What is your moral philosophy?

Ren said:
To be honest, I can't wrap my head around the idea that "evil" is different from "bad" if we are in a deterministic world. Do you guys see things differently?

I think it may be possible to argue that evil can be perpetrated without awareness/intent. But in a causally determined world, I don't see how.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this hits at what you're saying, but I make the distinction between evil *people/agents* and evil situations/consequences.

I think in a deterministic world, there are the latter but not the former-- evil situations, but the concept of responsibility is more a practical one than one with ultimate grounding.
 
charlatan said:
Not sure if this hits at what you're saying, but I make the distinction between evil *people/agents* and evil situations/consequences.

I think in a deterministic world, there are the latter but not the former-- evil situations, but the concept of responsibility is more a practical one than one with ultimate grounding.
Click to expand...

I see. Interesting. But how do you define evil situations versus, say, simply "bad" situations? Is evil in this case just a matter of degrees, or are evil situations qualitatively different from bad ones in your valuation?
 
Ren said:
I think it may be possible to argue that evil can be perpetrated without awareness/intent. But in a causally determined world, I don't see how.
Click to expand...
Ren said:
But how do you define evil situations versus, say, simply "bad" situations?
Click to expand...

It's not so much "evil" as it is some amount of unpredictability and obfuscation. You don't know, and you don't know what you don't know, and that makes the situation kind of "evil."
 
Ren said:
But how do you define evil situations versus, say, simply "bad" situations?
Click to expand...

I guess there's no distinction I make (meaning I didn't find it necessary to make such a distinction for any of my views so far.... but it's possible someone in this thread defined these two terms in such a way that I'd agree there's a difference between the two definitions :) )

I was thinking of something as simple as someone suffers as a consequence, and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
Ren said:
To be honest, I can't wrap my head around the idea that "evil" is different from "bad" if we are in a deterministic world. Do you guys see things differently?

I think it may be possible to argue that evil can be perpetrated without awareness/intent. But in a causally determined world, I don't see how.
Click to expand...

Evil and bad are just perspectives. For example with crop destruction. Pests are evolved to survive in harsh conditions, often with predators and food scarcity. Creating a bunch of conveniently placed food in abundance - i.e. fields of crops - removes the natural balance which keeps them in check. You end up with more pests than the predators can eat. So in a sense, having an abnormal amount of food in one area actually creates the problem.
 
sprinkles said:
Evil and bad are just perspectives. For example with crop destruction. Pests are evolved to survive in harsh conditions, often with predators and food scarcity. Creating a bunch of conveniently placed food in abundance - i.e. fields of crops - removes the natural balance which keeps them in check. You end up with more pests than the predators can eat. So in a sense, having an abnormal amount of food in one area actually creates the problem.
Click to expand...

I like your brand of moral perspectivism (for lack of a better word), which I share in part.

That being said, I don't think it clarifies the distinction between bad and evil.
 
Rowan Tree said:
Epictetus appeals to me most—although I get what you mean, his coldness disguises a genuine depth of compassion that motivated his pedagogical mission. He is also the closest to embodying that radical spirit of the cynics, and I gather was the most sympathetic to contemporaneous cynics. I love Antisthenes, as we encounter him in Diogenes Laërtius's work; although, he is perhaps romanticised in terms of providing the vital link back to Socrates. Seneca was flawed, but there is something poignant (however misguided) about his struggle to sway Nero. Although I agree that his writings are the least profound.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Antisthenes, but will check him out. I see that he studied with Gorgias, too. That's very interesting and should make the Sophist @Sandie33 interested in him, too ;) (I mean this as a compliment of course! ♡)
 
@Ren It is possible to directly realize more fundamental levels of reality like Pure Consciousness which is One and every individual being within existence shares it. So if we look from perspective of oneness, it is easy to see what is right and what is wrong. If action leads to separation, which are actions that spring from intentions that encourage greed, ill will and cruelty then that actions are morally wrong, but if actions come from intentions that encourage generosity, loving kindness and compassion then they are morally right because they bring us into state of unity.

Another reason is that every being seeks happiness and wants to avoid pain, which is instinctual. And everybody knows what actions bring joy and what suffering...

I also like this one quote and even that it is simple, it says a lot:
“Love and do what you will.” - st. Augustine
 
I discovered the Paradoxical Commandments a few months back, and naturally, this sums it up:

People are illogical, unreasonable, and self-centered.
Love them anyway.

If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives.
Do good anyway.

If you are successful, you will win false friends and true enemies.
Succeed anyway.

The good you do today will be forgotten tomorrow.
Do good anyway.

Honesty and frankness make you vulnerable.
Be honest and frank anyway.

The biggest men and women with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and women with the smallest minds.
Think big anyway.

People favor underdogs but follow only top dogs.
Fight for a few underdogs anyway.

What you spend years building may be destroyed overnight.
Build anyway.

People really need help but may attack you if you do help them.
Help people anyway.

Give the world the best you have and you’ll get kicked in the teeth.
Give the world the best you have anyway.
 
Ren said:
If you had to give an outline of your moral philosophy, what would it be?
.
Click to expand...

Take responsibility for your own shit (do what needs doing), make sure all your growth is positive (learn from your mistakes), do not harm (don't be an asshole)... and allow people to make their own mistakes (live truthfully and rightly and be patient with those who don't).
 
Ren said:
If you had to give an outline of your moral philosophy, what would it be?

And do you think you manage (more or less) to apply it in real life?

Looking forward to your answers.
Click to expand...
I was going to post all my failed attempts at ethical treatises from when I was 15-20, but they're already on here somewhere, and I realised that I could tell you with a much greater economy of words:

1) Be nice.
2) Stand up to injustice.
3) Don't bend.

I'm pretty Kantian and deontological to be honest, like most things.
View attachment 52246
 
What I mostly try is to not make things worse as they are. I am polite with people, but I rarely go the extra step to really help them. Like I will not invest a crazy amount of time to listen to someone, I would just try to convince them to go to therapy, for example.

The exception are my younger twin sisters. For them I go the extra mile, and I try to help both financially and with time. I am always available to advise them.

So generally I am focused on helping myself and advancing my life, while at the same time not bothering others.

That's why I also prefer to have a small circle of friends. Thankfully my friends are all very stable, but if something happened, I do not have the resources to spread myself in too many directions.
 
philostam said:
What I mostly try is to not make things worse as they are. I am polite with people, but I rarely go the extra step to really help them. Like I will not invest a crazy amount of time to listen to someone, I would just try to convince them to go to therapy, for example.

The exception are my younger twin sisters. For them I go the extra mile, and I try to help both financially and with time. I am always available to advise them.

So generally I am focused on helping myself and advancing my life, while at the same time not bothering others.

That's why I also prefer to have a small circle of friends. Thankfully my friends are all very stable, but if something happened, I do not have the resources to spread myself in too many directions.
Click to expand...

Thanks for reviving the thread and for your interesting post, phil :)

Would you say you rely on some kind of external ethical framework as a reference point when you're faced with moral choices or rather on practice, common sense, case-by-case etc.?
 
No problem! :grinning:

My moral system is non existent, so I mostly go case by case. I don't have any specific rules, usually it just depends how important things are to me. And how successful are others in guilt-tripping me.

I mean, the law is the law. So I don't even consider doing things that are illegal, because there is too much trouble/hustle with that.

I am not super good in saying no to people or to draw a strict boundaries, and I am also prone to say an occasional lie to avoid conflict. But I am trying to stop that. It's a good practice to be more assertive and tell the truth, no matter what.

But I don't like the "be kind to all" approach. I think there has to be a mixture, let's say to be around 40-45% on agreeableness.
 
Don't poop on other peoples private toilets
 
philostam said:
I mean, the law is the law.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that is a potential slippery slope, though?

As a thought experiment, could you see yourself living in a country where your moral convictions conflict with the law, and would you be willing to disrespect the law for it?

I guess what I'm interested to know is: are you happy to follow the law because, as far as your country is concerned, you find that it already aligns relatively well with your moral intuitions; or rather because you fear the consequences of disrespecting it, i.e. being punished.
 
Ren said:
Don't you think that is a potential slippery slope, though?

As a thought experiment, could you see yourself living in a country where your moral convictions conflict with the law, and would you be willing to disrespect the law for it?

I guess what I'm interested to know is: are you happy to follow the law because, as far as your country is concerned, you find that it already aligns relatively well with your moral intuitions; or rather because you fear the consequences of disrespecting it, i.e. being punished.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see what you mean.

The law would have to get really corrupt for me to go against it. I am not a hero/martyr/revolutionary by temperament. I am not willing to die or by imprisoned over a principle. And in general I must say our laws here in Europe seem to be quite reasonable.

I often go against other forms of authority, though, especially teachers. There I have no problem standing my ground and challenge their judgement. But again, it all depends what your ultimate goal is. If the consequence of such rebellion would be bad for me, I would not do it. Only If I anticipate no harsh consequences.

Basically, I am quite the opposite of Deleted member 16771 in this sense If Deleted member 16771 is like Ned, who died for his honor, I would be more like Varys, who adapts and pushes his agenda gently (in first seasons, at least).

I value my comfort/safety above everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top