality.

So what part did I edit out of the end of my quote of my own post from October 6th? The part in bold italics:

Gonch said on October 6th:
At some point, maybe the problem isn't that people (as a whole) won't lockdown/mask up long term, but rather that we expect them to and adopt such a sanctimonious tone when they don't?

Which is pretty much questioning the same sense of moral superiority in opinion...7 weeks ago.

So I guess that's my sticking point, huh?

But why? Well, the last few pages of discussion have given me that self awareness, I think.

I don't think right and wrong is objective & I think morality is a human construct. I also don't believe there's a 'correct' answer in terms of goals for navigating the pandemic.

So to imply a 'correct' answer to the pandemic and express morality as a reason it is a better approach to perceived 'incorrect' answers simply breaks all my logic circuits. (plus, it's a one/two punch that seems to suggest a morally superior - or sanctimonious - position and that breaks my emotional circuits)

I feel like this is a pretty insightful look as to why we are (or I am, at least) still here going back and forth 137 pages later. Like I said a couple of posts back, I think we're all trying to play the same game here, but, similar to OhioStater's dentists, are using different rulebooks.

The very existence of different rulebooks proves that one isn't 'right', it's up to us to choose which is most right for us - personally and collectively. That's morality.

The problem with claiming that right and wrong are objective is that unless you attribute it to a higher power or deity, right and wrong are defined by humans.

Unless you have a higher power or deity that provides clear guidance as to right and wrong (with periodic updates as needed) in his/her/its own handwriting (which is something we do not have at this moment), humans are left to figure it out. So humans are left to figure it out no matter one's belief in the existence of any type of higher power/deity.

That things would be easier if there were objective rights and wrongs doesn't mean there are any just like people saying they are so done with the virus doesn't mean its done with us. But societies can function well and be civilized without objective rights and wrongs. Through systems of laws, cultural expectations, etc. Its worked in the past and continues to work. Not perfectly without question. But not totally lawless either as you would have with everyone making his/her own right/wrong determinations.

And without question the appeal to a higher power exists. But that appeal doesn't mean there is one necessarily. Declaration talked about inalieable rights endowed by their creator which is extremely powerful. First chance they had to form a government after the Declaration and the founding fathers formed one that denied those very same inalienable rights from certain groups of people. Which were the social norms of the time.

Replacing "you will have the rights that some inbred white rich guy says you will have" with "you will have the rights that some small group of white rich guys say you will have" isn't nearly as appealing as that whole inalienable rights/creator thing. Even if you believe its true, humans have to determine what those rights are and put in place and maintain a system of government that actually protects them. And that is mixing rights as in Bill of with rights as in not wrongs but issue of objectivity are similar.

Murder is not an objective concept. Its a legal one that is subjective.

As often happens with discussions about objective rights and wrongs people toss out concepts that can appear on their face to be objective but when you get into the details (where the devil is -- pun probably appropriate) the objectivity melts away. You are left in essence with right stuff is right and wrong stuff is wrong which on its face is objective but in actual meaning totally unhelpful.

Late to another good party here, but the difficulty in applying abstract concepts to real situations does not invalidate their correctness in the abstract.

And while I do prescribe to a diety, my morality does not come from that. It’s just as axiomatic to say, “There are no objective right and wrong because they could only be transmitted by humans” as it is to say, “There are objective morals and if you don’t agree you’re simply wrong.” They obviously both lead to incompatible circular arguments where we reference the thing we’re trying to prove to counter its refutation, but from a logical basis, neither is any more easily argued than the other.

But also, I find it so blatantly obvious and unimaginable that anyone would disagree with the proposition “all things being equal we should try to create joy rather than inflict pain on others” that I consider it objectively true.

I understand that details, applications, irrationality, etc. make it tricky to live this very abstract proposition in reality (see: trolley problem) but, in the abstract I think it is true.

Andy, I do think it’s easier to argue that if determined solely by humans, there is no objective right or wrong, then it is to argue that there is an objective mortality and all who disagree are wrong. The second implies that you are some sort of authority, unless, as I said, you attribute the determination of that morality to a higher, or at least universally objective, power or entity. Even then, though, that objective right and wrong gets tainted by the flawed understanding of every human who attempts to interpret any aspect of it that isn’t completely spelled out in black and white. Also, that only goes so far as one’s willingness to subscribe to that belief. My belief in God’s determination of morality being objective and universally true is irrelevant to anyone who doesn’t hold the same belief in God that I do. True morality would still be objective in this case, though, and I believe this argument (that of a higher, determining power in general) to be the only one in favor of objective morality that would really pass scrutiny, but I’m certainly open to hearing counter arguments to it.

Now, I suppose that one who doesn’t believe in God or some other higher power could still believe in objective morality as something that just is, but then you have to get into how society aligns with it, and I feel that absent it being decreed in some manner by someone with full access to it or knowledge of it, the only way to line up with it would be total guesswork, and even then no one would ever really be able to say for certain if we hit it.

As to the first argument, though, about morality being subjective when left to humans, that one is simply an argument of logic. Perhaps I don’t totally have it right, but I contend that this can only be refuted by a reality where some people are so much more qualified to make determinations on morality than others that they are objectively right, and I can’t envision any logical argument for how that could be true. As I think I mentioned earlier, majority consensus doesn’t work because majority consensus has been wrong plenty of times in the past, and even if it hadn’t been, any change in that majority consensus immediately renders the once objective morality incorrect, which would imply it was always subjective to begin with. Also, if majority consensus doesn’t work, is there even a superior alternative without resorting to the argument I made above about it coming from a higher power or entity? Every single person is unique and different, and I think that trying to argue that some things are objectively right and objectively wrong is really more a refusal to accept that one is no more entitled to their opinion than another. Even those we consider to be the greatest monsters of the past and present were and are just as entitled to their views as we are, and no matter how much we might hate their positions on various matters, there isn’t anything in and of ourselves as humans that gives us any more moral authority than they had or have. It all becomes subjective if it’s left to us alone to determine, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise. We just have to hope that the majority of us take the positions that best keep us from descending into total anarchy.

Lots of deep discussion here going and I don't mean to minimize it. But, good grief...just wear the damn masks. I've been wearing them for so long now it doesn't feel much different than pulling my pants on in the morning.