Request For People To Explain Their Morals.

some people deserve bad things....morally I have no problem being judge,jury and executioner


lemme sum it up....trust me with your money and your life but not your wife

 

I can't explain my morals and won't even try....



but!





Anyone that goes against them is an immoral son of a bitch...

 

Rolling, I asked you to explain your morals, not to simply tell me what they are. You're using rat tactics, to evade, which by the way, is well done, if that's your intention.

 

you are giving me too much credit....i thought my examples were awesome...not really sure what you want

how can any persons morals be anything more than a collection of knowledge of what is accepted in society and what is not?


i spose igot some from my mom and soe from my dad....some from the various peers of my life....even some from here

 

A follower, through and through. Or do I give you to much credit. Are you a sewer rat that feeds off of the droppings of others?

 

nope...never been a follower...always been a leader since I realized you don't need peoples permission or blessing in order to lead them

been leading you through this thread pretty good ....

 

:rofl:

 

Its a simple concept to me. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When it comes to people I mostly have that down except when I get angry and say nasty things to people I regret saying later and the animal issue. I am too skinny to restrict my food choices when I already have wheat and dairy allergies.

Of course one can say my simple moral code breaks down in scenarios such as war but I would say that if I was a common citizen living under tyranical rule I would wish someone to fight the tyrants so it still holds up in my mind.

I am against the abuse of animals, children, the Earth, men, woman, and any ET's who we may make contact with.

When it comes to eating meat I have to look at it from a survival scenario. According to WebMD I am underweight and should see a doctor so while meat is not my first choice I do not avoid it entirely.

I believe most religions and philosophies of any real moral value, if boiled down to their essense, will tell you, in one way or another, to simply treat others as you would wish to be treated and that is what I do my best to live by. I am no saint, as I am an imperfect human, a mere animal at the core, but I do my best to live according to the 'golden rule' and when any part of my life starts to cross that boundery I will rethink things and adjust accordingly.

 

But who/what leads you?

 

many things .....mostly the desire to not die

 

explanation is simple. we all have to individually live, in the kind of world, all of us together statistically create.
a world in which everyone can find gratification rather then torture, is created by impartial and non-discriminatory consideration.
that is why aggressiveness and evil are one and the same, and it really don't have a damd thing to do, with what anyone does or does not go to bed with.
morality is simply mature responsibility, the avoidance of causing harm.
it is the same whatever anyone believes or doesn't.

 

You abhor killing, therefore your avoidance of killing whenever possible is an emotional reaction. So I'll ask a similar question to that which I asked Moonglow; what if you stopped abhorring killing, would there be any rational basis to keep you from avoiding it?

Here's something I can work with because it makes a more narrow discrimination of value. You value the socially and intellectually advanced societies over the less so and therefor adopt your responses to such societies based on that factor, which is - in my opinion for what it's worth - both a detailed and believable morality.

 

In the phrase, "treat others as you would have them treat you", the "would" is key. No situation is as simple as those often portrayed in moral discussions, so to avoid interpreting the golden rule so as to manipulate the minor differences in seemingly similar situations in one's own favor (generally unconsciously), it's best to first interpret it in terms of two situations that were the mirror image of each other. In other words, you treat a person a certain way, because if she/he were in the exact same situation that you are in, and you were in the exact same situation that she was in, then you would want her to treat you that way. But, the exact situation could be nothing other than a complete role reversal, you would be her, she would be you, it becomes tautological. You basically treat others as you would have them treat you, if you were them and they were you, which is entirely self-serving.

Basically you're saying that wars are moral to you if they're to potentially free people from tyranny. Here you're already doing what I said you'd do if we didn't interpret the golden rule exactly. Not all people who are under tyrannical rule are people who would rule themselves or others without tyranny. Certainly you would try to, but you're not necessarily the same as others. You would basically be opposing one tyranny in favor of another.

Think of it this way; my assumption is that if one country were to invade another and displace the natives with their own people, you would consider that a tyrannical act, and a war to reverse it justified - an act that displaces the newly settled victors and restores the native who were deported. But, take a look at history and you'll see that all territory was fundamentally taken by force at one point in history to the advantage of victors' ancestors and the disadvantage of those conquereds' ancestors. Since humans didn't begin in a static state, there can be no rectifying any of the supposed wrongs of the past without creating another wrong in doing so.

To hold land is to hold land against the landless, it's tyranny in that without a home one can hardly live. So fundamentally there is no act against a system of tyranny that doesn't implicitly wish to impose another system of tyranny.

 

Even if one is so sheltered by others that she can live without being aggressive, she still is the product of past aggression. But, even the sheltered must act aggressive at times if they wish to advance themselves.

That's aggression. But, I'm not claiming aggression isn't evil just because basically everyone, yourself included, do it, I just saying that if aggression is evil, then the term 'evil' is diluted to the point of near meaninglessness.

 

I concede that it is not only an imperfect system but indeed contains an element of selfishness. It would be role reversal to do unto another as I would have them do to me. It requires me to impose my wants on this hypothetical individual.

That being said, despite its imperfections, the "golden rule" is still the best moral compas we have. I will never know if I am truly treating the other person/party how THEY want to be treated but by putting myself in their shoes I can be far more likely to act in a moral way then if I just did what felt best for me.

To give an example, a girl roams aimlessly, appearently lost and intoxicated after a party. She can't find her way back home and she is in danger. I don't know if she would even want me to approach her, she has no reason to trust me over anybody else but if I make an educated guess of what she would want (which is the best I can do as I will never be in an identical situation and I have/will never walk in her shoes) I might ask her if she is ok. She MIGHT look at me and decide to trust me to give her a ride back to her place where I drop her off and she will LIKELY be better off because of my actions.

I can never know for sure if I really helped her in the bigger picture. For all I know, given the butterfly effect and far too many variables in general, I could have made things worse in the long run.

BUT, to get back to my point, I still believe that by ATTEMPTING to do what I think she would want despite our vast differences and all the unpredictable variables there would be a GREATER CHANCE OF NET GOOD VS NET HARM

Another guy can drive past the same girl but with no moral code, pick her up and take advantage of the situation. That guy is ONLY TRYING TO SERVE HIMSELF. At least in this hypothetical scenario my motivation is to help by doing unto others. Even if it is, at its core, a self serving philosophy, there is still a GREATER CHANCE OF POSITIVE OUTCOME by using the golden rule vs. not having any kind of moral code.

I'm not saying you have to believe in the giolden rule or have a moral code to be a good person and benefit others but, IMHO, it is more likely to stear one to make the right choice. We all have the capacity to do good deeds without any moral code but we are all flawed humans too and it might benefit us to remind ourselves from time to time of the golden rule.

It is the best one can do in an unpredictable world to act with a positive intention and I beleive its that intention that counts in the end as we will have a better chance of leaving behind a net benefit rather than a net loss in the scheme of things.

 

this is a common misunderstanding, commonly misunderstood because commonly taken out of context. of course there are also people who want it to be, which is itself aggressiveness.

 

This is a hard question to answer honestly because my feelings are so engrained in me that I can't really conceive of a day where they won't be the same. I will take a guess and say that if that were to ever happen, the laws and the fear of being prosecuted would keep me from doing anything majorly horrible, like murder, but I would probably start doing smaller bad things. Not returning money when I see someone drop it while they are walking, that sort of thing.

 

It's not self-serving at the expense of not serving others, though. It's only immoral to be self-serving when it causes others to suffer in some way.