Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ABOUT BOOKS AND READING
>
What are U reading these days? (PART SEVEN) (2011) (ONGOING THREAD for 2011)
message 551:
by
Jim
(new)
Sep 02, 2011 04:04PM
Erin's school trip this year is to England & Ireland, but we can't afford to let her go. It's $4000 just to buy in. Almost half of that is airfare. Mom just got back from a trip over there & airfare is about all it cost her. She has a lot of friends there & got to do more fun things than you'd get to do with a group. I'm sure Erin would, too. I have an old friend living near Edinburgh, although it's been 5 years or so since I last saw her. (She was the girl I was dating that I traded in for Marg, but we're still friendly.)
reply
|
flag
Finances are difficult for everyone these days. Erin's young, she can go at another time. I have a lot of British friends in Scotland, England and Wales, I'd have a place to stay but it's getting the money that's the problem. Plus if I ever do go, I want to be able to stay for a few months. If I'm gonna go, it'll probably be the one time and I want to fully enjoy it and do everything I want to do no matter how long it takes.
My son says that parts of Scotland, with the mountains and lakes, reminded him of Lake George. He had a Scottish girlfriend for a while and that's when he visited Scotland.
Linda, let us know how you're doing with your new Kindle. Sounds like a handy devise but I can't see myself paying for books when I can get them free from the library.
I have an interesting background concerning my trips to Scotland and let me say however, you go, or however you see it, you will want to come back again. Joy, I haven't seen Lake George but I have seen your pictures and I can agree; the lochs and mountains do resemble your area;but not the homes or castles.I had a friend who was originally a Scottish midwife who had even delivered a baby in a rowboat in the North Sea. She then became a tour guide and owned her own travel agency. ON my first trip to Scotland I met her in York, England and went with her to Scotland to meet her family and then accompanied her all over scotland and Wales as a scouting trip for her future trip with her guiding her own tour group. She had rented a car. We started our tour in Thrisk, in Yorkshire where James Herriot had his vet office. We stood outside but didn't go in as we didn't want to bother him. I went back to Scotland with her three other times and still miss it. It is mystical.
Joy, many books are free downloads for Kindle editions and some are really cheap, as low as 99 cents.I still like my hardcopy books. I like the way they feel, the way they smell. I admit the Kindle would be an awesome toy, but I'm not read to give up physical books just yet.
Jackie wrote: "Joy, many books are free downloads for Kindle editions and some are really cheap, as low as 99 cents.I still like my hardcopy books. I like the way they feel, the way they smell. I admit the Kind..."
Jackie, Joy - the kindle to me is a novelty. When we go on weekend trips, and I don't have a book - I can download a book at any time.
The only 99cent books I found so far were short short stories - took me 15 minutes to read. I'm sure there are others - I'm in the learning mode.
The Kindle has a dictionary built-in which can come in handy.
I'm not the type to give up going to the library, or a book store (too bad about the closing of some local book stores). I like to look at the cover, read the book from cover-to-cover, the copyright page, preface, about the author and then dive into the book. Nothing can replace a hard cover book.
To me, a kindle is a novelty, an add-on - something that can not replace a hardcover book or a visit to a library in search of "good reads." :)
Downloaded, a nice light read. Find Diane Mott Davidson books fun. Reading, "Crunch Time: A novel of suspense" - which should offer me some chuckles. Usually contain a few recipes. I'll let you know.
Linda, I'll have to ask my friend Lara where and what she's downloading for 99cents, because I know for a fact it's full length books. She's coming for a visit soon so I'll be sure to ask and let you know. She reads a lot of detective novels.
Jackie wrote: "Linda, I'll have to ask my friend Lara where and what she's downloading for 99cents, because I know for a fact it's full length books. She's coming for a visit soon so I'll be sure to ask and let ..."That would be great, Jackie. Thanks.
Nina wrote: "I have an interesting background concerning my trips to Scotland and let me say however, you go, or however you see it, you will want to come back again. Joy, I haven't seen Lake George but I have ..."Nina, you were lucky to have those experiences in Scotland.
Jackie wrote: "Joy, many books are free downloads for Kindle editions and some are really cheap, as low as 99 cents.I still like my hardcopy books. I like the way they feel, the way they smell. I admit the Kind..."
But, Jackie, the free books are probably books I'm not interested in! I've found that to be true at freebie websites where you can read books free online .
I agree with you about the feel of a real book, but until I try an e-reader device, I really can't make a valid judgement. You know what they say: "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it."
Google e-books gives sample free readings online. The presentation is much like a real book. I've enjoyed whatever reading I've done at the free Google e-book samples. Here's a sample of a Sherlock Holmes story:
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader...
You can make the type as large as you'd like by clicking on the settings there or by doing a CTRL +. Nice!
PS-Here's a Google e-book sample of Cutting for Stone, a bestseller:http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader...
(Click on the arrow at the right to turn the page. Sometimes you have to hover your cursor at the right in order to find the gray arrow.)
After reading the sample, I couldn't wait to read the entire book. It was great!
Linda wrote: "[...] To me, a kindle is a novelty, an add-on - something that can not replace a hardcover book or a visit to a library in search of "good reads." :) "Linda, I know what you mean. For me, I think an e-reader wouldn't be a substitute for hard-copy books, but would be another way to enjoy reading, especially when a good hard-copy book isn't available.
I'm not knocking it, I'm just not ready to buy or use one. Lara showed me hers, I know all the features, and while it's convenient, I'm content with what I have.I think for people our age, physical books will remain but for the younger generation, say, Eric's age and younger, they grew up with electronic everything, they'd be the ones to use it and let physical books fall to the wayside; at some point it will happen, I just don't know when. But I'm confident that real books will be available for the course of my lifetime.
I'm not convinced that physical books will ever become obsolete, though that may be wishful thinking (since I think it would be a cultural disaster of the first magnitude if that happened). One thing that's encouraging is that I personally know, or know of, a good many readers in their 20s and younger who read physical books and have no plans to abandon them for a steady diet of e-books.
I agree it would be a cultural disaster, yet it will happen. Maybe not for 100 years. It doesn't matter that some people plan on still reading physical books, if they aren't available anymore. Let's take film as an example. Many years ago I read an article that said film for cameras will become obselete and very soon. I didn't believe it, yet here it is, on the way out. And it goes back as far as 1981 when Sony introduced the Mavica, only we didn't realize it was the death knell for film. As of 2004, Kodak no longer sells film cameras. Who would have thought? I still want to use film, I don't have or want a digital camera, but soon enough I won't be able the buy film, rendering my cameras obselete. The fact is, technology evolves and replaces older technology. Do I like it? No. Do I want it to happen? No. But there will come a time when physical books are no longer printed. The fact that it's cheaper is a huge incentive for publishers to go this way and that's who'll determine if books are printed or not, not us. The only question is when. May it be a long long long time from now.
The education department of the Shawnee Mission School District decided not to buy an more books for the school libraries. I understand they aren't the only ones deciding this.
It's really a shame. It makes me sad.
Jackie, the parallel you drew (between film cameras becoming obsolete and physical books possibly becoming obsolete) is an interesting one. It's also frightening. I'm wondering if the world is becoming too dependent on these things that are out there in the ether, as it were. They seem so abstract somehow, not concrete. We're depending on electrical signals. What happens when electrical signals go haywire? Or when electricity can no longer be taken for granted? Does anyone think about that?I wonder how many people lost their phone service during Hurricane Irene. So many people depend on cable nowadays for phone service. During an electrical outage so many things stop: TV, Internet, and phones. No electricity... no digital photos. We were at a restaurant where we couldn't use our credit card until the damage from Irene was undone. They wouldn't accept personal checks, only cash. This scene must have been replayed all around the affected area at stores.
I think the world will eventually be sorry if they stop printing books.
Jim wrote: "Erin's school trip this year is to England & Ireland, but we can't afford to let her go. It's $4000 just to buy in. Almost half of that is airfare. ..."Wow! $4,000! What is the world coming to? It's definitely becoming the haves and the have-nots, more and more. Of course the haves and the have-nots have always been around, but it's becoming more and more obvious as time goes by. Soon there won't be any middle class left.
Joy, I don't think anyone in charge has any forethought whatsoever, in so many areas. I don't like the thought of everything out in the ether, intangible. I think it's a mistake to rely so heavily on something that can be taken out so easily. One EMP from an enemy, or a coronal mass ejection and we've lost it all. But it will always come down to money, what's cheaper for whoever is producing the product. The level of greed disgusts me. So many things are so clear to me and I'm nobody, I don't have a big education or anything yet all these high priced highly educated advisors have no common sense. If I can see it, why can't they? Or do they, and just don't care?
Jackie wrote: "I agree it would be a cultural disaster, yet it will happen. Maybe not for 100 years. It doesn't matter that some people plan on still reading physical books, if they aren't available anymore. ..."
I had a couple of really good film cameras with lots of lenses, several thousand dollars worth collected over decades. I no longer use them, but it's NOT because parts or new cameras aren't available. No, there are 3 main reasons:
1) Decent film processing isn't available. All the decent film camera stores are gone. If you want a blow up of a piece of a shot, recenter the subject, change the contrast & such? You can't get good processing, just places like Walmart or else mail order.
2) Time & ease. Digital pictures are practically instantaneous, including basic editing whenever I want it. I carry a decent camera in my shirt pocket that can take over 100 photos without any hassle at all.
3) Cost is a lot less, too. It used to cost me about $0.50 per picture when you figure cost of film & processing in groups of 2 dozen at a time. Now I can take several hundred any time without it costing me an additional penny.
Some folks say digital pictures aren't as good as film pictures. There's a similar argument for analog music to digital music. For most of us, most of the time, that's just not true. I can't hear the difference & pretty much the same arguments for digital music apply for me as digital photos. Digital books are close, but not quite there yet.
Right now, digital books are new, a lot newer than digital music or pictures, & the market is being artificially propped up by the big 6 publishers as they charge super high prices for digital books & still give super low percentages to authors. Ereaders are still pricey & have issues with proprietary formats & DRM. They're not as comfortable to read with, many don't render maps & pictures well.
All that WILL go away soon. When it does, most of the same arguments for them will apply as for digital pictures & music. It just won't make sense for most people to buy most books in paper format & that will drive the cost up until it's prohibitive to buy them except for 'special' books.
Look at encyclopedias - Britannica hasn't published a hard copy in what - 15 years? How many even use it when the Internet is free, even if there is no guaranteed accuracy. The Internet is easier, quicker, more portable & cheaper. Not quite as good, but good enough.
Joy H. wrote: "Wow! $4,000! What is the worl..."I don't know. In 1970, my stepfather bought a new pickup for $2000 & the last one I bought was $25,000. Paperbacks were about $1 ($.95 & $1.25) & now they're $10. So a lot of luxuries then cost roughly 1/10th what they do now. Do the math & $2000 in airfare doesn't seem too bad. I think it just seems bad in comparison to flights in the US which are more heavily skewed by government meddling.
If the government didn't subsidize the airlines so heavily, they'd all fold. Frankly, I'd like to see their subsidies stop. They've pushed other long distance mass transit out of competition so they have a stranglehold. That allows them to pull crap like the invasive searches they do. They treat customers like cattle & hold their 'privilege' to fly over their heads like a club. People should wise up & boycott them. They're just too convenient, though. It's a really scary form of control, IMO.
Jackie wrote: "Joy, I don't think anyone in charge has any forethought whatsoever, in so many areas. I don't like the thought of everything out in the ether, intangible. I think it's a mistake to rely so heavil..."Ah, "intangible" was the word I was looking for! Thanks, Jackie. You hit the nail on the head when you said it all comes down to money. If it's cheaper and works well enough, that's all most people will go for. Not too many people seem to be worrying about the ramifications. When I was working in an office, they called it "crisis management". The leaders only take action when there's a crisis. What happened to being pro-active?
Jim, you're right about inflation making things seem very expensive. To old folks like me, everything seems so expensive. After all, I remember 3 cents stamps!However, the other side of inflation is that our savings and pensions are worth less and less as time goes by. It's as if our money is disappearing before our eyes because our buying power is less. It's just a fact of life.
Jackie and Jim have intelligent, well-thought-out comments (as always) on the future of paper books. I agree that the economic decisions of Big Business are and will continue to be driven by pure greed, with no capacity for forethought; and I agree that e-books can be produced more cheaply than paper books. But I think there are other some other factors in the situation that give me grounds for a bit more (cautious) optimism.The film vs. digital photography situation isn't a perfect analogy, for several reasons: for most people, film doesn't offer any clear advantages over digital photography that would give them a strong reason to prefer it; switching from an all-film to an all-digital photography environment doesn't carry any discernible adverse social consequences that would make people feel a stake in preserving film; and the technology and energy required to produce film would necessitate a lot of capital investment, making it prohibitive for anyone who hoped to make a viable profit with a small market. None of those three circumstances are true of print books (vs. e-books), however.
As long as paper books have a constituency committed to preserving them, that constituency can support and even create presses to print them. (Computer technology, ironically, can be an ally in that process; POD printing of paper books is a relatively overhead-inexpensive, low capital investment type of production which has already birthed quite a few small presses that couldn't have existed before the computer revolution. It is not probable that Big Business in the U.S. can ever succeed in making either paper or computers prohibitively expensive for the average small entrepeneur to buy, and the other materials and services required for book production aren't prohibitively out of reach or apt to become so, either. Presses who want to sell print books won't price them out of the market, either. Yes, they'll have to recoup their overhead, so the cost of print books will be higher than that of e-books; but that won't sound the death knell of print books. Right now, hamburger is cheaper to buy than steak, and one might argue that they essentally serve the same purpose --but some people still choose to buy steak instead of hamburger, because they're making their choice on a basis other than price. A better analogy than film vs. digital photography might be horses and buggies vs. cars: cars are the dominant choice of most people for transportation, but buggy manufacturing is alive and thriving; the firms in that field aren't Fortune 500 companies, but they serve a viable market (mostly Amish and Old Order Mennonites) which wants their product regardless of all the usual arguments against it, and the buggy makers definitely aren't starving or going extinct. And it's also important to remember that while greed motivates most people, it doesn't dominate or control ALL people. The monks in the Dark Ages who patiently copied and preserved written texts for posterity didn't make a penny out of it; they did it for other reasons entirely, and they saved the cultural heritage of Western mankind. It may fall to the generation after ours to do the same, in the face of a new Dark Age worsened and prolonged, as Churchill warned, by the operations of "perverted science;" but I believe there will be those to take up the torch.
I could say a lot about the phenomenon of public school districts forbidding their libraries to buy more books; but I've already written a book with this post, and if I get started on that and related subjects, it'll be a book as long as War and Peace. :-) So, I'll deftly step down from the soapbox.
I have to admit that I'm shocked by school libraries not being allowed to buy anything but ebooks. That's ridiculous. Not everyone has an ereader or one that will read particular DRM protected files. The problems I'm having with our library trying to get audio books are frustrating enough to almost make me quit trying. I'd hate to see that happen to a fledgling reader.One of my big issues with ebooks is that the current electronic market is for multi-use devices. Even ignoring what constant use of backlit screens is probably doing to our eyes, I think they're ruining people's concentration & ability to think.
My kids were often though to have attention deficit disorder (ADD) or perhaps hyperactivity. Instead of letting the kids out to do any physical activity, they want to drug them. We had a couple of fights with the authorities over that & it required us to learn a bit about ADD.
It seems to me these multifunction devices encourage ADD. No, I'll go further & say they train people to have it. How many people can you talk to on the phone for 5 minutes without them picking up another call? How many people think something through - or do they just Google it? It can be handy to look something up, but too many are letting Internet opinions just think for them. It's sad.
I'd say a good example is how many people fall for Internet scams like forwarding an email because Bill Gates will give you money if you do. Seriously, I had a user tell me they did that the other day, so we looked at it. I asked them how they thought Bill would know where to send the check or who to make it out to since the only thing the message had was their email address. The light bulb finally went on then, but it was just plain sad.
Joy H. wrote: "Jackie, the parallel you drew (between film cameras becoming obsolete and physical books possibly becoming obsolete) is an interesting one. It's also frightening. I'm wondering if the world is beco..."For work, I drive to client's home to client's home. Employer doesn't supply me with a GPS, I use my own (company GPS was lost and they decided not to replace). Sometimes the GPS does not get a signal and I'm out in Salem NY somewhere with no cars, people or homes nearby for miles. Hence the reason why I map out an itinerary through mapquest or google maps before leaving work. Occasionally, GPS and the internet directions are incorrect. That's when I take out my third back, a good old map. Don't leave home without one. :)
Jackie wrote: "I'm not knocking it, I'm just not ready to buy or use one. Lara showed me hers, I know all the features, and while it's convenient, I'm content with what I have.I think for people our age, physi..."
At night, when my eyes are tired and the print on a book page gets blurry - the Kindle has the ability to make the type larger. Comes in handy.
I still prefer a hard copy book. A nice gift. Something I wouldn't buy for myself.
Jackie wrote: "Linda, I talked to Lara today: http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-eBooks/b..."Jackie - I'll check it out.
Thanks.
Joy H. wrote: "Jackie, the parallel you drew (between film cameras becoming obsolete and physical books possibly becoming obsolete) is an interesting one. It's also frightening. I'm wondering if the world is beco..."These posts brought to mind the movie, "Fareneheit 451"
After all the worry over the demise of the paper books here is something cheerful for the day: "By all these lovely tokens, September days are here, with Summer's last of weather, And Autumn's best of cheer." Helen Hunt Jackson
I finished Troy and I'm saddened to report that it was awful. Nothing new, nothing original added except a poorly written juvenile love story. I gave it 1 star and threw it in the garbage, no point in inflicting it on anyone else. I'm rarely driven to that course of action. I was surprised to find that the author Adèle Geras has written many novels because this book felt like a debut novel written by a young inexperienced author just learning the ropes. It was really that bad.
I've moved on to Circle of Stars by Anna Lee Waldo; I expect to enjoy it as I've read her Circle of Stones and loved it.
Hi all. I'm catching up here with one post. I still don't have my own computer! Must "borrow" Eddie's when he lets me. Werner: I like the analysis and the analogies you made in Message #578. I appreciate your optimistic point of view about the future of hard copy books.
Jim: Your points about ADD and multifunction devices are well taken. There's just too much coming at us at once. Some people will be able to adjust, but people who have ADD tendencies are bound to suffer.
Linda: Good point about the dependability of hard-copy maps.
Nina: Thanks for the uplifting quote.
Jackie: Your reference to _Farenheit 451_ (1953) is very apropos in the current discussion here. I've never read it and I'm not sure I want to. (Too depressing.) But I've added the film adaptation to my Netflix queue. At least that's quick. Here's the IMDb link:
"Fahrenheit 451" (1966): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/
"In an oppressive future, a fireman whose duty is to destroy all books begins to question his task."
PS-Jackie, about the book _Troy_, good idea to throw away a book if it's that bad. Why spread it around!
I never found Fahrenheit 451 depressing, prophetic yes. An interesting sidebar here: in F451, the book burning is eventually caused by special interest groups being 'offended', so they started changing the books, editing passages, omitting others, etc. until it becomes a full scale banning and burning. ( I read it ages ago but wanted a newer copy and found one from appoximately 1980) In the new Foreword, Bradbury tells a story of how a college/university in Calfornia contacted him asking to do a play of F451 but they wanted to change the characters to make it more females so they weren't offending anyone with the predominately male cast. The original was all males and one minor female role. He refused and I applaud him. I mean, didn't they read the book? Or were they too dense to get his meaning? I found it almost laughable if it weren't so incredibly sad. But I did find his work prophetic from the time in which it was written and the play confirms it within his own life.
Jackie, "prophetic" is a good word for F451.As for the idea of changing the original classic story by putting more females in the cast, one wonders how some people think. Seems to me, that instead of offending the men, the WOMEN might be offended by such a change!
I went to Wiki and found some interesting info about F451:
It was "was first published in a shorter form as 'The Fireman'".
"The novel's title refers to the supposed temperature at which book paper combusts."
(I had forgotten that fact about the meaning of the title!)
The wiki page has an interesting section on the book's "Themes":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenhe...
In Themes:There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist / Zionist / Seventh-day Adventist / Women's Lib / Republican / Mattachine / FourSquareGospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosene, light the fuse….Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel Fahrenheit 451, described how the books were burned first by the minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the library closed forever.
Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballantine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with the censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exquisite irony. Judy-Lynn del Rey, one of the new Ballantine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place.
Again, did this censor-happy editor read the book? I just shake my head, it blows my mind how some people can be so obtuse.
Yes, Jackie, I see what you mean by "obtuse"! The "censor-happy editor" didn't seem to realize what he was doing. He actually did what the censors in F451 did. He censored the book! Sheesh!
I have strong views on censorship. The copyright holder spent their time and energy on their project and no one should be able to censor it.If a person doesn't like something, don't read it, change the channel, but don't ever presume to tell me I can't read or view something.
It still blows my mind that the US has banned and challenged books. Yay Freedom of Speech (in a sarcastic tone I cannot convey in type).
Yes, censorship of any sort is a slippery-slope to eventual loss of liberty.
Where does editing end & censorship start? Like the famous line about pornography, it's hard to define, but I know when I see it.Many classics read better with heavy editing & cutting, IMO. "Moby Dick" & most of Charles Dickens works are good cases in point. I'm sure many folks feel that way about "Huck Finn". I guess so long as the full version is readily available & the edited versions are marked as such, it's not a big deal, but it is a slippery slope. Leaving the last chapter of A Clockwork Orange out of the US editions is censorship, IMO.
Jim wrote: "Where does editing end & censorship start? Like the famous line about pornography, it's hard to define, but I know when I see it.Many classics read better with heavy editing & cutting, IMO. "Mo..." "
Good points, Jim. There's always that gray area where distinctions are muddied. That's when we have to weigh the pros and cons. But then we have to consider whether the ends justify the means. Do the ends EVER justify the means? I guess it depends on what the ends and means are. That's why we have a Supreme Court. And even then, who's right and who's wrong? Round and round we go.
In the end, it's only an opinion, even with the Supreme Court. It's not a matter of right and wrong, but who's opinion matters more.
Jackie wrote: "In the end, it's only an opinion, even with the Supreme Court. It's not a matter of right and wrong, but who's opinion matters more."Yes, Jackie, I'm afraid that's true. This brings us to the big controversy: absolute morality versus relative morality. I always find it interesting to think about and read about subjects like this, related to ethics.
I googled and found some interesting information on the subject. Some explanations are very complicated but I found one page with a clear explanation. (Forgive the long post, but I think it's worth posting in view of our previous conversation here.) I found it at:
http://askville.amazon.com/absolute-v...
(Scroll down at the link to see it.)
It says:
============================================
"In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
"If you accept moral relativism, you could not even condemn a Islamic fanatic who cuts off your spouse’s head in the name of Allah because such action is acceptable in their cultural and religious heritage. This is an extreme example but it illustrates where moral relativism leads.
"This doesn’t mean that moral absolutism can’t be taken to an extreme either but the results are far from damaging. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_ab...
"Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.
"According to moral absolutists, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will or character of God, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices."
FROM: http://askville.amazon.com/absolute-v...
================================================
Other web pages go into more detail using additional philosophic terms.
http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethi...
For example, see "Situation Ethics" at the above link. There's also:
"teleological", meaning: what is right or wrong is relative to the situation, it is whatever has the best consequences
and
"deontological", meaning: there are no exceptions to the rules ... dealing with the duty to follow rules (absolutist).
Of course, there's always Wiki which REALLY bends your brain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_re...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_ab...
No bias in those morality articles, is there? Of course, absolute morality can lead to as extremely damaging consequences as relative morality. All philosophies, when taken to their logical & extreme conclusions, are insanely out of touch with the real world & that's always dangerous. There is no possible way any philosophy can make sense to everyone all the time, especially about something as poorly defined as morality.
In this case, both philosophies start from the premise that the world is subject to a logical standard of morality & rely on rational responses to it. Further, they assume we can communicate precisely - all of which is ridiculous.
We're too ignorant to understand the logic behind the world much less define what constitutes moral behavior in all situations. We come up with everything from Chaos & Quantum theories to religious beliefs to try to make sense out of it all & still fail miserably. A logic system without a set of standards to work off of isn't one, so morality has no standard of logic behind it.
People aren't rational - we're rationalizing animals. We can't be rational, we didn't evolve that way. Our senses regularly fool us in all sorts of odd ways - garbage in, garbage out. That's why eyewitness testimony is so poor. The only surety is that no two people experience the same event in the same way & certainly don't recall it all the same after.
So, a relative moralist might allow his wife's head to be cut off because the attacker is acting within its nature, but an absolute moralist who believes "thou shalt not kill" might allow it to happen, even if they had a gun in hand, simply because of his moral belief. It depends on how each rationalize & prioritize that particular piece of 'logic' of their moral philosophy against other parts. IOW, how they contextualize this one particular piece of their belief system.
Both could be 'morally wrong' from a survival standpoint - the basis of all morality. Survival is an instinctual response, part of our nature, & thus possibly outside morality. But, humans are the only critter on the planet that arguably has no instincts. Our thinking is so powerful as to change instinctual responses sometimes. Other times our 'thinking' is so skewed by our physiques (e.g. hormones - puberty, menopause, etc.) that we make jokes about it & excuse it as outside of our control, a reflexive response. So now motivation becomes a determining factor, too.
Then there is the blender that we laughably refer to as 'communication'. It's a system so poor that we can live with another, very similar person for decades & still misunderstand them on a regular basis while in their presence. IOW, there are often communication misunderstandings with the best communication possible, much less a poor subset, such as writing in different language. Imagine trying to communicate anything, even the simplest concept, to 7 billion individuals, with all their differences in language, custom, lifestyles, & such. I'd say odds are poor that most would agree the sun rises daily.
Even relative isn't relative enough.
;-)
Jim wrote: Of course, absolute morality can lead to as extremely damaging consequences as relative morality.Same thoughts here. When people start claiming 'absolute', I'm gonna run in the opposite direction. I equate 'absolute' with extremism. Nothing is absolute.
Again, morals are opinions, it's why they vary so widely.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group
Books mentioned in this topic
Great Expectations (other topics)Understanding Cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans (other topics)
Never Cry Wolf: The Amazing True Story of Life Among Arctic Wolves (other topics)
Bel Canto (other topics)
State of Wonder (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Edward T. Hall (other topics)Ann Patchett (other topics)
Andre Norton (other topics)
Dean Koontz (other topics)
Andrea Mitchell (other topics)
More...
