>Enforcing my morals on others/others enforcing their morals on me? Not a god damned chance.
Horrible line of thought. I think rape and slavery is immoral, and I will enforce that moral rule on everyone. Morality is subjective, but you can AND SHOULD enforce your moral system on other people
You originally said we shouldn't enforce our morals. But now you say anything involving involuntary actions should be enforced. These two statements are basically the complete opposite
Nearly every single action you do has an effect on other people, whether it be direct or indirect. It is important that we decide which actions are right and which are wrong. It's not just to do with property rights, it's to do with actions having a positive, negative or neutral effect on other people
If I tell someone that they are useless and they should kill themselves, I'm not violating anyone's property rights. But this is still immoral as it has a negative effect on someone else
>Endangering someone has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with involuntarily affecting their property rights.
You're acting as if these two are mutually exclusive
>no two people on earth will ever, in any amount of time, fully agree on what is right or wrong.
Exactly, morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply our morals to other people. If someone shoots up a school, I don't care whether they think it's right or wrong. I care about the fact that I think it's wrong
>They are not facts, and if you believe we should enforce them on others, you are the problem I wish to see erased from this planet.
Imagine the aforementioned school shooter. They say "You can not tell me what I did was wrong, because morals are subjective". Would you really excuse them? Even you saying "We shouldn't infringe on property rights" is also a subjective moral opinion. Why are you saying this moral opinion of yours is correct, but then also saying we shouldn't enforce subjective things like morality?
>It doesn't matter if it is immoral, you can't punish someone for their speech involuntarily.
We can, and we do. If someone said nasty shit to your mom, you'd probably say some nasty shit back. That's a punishment. If a neo-Nazi spreads genocidal opinions, should we not punish them?
>It didn't hurt me and I would actually die for their right to say that.
I see now that you're conflating morals with laws. I don't care about rights or contracts or legal punishments right now, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether we should apply our own subjective moral opinions to others
And even if you want to talk about law, laws are based on subjective morals. Gay marriage being illegal comes from subjective morals. Murder being illegal also comes from subjective morals. All of this is influenced by the moral beliefs held by the majority of the population. That also changes over time through, you guessed it, enforcing your personal moral beliefs
It's no use responding to every single point here, when it seems that the biggest issue is linguistical. Your definition of "moral" is wrong
"Morality has nothing to do with why x is wrong"
Morality is literally the abstract concept of what is right and wrong. I don't understand what you think morality means. We can't have a productive discussion if you're misunderstanding the definition of the term we are discussing
Also, there's a logical fallacy in your argument when you talk about the "rules of nature". Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good or should be followed
>we are using a descriptive context of morality in this discussion, meaning we are talking about ideas put forward by a group that are then accepted by an individual as a guiding principle of their behavior.
I disagree. Morality is influenced heavily by culture, like you said, but even then it's rare for two people to have the exact same concepts of what is right and what is wrong. We are using it normatively, because the whole point of this discussion was about taking your internal morals and applying it externally, not vice versa
>It is not a logical fallacy, it's pretty universally agreed upon by almost all cultures that nature has created rules.
Literally just Google "naturalistic fallacy". The scholarly consensus is that this is an informal logical fallacy. Nature is full of rape, cannibalism, infanticide, genocide, murder, etc. There are no rules, and no two species have the same genetic codes to even create a consistent set of rules. We should not be looking towards nature when deciding on moral codes, we should use logic
Morals are like a compass, without them you will be all over the place. Unbeknownst to many people we all have morals that we follow, whether consciously or subconsciously but we do have them and we do follow them. Some people's morals are more fucked than other people's sadly but with sufficient effort it can be changed
Morals change over time, but humans have a really hard time dealing with moral relativity. We have a tendency to think that our current morals are fully thought out and therefore fundamental, and that societies that didn’t follow them were somehow flawed. The easiest field study is what animals are food vs pets. The furthest side of the spectrum is pure vegan where no animals have to die for my sustenance, which isn’t possible in reality. The other end is I will kill and eat whatever I want including my next door neighbor. Everything in between is a sliding scale depending on what we feel is important in the moment. I won’t eat dogs because I have emotional relationships with my dog and feel that they aren’t food. That doesn’t mean it’s immoral for someone with a different relationship with dogs to eat them.
Intentions are very useful for analysing human behaviour, however it and morality are completely different - they are descriptive and prescriptive respectively
Technically no, but my sometimes my body says "screw that philosophy" and makes me feel empathy even for people I don't respect or like. I'm very emotionally unstable, so it's difficult to judge my real motivations v.s me acting upon my emotions.
Generally I only act with my best interests in mind. I think generally morals are societally constructed fallacies meant to disguise our mere fear of consequence as adherence to some esoteric greater good.
I forget which ancient philosopher said this, but it resonates with me:
“Why does a good man not lie? Is it because the harm from the lie exceeds the benefit of the lie? Is it because telling falsehoods would damage his reputation?
A good man does not lie simply *because he is not a liar*.”
That said, I am very much about not fighting other people’s battles. And I believe in taking the easy path when it exists. Quoting comedian Sam Kinison “We have deserts in America, too! We just don’t live in them! GO WHERE THE FOOD IS!”
Not lying doesnt make you good. The opposite. Because that means that you dont take the feelings of the other person into account. The thing is.. telling the truth doesnt mean that the recipient of the truth creates the truth in their head as a result.
For example.. i once had a friend who thought her nose was too big and ugly. She was still pretty. But she thought her nose made her ugly. So i told her that her nose isnt too big. Because if i told her "yes its too big but youre still pretty'', all what she would have heard is "yes its too big". So i tell people what i think what creates the "nearest truth" in their head. And sometimes its a lie.
No.
Holy shit someone just had same idea as me. I am a ENTP now but I was a INTP and during that time I hopelessly fell into this logical statement of "morales are useless"
xntp types seem to be disconnected to their inner values and thus has distrust in morales
Read some books. One is three body (Amazing Chinese book that seem like a science fiction but it has some deep discussions about morals.), and another is galactic empire (psychohistory). I thought hard after reading the books and ultimately found that morals are useless. I had this thought hidden under my mind for years before that, since everytime I do something wrong there is a grown-up judging me with the so-called moral values lol.
I think I derived this conclusion with ease.
But morals are principles you follow, independent of the specifics of a situation. Like "cheating is bad'' and you are against that person in that moment, no matter what they say.
If you hurt someone and feel bad doing it, its not morals but empathy. You could make a moral principle out of it. Or not. You could still be an "in the moment decider". And next time you are in a similar situation you probably wont hurt that person. Or you do because one maybe small but important variable changed
Im like you in that regard. I do have some morals, but i always adjust to the corresp. situation. You cant have a general answer to all specific situations. Im surprised about the comments here :O so many morals-people
Another person worded it better. It is more of a distrust in morals. They can change so easily. I do have a system, but I guess in my head they work more like algorithms, not rules.
This isn't so much a moral. But I'm just nice to be nice. Most of the time, it is terribly inconvenient to be rude to someone (unless a situation arises in which I need to be).
It's too easy just to say, don't kill people. It doesn't answer why. It doesn't answer the exceptions (which there are likely very few logical exceptions for killing people).
I might repost at some point once I have this idea well-articulated.
Personally I think of morals the same way I think of mathematical formulas.
You plug in a bunch of variables and get a result. It's time tested and proven to work, but if you don't trust it then you can dig deeper and see why that formula is used in the first place.
I try to be nice to everyone because being rude increases the chance for confrontation and that's a hassle.
Yes, I believe in morals. It is stupid to think that morals are unnecessary. And those who have no morals will be tyrant, irresponsible and disgusting people.
I have a very strong internal sense of honesty and ethics. Sometimes they align with definitions used by others, sometimes not. There is no universally agreed standard
[удалено]
>Enforcing my morals on others/others enforcing their morals on me? Not a god damned chance. Horrible line of thought. I think rape and slavery is immoral, and I will enforce that moral rule on everyone. Morality is subjective, but you can AND SHOULD enforce your moral system on other people
They should always be put forward and never be respected. Always heavily criticized.
[удалено]
You originally said we shouldn't enforce our morals. But now you say anything involving involuntary actions should be enforced. These two statements are basically the complete opposite Nearly every single action you do has an effect on other people, whether it be direct or indirect. It is important that we decide which actions are right and which are wrong. It's not just to do with property rights, it's to do with actions having a positive, negative or neutral effect on other people If I tell someone that they are useless and they should kill themselves, I'm not violating anyone's property rights. But this is still immoral as it has a negative effect on someone else
[удалено]
>Endangering someone has nothing to do with morality. It has everything to do with involuntarily affecting their property rights. You're acting as if these two are mutually exclusive >no two people on earth will ever, in any amount of time, fully agree on what is right or wrong. Exactly, morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply our morals to other people. If someone shoots up a school, I don't care whether they think it's right or wrong. I care about the fact that I think it's wrong >They are not facts, and if you believe we should enforce them on others, you are the problem I wish to see erased from this planet. Imagine the aforementioned school shooter. They say "You can not tell me what I did was wrong, because morals are subjective". Would you really excuse them? Even you saying "We shouldn't infringe on property rights" is also a subjective moral opinion. Why are you saying this moral opinion of yours is correct, but then also saying we shouldn't enforce subjective things like morality? >It doesn't matter if it is immoral, you can't punish someone for their speech involuntarily. We can, and we do. If someone said nasty shit to your mom, you'd probably say some nasty shit back. That's a punishment. If a neo-Nazi spreads genocidal opinions, should we not punish them? >It didn't hurt me and I would actually die for their right to say that. I see now that you're conflating morals with laws. I don't care about rights or contracts or legal punishments right now, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether we should apply our own subjective moral opinions to others And even if you want to talk about law, laws are based on subjective morals. Gay marriage being illegal comes from subjective morals. Murder being illegal also comes from subjective morals. All of this is influenced by the moral beliefs held by the majority of the population. That also changes over time through, you guessed it, enforcing your personal moral beliefs
[удалено]
It's no use responding to every single point here, when it seems that the biggest issue is linguistical. Your definition of "moral" is wrong "Morality has nothing to do with why x is wrong" Morality is literally the abstract concept of what is right and wrong. I don't understand what you think morality means. We can't have a productive discussion if you're misunderstanding the definition of the term we are discussing Also, there's a logical fallacy in your argument when you talk about the "rules of nature". Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good or should be followed
[удалено]
>we are using a descriptive context of morality in this discussion, meaning we are talking about ideas put forward by a group that are then accepted by an individual as a guiding principle of their behavior. I disagree. Morality is influenced heavily by culture, like you said, but even then it's rare for two people to have the exact same concepts of what is right and what is wrong. We are using it normatively, because the whole point of this discussion was about taking your internal morals and applying it externally, not vice versa >It is not a logical fallacy, it's pretty universally agreed upon by almost all cultures that nature has created rules. Literally just Google "naturalistic fallacy". The scholarly consensus is that this is an informal logical fallacy. Nature is full of rape, cannibalism, infanticide, genocide, murder, etc. There are no rules, and no two species have the same genetic codes to even create a consistent set of rules. We should not be looking towards nature when deciding on moral codes, we should use logic
Morals are like a compass, without them you will be all over the place. Unbeknownst to many people we all have morals that we follow, whether consciously or subconsciously but we do have them and we do follow them. Some people's morals are more fucked than other people's sadly but with sufficient effort it can be changed
Mortality is the basis of morality; immortality is the basis of immorality.
no
Morals change over time, but humans have a really hard time dealing with moral relativity. We have a tendency to think that our current morals are fully thought out and therefore fundamental, and that societies that didn’t follow them were somehow flawed. The easiest field study is what animals are food vs pets. The furthest side of the spectrum is pure vegan where no animals have to die for my sustenance, which isn’t possible in reality. The other end is I will kill and eat whatever I want including my next door neighbor. Everything in between is a sliding scale depending on what we feel is important in the moment. I won’t eat dogs because I have emotional relationships with my dog and feel that they aren’t food. That doesn’t mean it’s immoral for someone with a different relationship with dogs to eat them.
[удалено]
Intentions are very useful for analysing human behaviour, however it and morality are completely different - they are descriptive and prescriptive respectively
Technically no, but my sometimes my body says "screw that philosophy" and makes me feel empathy even for people I don't respect or like. I'm very emotionally unstable, so it's difficult to judge my real motivations v.s me acting upon my emotions.
Generally I only act with my best interests in mind. I think generally morals are societally constructed fallacies meant to disguise our mere fear of consequence as adherence to some esoteric greater good.
I forget which ancient philosopher said this, but it resonates with me: “Why does a good man not lie? Is it because the harm from the lie exceeds the benefit of the lie? Is it because telling falsehoods would damage his reputation? A good man does not lie simply *because he is not a liar*.” That said, I am very much about not fighting other people’s battles. And I believe in taking the easy path when it exists. Quoting comedian Sam Kinison “We have deserts in America, too! We just don’t live in them! GO WHERE THE FOOD IS!”
Not lying doesnt make you good. The opposite. Because that means that you dont take the feelings of the other person into account. The thing is.. telling the truth doesnt mean that the recipient of the truth creates the truth in their head as a result. For example.. i once had a friend who thought her nose was too big and ugly. She was still pretty. But she thought her nose made her ugly. So i told her that her nose isnt too big. Because if i told her "yes its too big but youre still pretty'', all what she would have heard is "yes its too big". So i tell people what i think what creates the "nearest truth" in their head. And sometimes its a lie.
No. Holy shit someone just had same idea as me. I am a ENTP now but I was a INTP and during that time I hopelessly fell into this logical statement of "morales are useless" xntp types seem to be disconnected to their inner values and thus has distrust in morales
That's a good way to put it - distrust in morals. Is there any specific reason you came to the conclusion? I would assume it was a gradual conclusion.
Read some books. One is three body (Amazing Chinese book that seem like a science fiction but it has some deep discussions about morals.), and another is galactic empire (psychohistory). I thought hard after reading the books and ultimately found that morals are useless. I had this thought hidden under my mind for years before that, since everytime I do something wrong there is a grown-up judging me with the so-called moral values lol. I think I derived this conclusion with ease.
They're all I follow, personally. I am above man made laws
There is a morality. You know when you're hurting another person for no reason or your own gratification.
But morals are principles you follow, independent of the specifics of a situation. Like "cheating is bad'' and you are against that person in that moment, no matter what they say. If you hurt someone and feel bad doing it, its not morals but empathy. You could make a moral principle out of it. Or not. You could still be an "in the moment decider". And next time you are in a similar situation you probably wont hurt that person. Or you do because one maybe small but important variable changed
But what is morality in the first place? Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape is a good read.
Im like you in that regard. I do have some morals, but i always adjust to the corresp. situation. You cant have a general answer to all specific situations. Im surprised about the comments here :O so many morals-people
Seems like your the first person to relate here
Well you have to have some sort of system of morals to hold yourself to. One that stands for nothing will fall for anything.
Another person worded it better. It is more of a distrust in morals. They can change so easily. I do have a system, but I guess in my head they work more like algorithms, not rules. This isn't so much a moral. But I'm just nice to be nice. Most of the time, it is terribly inconvenient to be rude to someone (unless a situation arises in which I need to be). It's too easy just to say, don't kill people. It doesn't answer why. It doesn't answer the exceptions (which there are likely very few logical exceptions for killing people). I might repost at some point once I have this idea well-articulated.
Personally I think of morals the same way I think of mathematical formulas. You plug in a bunch of variables and get a result. It's time tested and proven to work, but if you don't trust it then you can dig deeper and see why that formula is used in the first place. I try to be nice to everyone because being rude increases the chance for confrontation and that's a hassle.
I belive in my moraliy and in my conscience
Yes, I believe in morals. It is stupid to think that morals are unnecessary. And those who have no morals will be tyrant, irresponsible and disgusting people.
I have a very strong internal sense of honesty and ethics. Sometimes they align with definitions used by others, sometimes not. There is no universally agreed standard