Request For People To Explain Their Morals.

actually it's "thou shall not commit murder" at least that is the original intention, BIG difference.
Killing in and of itself is not a "bad" thing, it's the motivations and intentions that determine the "goodness" or "badness" of killing, same as for any other action.

 

a question with such an easy answer that gets so muddled and convoluted.
The answer is simple; Empathy is the source of ALL human morality.
Through empathy we see ourselves in the "other" and that lends to social bonding and cohesion.

Jesus summed it up nicely saying that all the law (human moralistic thought) was simply loving others as ourselves.
Empathy, easy peasy conceptually, hard to put into practice until we see ALL life as being of the same essence.

to quote the Slipperman;
"Don't be alarmed at what you see, you yourself are just the same as what you see in me."

 

Question of thread was what is "your" morals, and like it or not, that is mine.

 

Generally speaking, I try to follow the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the ideals expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. I think I do this because if everyone did, many of the world's problems would be solved. I live in this world, and would like to see it maintained and improved as a decent living environment. The best way I know to do that is to try to do my part, by modeling what I consider to be decent actions, and hope others will be impressed enough to join in. I like to take walks along a walking trail, and was finding that my experience was marred by all the trash people were dumping along the path. So I and a friend started picking it up, and eventually others joined in. It looks a lot better now, although there's always some new deposit to deal with.

I've been told there are four kinds of people in this world: the turtle avoiders, the turtle ignorers, the turtle rescuers, and the turtle destroyers. If a turtle is walking across a highway, the turtle avoider will try not to hit it, the turtle ignorer will continue full speed ahead and too bad about the turtle, the turtle rescuer will pull over and guide the turtle to safety, and the turtle destroyer will aim for the poor turtle. I'm probably in the avoider category--although sometimes a rescuer , if it doesn't mean being an enabler or causing a traffic accident..

 

Do no harm. I try to avoid even killing bugs when I can.

Also, live and let live. I was robbed once and it felt horrible - that kind of intrusion into another's life can take many forms, from murder to rape to something as common as making someone feel like less than they are for not conforming to your standards. People should be free to live their own lives without any kind of intrusion from others.

 

This is not 'Nam.

 

I feel so unqualified to talk about morals. Mainly because I hardly even know what my own are exactly. I haven't really thought about where those boundaries are. I don't imagine myself killing unless it is the last option of a man who will die otherwise. I have no problem stealing from businesses large enough to take the hit but I won't steal from people directly. I won't actually cheat but I'll spend time thinking unfaithful thoughts. I don't enjoy the thought of killing animals for sustenance but I imagine I would do so if necessary. It gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more and more variables you put on different situations.

Mine are based in an early childhood teaching of Christian values. I would be lying if I said that doesn't somewhat inform my current moral stance on everyday challenges. Its a harder question to answer than just putting down what you think you believe. Morals are claimed by word of mouth but proven by actions.

 

This is so true. Actions speak louder than words.

 

That was said by Friederich Nietzsche, a great philosopher.

 

mine was said by rollingalong, a great philosopher too

 

People are too interconnected for there to be many situations where one can assume one's actions will have virtually no effect on others. One can look for situations where one can act in a way that's beneficial to oneself and certain others, but there will always be others who're incidentally affected in ways you, or they, may consider harmful. So in such situations there's generally the possibility that one can choose to alter one's actions to mitigate this affect but, generally at the cost of also mitigating one's own gain.

 

To be reasonable, then, I think it's only immoral to be self-serving if you're knowingly causing others physical or mental anguish. I doubt that we're so interconnected that most of our actions will inadvertently do that. Anyway, we would also be so interconnected that our actions weren't any more to blame than anyone else's actions, including the sufferer, for their pain. Most suffering is probably just purely random.

I think we also need to consider whether an act is forgivable when determining if it is moral or immoral. If I'm helping a guy fix a fence and I leave for five minutes to buy a Pepsi and it takes that much longer to fix the fence so that his daughter whom he doesn't know has a splitting headache gets her aspirin from the store that much later, I think it would be unreasonable and even immoral for the daughter not to forgive me for buying the Pepsi.

Also keeping in mind that there's a difference between forgiving someone for an accident and forgiving someone for something they did intentionally. If I knew the daughter was suffering and left to buy a Pepsi anyway, even if she forgave me, it would still be an immoral act. When I say an act is "forgivable" I mean it is automatically forgivable, not arbitrarily forgivable.

 

If you know the facts in the statement of mine that you just quoted, then you know that any significant action you make would cause such anguish with someone. The only alternative is to not be so inquisitive to learn such facts, giving the moral upper hand to the most ignorance, and making willing ignorance for oneself an immoral act.

Unless you want to argue that people are less socially interconnected than I think, then most significant actions one makes will be significantly harmful to at least someone.

You're speaking of cause and effect. It basically negates the type of morality which you believe in - a type of morality developed before cause and effect were properly understood. (Meaning equal causes had unequal effects, and equal effects had unequal causes, because of magic, gods, etc.)

Suffering is caused by an excess of need. Need is cause by the ordering entity, which is any given life form, fighting to retain the distinction it has gained (the very distinction which allows it to be called a life form) amidst otherness.

You're once again advocating ignorance. Which is immoral of you, according to your own standards, because if one were to adopt your morality at your word, one may find it useful to try to know as little as possible.

 

Define "significant action". I personally don't see how any action can be defined as significant or insignificant. You're going to have to prove to me that my every little whim directly and exclusively is responsible for the mental or physical anguish of someone, somewhere.

Even if it were the case that we're that interconnected, then how would my actions be any more responsible than the actions of everyone else on the planet, or even the victim him/herself? How could you directly correlate my actions with the victim's suffering? And isn't it just as likely that my actions, then, will indirectly be the cause of a person's well-being?

Fine, because we can't possibly factor in all known variables of our actions, it isn't immoral to be self-serving as long as you're not purposefully causing others mental or physical anguish, such that the bad effects necessarily outweigh the good. It is moral that every part serve the good of the whole, and we don't have faith in gods, rather we have faith that the whole is progressing in a positive direction.

Because of the interconnectedness you describe, I shouldn't be an exception to the physical anguish you believe will be caused by others indirect actions. Whatever physical anguish I am in isn't so severe that I think it outweighs the benefits of anyone's moral actions. I don't believe there could be a physical anguish so severe that it would outweigh that. It would be immoral of me to expect to not have any physical anguish at the expense of not having people treat each other as best they can in a moral fashion.

Whatever causes suffering, it doesn't matter. The fact that we suffer doesn't make it immoral to perform a moral action, even if this action will indirectly cause others to suffer.

I'm not advocating ignorance by pointing out that ignorance exists. My morality is reasonable and altruistic. It isn't going to the extremes you're going to, where you're saying we can only possibly be moral if we're either God or if we're dead.

 

I suppose some of my morality stems from faith, of which mine is not limited to only one. But mostly, I think it stems from experience and the observation of others. Perhaps the engrained philosophy of Christianity still lingers from going to church and attending various Christian-based private schools as a youth? Who knows. In the end, it's not about what's good or bad, but about what is better.

I have a fortune cookie paper sticking out of my computer screen that says, 'Life is a series of choices. Today yours are good ones.'
Just thought I'd share that tidbit. Maybe it will 'open another box of worms?'

 

My morals are founded on the Golden Rule. I'm not a masochist so ya'll are pretty safe when it comes to me.

 

This is what I wanted to write. I believe this to be true and anyone who says otherwise is a liar or in denial... which is kinda lying to yourself... so yeah, still a liar.

 

Mine are, have been and always will be the animals.....nothing will ever change about that.....They are who they say they are every second.....I will fight for their rights until the end....
It is the rare person I take notice of and care about.....the rest are garbage and can jump off cliffs for all i care.

Social media has only reinforced this feeling I have about people. Maybe I should leave social media...as my feeling about people just get worse here.

i care about you as much as you care about me. Put that in your truth pipe.

 

the needle on the compass moves.....for instance........this is why it is legal to kill people [and animals] but not for just anything.....

we the people love you right back sunshine
lol

 

Don't leave moonglow. People appreciate your presence, believe it or not. I may not live up to your standards, but I try to be a good person, and it's really refreshing to have such a nice person around as you. The world needs as much of you as possible. If anything you should hang out more on social media.