From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 20:57:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>In article <vpvnc_c.anson@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>...
>>If I recall, the story was originally brought up as an example of an
>>alternative form or expression of love.  The issue of "false morality"
>>came up, and *that* is what I am asking about.  Certainly it demonstrates
>>a *different* morality.  Within its own moral structure, what happens to
>>O is not necessarily "extreme."

>>What I was trying to point out with my question was that the labels
>>"extreme" and "false" (or "faulty") are applied based on a moral
>>structure separate from that of the story.

>Again, I find what you say to be extremely puzzling. I should probably take
>my own advice about the impossibility of dialogue, and simply let you go on
>your way--I suspect that we're not going to be able to understand each
>other.

>You seem to think that there is such a thing as a "moral structure", and
>that we possess a certain type of this sort of structure. You seem to think
>that a great variety of alternative "moral structures" are possible, and
>that the characters in the Story of O live in a "moral structure" entirely
>different from our own. Furthermore, you seem to think that this prevents
>me from saying that the goings-on in this book are "extreme", repugnant,
>or evil. (Probably, you're going to insist that they only seem evil _to
>me_.) 

You seem to have made quite a number of assumptions about what I believe
based solely on a few posts.  As I hope to make clear here, those 
assumptions are just a bit premature.

First, just because I ask some questions on certain issues of morality
does not mean that I either agree or disagree with any particular point
of view.

Second, I am not the one who brought up the issue of moral standards. 
Obviously, the one who first stated that O's was a "false moral standard"
thinks that the characters in the story represent a moral standard (or
structure, as I no doubt incorrectly call it) different from our own.

Third, at what point did I say that, just because their moral standard
is different, that you or anyone else could not call it "extreme?"

Be careful when you put words in another's mouth.
 
>What do you mean by a "moral structure"? Perhaps you mean a list of some
>sort--a list of good things and bad things. And you think that an infinite
>variety of different lists is possible, and that one list is as good as
>another. For example, I have one that includes "inflicting pain on others
>to give me pleasure" under the column headed "Bad". Perhaps saving drowning
>children appears under the column "Good" on my list. But the people in the
>book about O have a different sort of list--perhaps the entries are
>reversed in their list. And you want me to put aside my "list" when I'm
>reading the _Story of O_; you think I should judge the story only according
>to the list used by the characters in the story.

No, the issue was that the morality of O was called a "false moral standard."
I have been trying to get an answer to just *why* some here think the story's
morality is faulty.

One person has stated that if a moral standard is not internally consistent,
then it is faulty.  OK, so in what way is O inconsistent?

It has also been pointed out that a moral standard is considered faulty if
it does not meet certain criteria.  OK, so what criteria does it fail to
satisfy and why?

By "moral structure" I mean a code of accepted behavior.  I am not arguing
that O's morality is good or bad (whatever those terms mean).  Certainly
we all make judgments based on a set of moral standards.  Most people in
a society use the same set of standards to make these judgments, otherwise
it would not be a society.  The application of these standards is not
necessarily a conscious act because with time they become habit.  That does
not mean the standards are not there, just that we become so used to them
that they seem "obvious" to us.

>I do not understand why you think this way. (If indeed I'm misrepresenting
>you, then please correct me.) First of all, it's not at all apparent that
>people carry around moral lists. If someone sees a child drowning in a pool
>and jumps in to save her, then the rescuer didn't do it because "Save
>Drowning Children" appears under a certain column in some kind of list that
>he has consciously or unconsciously adopted. I doubt it, but I suppose you
>might find some weird isolated tribe somewhere where people stand around
>and cheer whenever a kid drowns. If I were to come across behavior like
>that, I'd call it "callous and cruel". Would you say I was not entitled to
>say this? If so, I'd have to throw up my hands and walk away--I simply
>wouldn't know what to make of your remark.

I think that jumping to save a drowning person is indeed on some "list"
of moral conduct.  And I think that other societies *could* exist (I have
no idea if they do or not) in which saving a drowning victim is not a
moral imperative.  Would *they* think it callous and cruel to let him
drown?  Obviously not.  Would we?  Obviously yes.  What would they think
if you or I jumped in to save the person?

But this just leads to another question: *Why* is it "obvious" that we
would think it callous and cruel?

And please don't think that just because I ask the question means I don't
have an answer for it.  It is "obvious" because in our society we put 
value on human life.  To allow, through inaction, someone to die when he
could be saved is therefore "callous and cruel."

>In a similar vein, I don't know what to make of your remark that I
>shouldn't call the goings-on in O "extreme" (actually, that's a mild
>reaction). They obviously are extreme.

Again, I never said you *shouldn't* call them extreme, only that by doing
so you are applying a moral standard which is not part of the story.

>By the way, it's not at all apparent to me that the author didn't mean O to
>be _seen_ as extreme. Are you sure _you_ didn't miss the point? My reaction
>to this book is that the author wished to point out where sadism leads--to
>the ultimate destruction of the individual. But then perhaps that doesn't
>come up under the "Bad" heading on your list.

And where did you come by this knowledge of what is and is not on my "list?"
Have I been defending the morality of O here?  I was not aware of that.  I
thought I was just asking for better definition of *what* is "wrong" with
its morality and *why*.

And what prompted me to do this?  The issue of "obviously" the moral
standard is faulty.  When I see someone making sweeping generalizations,
I get an urge to try to pin down the underlying assumptions. 
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,   \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it." \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                           \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta