+1.1.jpg)
I was talking to an older IB student (Zanian) today about the topic I wrote on yesterday after he read my journal entry, and he expressed some views that contradicted my own and that I think I might as well get down on paper.
Zanian suggested that we are not defined by our values and morale codes, but instead by our actions, and furthermore that our values and morales were almost tools to justify these actions. I think this is partially accurate, because it coincides with my view that our morales and values are intertwined with our actions, and that these two things have some effect on each other. However, I am unsure of which builds upon the other (for example, actions coming from morales or values or morales and values from actions).
Overall, however, I believe the situation now boils down to this: which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps a third concept (other than being defined by our morales and values, or by our actions) is that perhaps we are defined by our attitudes. These attitudes result in actions, and therefore morales and values (or vice versa).
This has provided plenty of material already for me to explore over the next two years of TOK :)
I think to say it's a "chicken and egg" dilemma is to make quite a big category mistake between actions and morals (not morales, btw -- that's to do with the determination of people's spirits!). Your morals and values may or may not determine what sorts of actions you are likely to take, but at the end of the day actions are completely independent. Having a particular moral value doesn't mean you're going to take the action associated with that moral value. I can believe killing animals is wrong, but still eat meat. It makes me a hypocrite, but it also provides a good example of how my morals and values actually have nothing to do with my actions unless I personally choose to act in a way which corresponds with them.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that some actions can have value in-themselves, for instance that the act of giving to charity has some value, but I only think it has value because it corresponds with MY morals and values. If I didn't think giving to charity was a good thing, then the action would no longer mean anything morally.
Sadly this sort of topic is not what TOK is about. TOK is about boring things and word definitions. If you have an option to flip over and do IB Philosophy, however, you might be able to discuss this sort of thing (if it's what you enjoy) :)
Saying that morales and values have no effect on your actions, or vice versa, seems pretty inaccurate...
ReplyDeleteIf you continue to eat meat while beleiving killing animals is wrong, then you (should) either stop eating meat or be prepared for your morales and values to change to justify you belief - at least, this is the case according to one of the theories above. If you continue to eat meat, and continue to believe killing animals is wrong, then this is a case of your attitude (which, like every other human, is a selfish one) overriding your morales and values.
TOK is a branch of Philosophy, so, i am pretty happy :) Cheers :)
Interesting discussion, Justin. It seems that already you have reached out into cyberspace and drawn in commentary from some other IB students, elsewhere on the planet - good work!
ReplyDeletePerhaps your "identity", if that's what we're searching for here, is simply a combination of the things you have written about - values, attitudes and even actions. It is also true that to a large extent it is our words that define us. And if you ask the question from the point of view of taking away the bodily shell that you inhabit at the moment and then consider what is/could be left, then you might be closer to defining who you are.
It's a good question to ask - but not necessarily an easy one to answer.
Hello Mr Hall! I am pleased you like my blog, I have a link to it as my signature on ibsurvival.com which is how i draw people to it :)
ReplyDeleteI think "Identity" is certainly a good way to define this, but isn't our bodily shell a part of that? Or, is it just like a name, something to associate our personality and charcteristics with?
What could be left..... I think it is possible the answer to that could be your soul.
Are we defined by our actions? and where do our actions start? How does 'cogito ergo sum' fit into that?
ReplyDeleteGood question - something I have attempted to answer above. Perhaps our actions stem from our attitudes?
ReplyDelete'cogito ergo sum'.... maybe just a base, something to say we exsist, because we think about and question our exsistance. What does this have to do with how we define ourselves?
I guess we could define ourselves as 'living' or 'exsisting' from 'cogito ergo sum', but what else?
Justin, have a look here - this adds more to your definition ..
ReplyDeletehttp://www.baiganchoka.com/blog/how-do-you-define-your-self/
Saying that morales and values have no effect on your actions, or vice versa, seems pretty inaccurate...
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying they have no effect, I'm saying they are separate. The whole "chicken and egg" thing means they are one and the same (that's the whole point of the metaphor -- they're one and the same, it's just working out which comes first), which they aren't. It's one series of things potentially interacting (or not interacting, as the case may be) with another series of things. You can say that they interact a lot, but it's bad thinking to say they are intrinsically identical with each other. I dunno if you do science, but it's like saying that correlation equals causation. It doesn't.
If you continue to eat meat while beleiving killing animals is wrong, then you (should) either stop eating meat or be prepared for your morales and values to change to justify you belief - at least, this is the case according to one of the theories above. If you continue to eat meat, and continue to believe killing animals is wrong, then this is a case of your attitude (which, like every other human, is a selfish one) overriding your morales and values.
I've never heard of anybody use attitude before, but this is clearly part of your own system of values and judgements -- to say "should" is to imply an imperative. You believe that if somebody believes something, they should act accordingly (or else what...?). Lots of people don't think that way. You have only to look at certain scenarios within ethical theories like utilitarianism to see that values and morals can be overridden by other factors.
TOK is a branch of Philosophy, so, i am pretty happy :) Cheers :)
It's epistemiology, so it's the boring bit of Philosophy (depending on what you're interested in xD). For instance, all that you're talking about here actually has very little to do with TOK and wouldn't score you any points in a presentation or essay.
I guess we could define ourselves as 'living' or 'exsisting' from 'cogito ergo sum', but what else?
You might find it very interesting (although again this has nothing to do with TOK) to look at some existential thought which entirely disagrees with "cogito ergo sum" (and I agree with the existentialists, cogito ergo sum makes little sense). Google "existence precedes essence" (Jean-Paul Sartre). I found it very interesting when we did it in Philosophy :)
To Mr Hall: Thanks for the link, the article was interesting, sounds like another TOK student! :)
ReplyDelete-----
To the anonymous user (who should really get themselves an account and follow my blog :P): Thank you for the clarification, I can now more clearly see what you mean :)
I think its certainly true attitude plays a big part in what your morales and values are, and also your actions. What you believe (in my opinion) is largely dependant on actions (both yours and others)... and, if given the choice, i think its fair to say that (depending on the strength of the belief) most people would act out upon them.
The reason I did the last journal and this one is because our TOK teacher (thats dmh - he has commented a few times above) requested we do it. However, I think I probably would have done it anyway if given the idea... its a very intersting topic to talk about!
Thanks for your input :)