What is your moral philosophy?

I will give you a better answer when I'm not typing on an iPad...but...

Never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing.




​
 
Ren said:
This sounds like a very sensible moral path, Sandie. :) I can totally see what you mean by the "double standard" thing. Especially as openness to the experiences of others can sometimes be confused with objective embrace of the principles of those others, which isn't always the case.

On a somewhat tangential note, I think this is more likely to happen to Fe users than Fi users.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to know you found sense in my silly analogy ;)
Yes, Fe is a demonistic function at times...with want to say no wrestling the need to be for others.
 
Morality came to me as an experience of life. Reading the Word, listening to what I was told, being pushed around, pushing back after a buildup of sorts, and understanding how it all made me feel.

I'm going through a very destructive storm right now. Hatred has left a path of destruction and now I'm in that path. My morality, in other words, is always tested. I never scream back. Never raise my voice. Bite my tongue. My morality tells me I'm strong enough to weather yet another bad storm. I plan to be the last thing standing in the storm's path. What kind of example could I be any other way?

However, I have blown it in the past when things build up to where I need a break. Must.....try.....to.....stay...........c.a.l.m..

Best words of advice were and are, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." May have to bail, though, for my health. I simply do not want to live out my remaining days like this. Thing that stops me? It's just one more storm.
 
At the center of whatever personal philosophy I hold are the values of justice and egality. If there is mutual justice and egality in every exchange between persons or peoples, there is little left to have conflict about. Minor quibbling excluded, of course.
 
Agree with @just me - Treat others how you wish to be treated.

Always try to not ever put myself above anyone else...or think of myself as better than anyone - even if it seems clearly obvious.
Sometimes it can be difficult, but I feel it’s a worthy way to try and exist.
 
Skarekrow said:
I will give you a better answer when I'm not typing on an iPad...but...

Never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing.​
Click to expand...
​
Skare - don't forget to come back to this as I'd love to hear what you meant. My interest is mega piqued ;)

socks said:
At the center of whatever personal philosophy I hold are the values of justice and egality. If there is mutual justice and egality in every exchange between persons or peoples, there is little left to have conflict about. Minor quibbling excluded, of course.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Do you think you manage to apply it consistently in real life? I find that the virtue of justice is a hard one to uphold sometimes because people who expect treatments of favour can end up resenting the person who sticks to being just.

A very important value in the workplace also.
 
I don’t have a logically thought out moral philosophy – it’s more an Fe/Ni gut thing. I’m a cradle-Catholic so my moral philosophy is strongly coloured by this.

Love your neighbour as yourself – I agree 100 per cent with all the comments so far that are the equivalent, or close to it. Even if I weren’t a Christian, I would still go for this. If only the rule were a fact rather than an aspiration in my life. Is it worth pointing out that there is a moral aspiration here to love yourself as the basis for loving your neighbour?

I believe the individual is the most precious and important thing in our world. Freedom over-rides by collectives are always violations - just because the majority in a society sets a standard, that doesn’t mean it’s right. There have to be rules of course, such as which side of the road to drive on, but it must be possible for individuals to challenge any rule and get a fair hearing and not get punished for doing so. And I’m thinking of Face-Book and Twitter mobs here as much as government actions.

For me, love of God is also a moral imperative – again as much aspiration as fact in practice! But I don’t believe any religious perspective has the right to over-ride individual freedom any more than any other perspective does.
 
Ren said:
Interesting. Would you apply your relativism to all acts without distinction or exclude certain acts from it? I'm thinking in particular of acts that perhaps most people (which doesn't mean they are right) would consider inherently evil, like genocide, slavery, etc.

I've a feeling that your stance doesn't say these are not evil acts but rather that it's impossible to have a law that stipulates what they are "by essence".



Would you then say that a Truman Show-like world in which certain people are living a lie, but are not suffering and may in fact be happy, is not immoral from your standpoint? Or would you argue that therein lies the possibility of future suffering (as we see in the case of Truman eventually)?
Click to expand...

Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.

That said, I still find such things abhorrent. Hell, I go to stupid lengths just so I can avoid hurting insects But that's because I'm human and capable of empathy.

I know that seems like a contradiction. And I suppose it is. My brain is full of contradicting thoughts. It's a real fun place to be :)
 
Ren said:
Skare - don't forget to come back to this as I'd love to hear what you meant. My interest is mega piqued ;)
Click to expand...

Lol.

Congrats on the football win btw!
Much wine was had yesterday!

Anyway...I suppose it depends on several factors or right conditions.
Moral flexibility could certainly play a role, but often when we think of moral flexibility we think of a lack of morality or a lesser amount of.
Usually such people are viewed in a negative way...though militaries around the world certainly take advantage of flexible morality when training someone who would carry out questionable things in the average person.
But one could also have flexible morality and it not be a negative, at least imho.
Such as, the examination of the very idea of morals and morality itself, can lead one to a deeper understanding and empathy for others who may not share your own ideas of morality.
It is in short, keeping an open mind to the idea that we may have it all wrong.
Morals have certainly changed in the course of humankind...the ones that generally have lasted the test of time are the morals that are the most beneficial to society at large...some written down as religious law, some as laws of man, some have been maintained on a more collective consciousness type level.
We have thoughts like the simple idea of stealing bread to feed yourself or your child...yes, it is breaking the law, but at the point of starvation does the ego step in with rules of morality...probably, but at this point the person has highly flexible morality and doesn’t view it as “wrong”.
(Or they do, but survival supersedes their morals)
And I personally wouldn’t fault them for stealing the bread - which is my own flexible morality and empathy in play as some would definitely punish such a person anyhow.
I find it more proper to steal the bread, than for them to starve...yes, there is of course also the bread shop owner to consider, I would hope that people would be a bit more altruistic and help feed such a person, but this is the real world.
Yes, there are some who would rather die than do such a thing...that’s fine, I’m not judging...though I am being judged.

I would fully expect such an act to have to be paid back in some manner, either through work, or monetarily returning what was taken when you can repay.
And I certainly don’t condone any sort of violence or destruction to play a role.
It doesn’t mean that the morals of the person have changed either - only that their Maslow's hierarchy was about to crumble if they didn’t take action.
So in this way...the moral of not stealing has gotten in the way of what is right...which is to feed a starving child or save their own life, as our own life should be considered no less important than another’s (or a loaf of bread) ((even though we naturally place ourselves into our perceived position of importance, usually unless you are an arrogant ass it is on level with or below those we love...by below I mean a parent may place the lives of their children over their own))...imho.

But more so...morals are so incredibly varied from person to person...some feeling more strongly about others than some...some having differing opinions on the moral being a moral itself at all (usually religiously based).
The point was...not to have such strict morals when they need to be bent for the intuitively “right” reason - what you feel in your heart...and yes, that can be wildly off target to someone else or even society at large - when they need to be bent, you don’t flounder too long deciding your course of action.
I’m not saying go out and rob a bank to give to the homeless shelter (though they are insured hahaha).
But in the right circumstances most morals are questionable - I think people should have the conversation about their own moral beliefs and flexibility (or lack of) with themselves before they are confronted with such a quandary.
It would probably be helpful anyway.

Take the recent separation from parents and caging of children in the US - with no plan to reunite them, all done as a deterrent.
Jeff Sessions certainly feels morally correct in what he has done...I have no doubt he sleeps soundly at night.
But the majority of society, both here, and around the world condemned their actions and forced them to stop and resolve what they had been doing.
Which still isn’t resolved... :rage:

Someone who’s moral of following the laws of the land might look at what they did and feel it was justified (even though it’s a misdemeanor and most are seeking asylum - which they continuously keep changing the reasons for seeking asylum and moving the finish line to screw as many over as they can)....but such a person feels that following our leaders and the laws is more important than looking at people as individuals and trying to help them as one good human to another who is in pain and seeking help for them and their children - they are willing to risk breaking our laws (societal morals) to save their children.
We can be armchair judges, but we can never really know what is in their hearts, what they have faced in their lives, what kind of violence or situation they are leaving...we haven’t walked in their shoes (or lack of), and I find it personally distasteful when people want to turn them away and deport them en mass for the crime of acting out of fear and a sense of survival for themselves and children.
Enter legally people say...go through the process...
That is laughable, and imho only an excuse to dismiss them entirely as it is almost impossible for some to come here...not because they are bad people, but because our immigration services is so backlogged and messed up.
Anyhow...sorry for the rant...but it’s a good example to part of the question.
 
Last edited:
Tin Man said:
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.
Click to expand...

From this perspective, there can be no other conclusion. Either what is good and evil is hard-wired into the world, in which case this is as independent of human thinking as the law of gravity (which is closer to my own view), or, as you say, they are defined relative to what people think, and they can think whatever suits them. Even the first of these has some relativity about it - who is to interpret what a hard-wired moral code actually is and how to respond to it? Look at the countless interpretations of the world's major religions over the centuries....
 
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...
To have a base set of morals, I believe is entirely premature. Only when we experience a particular situation in real time can we know for sure what we are capable of.
For me moral is to remain neutral of the situation and of the self. Only then can I decide or behave morally when the moment of truth occurs. It is a state of mind that resides outside the box of laws and rules where the ideas of right and wrong have no bearing.
For example if a person or any living being is in need of help, I do not want to help them. I most certainly am going to help them. I am able to do so if I am unattached and thinking clearly. Free of feelings, justifications and self interests. The same applies to a personal moral dilemma. If a wallet is lying on the ground containing cash, credit and identification it simply does not belong to me but I will get it to it's owner.
I do walk the walk.
 
John K said:
From this perspective, there can be no other conclusion. Either what is good and evil is hard-wired into the world, in which case this is as independent of human thinking as the law of gravity (which is closer to my own view), or, as you say, they are defined relative to what people think, and they can think whatever suits them. Even the first of these has some relativity about it - who is to interpret what a hard-wired moral code actually is and how to respond to it? Look at the countless interpretations of the world's major religions over the centuries....
Click to expand...

Yes, you're correct. I didn't mean to suggest that what I believe is objective fact. It's one perspective, that's as biased as any other.
I don't like the idea of good and evil, of a black and white duality. But that doesn't dismiss it as a possibility.
 
Tin Man said:
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.

That said, I still find such things abhorrent. Hell, I go to stupid lengths just so I can avoid hurting insects But that's because I'm human and capable of empathy.

I know that seems like a contradiction. And I suppose it is. My brain is full of contradicting thoughts. It's a real fun place to be :)
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a contradiction. It's probably a natural way for human beings to be. It would be far stranger if we humans were rational machines incapable of being paradoxical ^^ Thinking about this immediately brings us to dystopias of the Truman Show style. I wouldn't want to live there.

On top of that, no philosopher has ever managed to prove that morals were transcendental, i.e. that certain propositions of ethics have the truth value of logical axioms. So in a sense morals really are subjective. Nietzsche's morals of the overman would probably celebrate certain forms of genocide. And if that makes us want to shriek, that is only because we are speaking from our own perspective.

Maybe sometimes what Russell calls the "appeal to the emotions" is the way to go with regard to one's moral compass:

"He has never conceived of the man who, with all the fearlessness and stubborn pride of the superman, nevertheless does not inflict pain because he has no wish to do so. Does any one suppose that Lincoln acted as he did from fear of hell? Yet to Nietzsche, Lincoln is abject, Napoleon magnificent. [...] I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world." (History of Western Philosophy, "Nietzsche")
 
John K said:
For me, love of God is also a moral imperative – again as much aspiration as fact in practice! But I don’t believe any religious perspective has the right to over-ride individual freedom any more than any other perspective does.
Click to expand...

Would you say that for you, faith ultimately comes prior to morals?

Are there certain moral stances of the Catholic Church that go against your morals, or do you take in Christian morality as a whole?

It seems to me that there are many issues with Christian morality from the perspective of a humanist committed to human freedom. I would be interested to know what your particular take on this is.
 
Tin Man said:
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.
Click to expand...

This can't be true. Morals are as much "explanation" as a scientific theory. Morals are theories about how one aught to act given particular conditions, desires and so on. And just like scientific theories, moral theories remain true regardless of whether a human is around to observe them!

Another way of putting it is that morals explain part of the fundamental structure of reality. That humans discover them is irrelevant. It is possible to be wrong about what you think is morally right, just as you can be wrong about you think is true!

This relativism you believe in is really just a way of denying that progress is possible. It means that we cannot improve our morals in any way whatsoever. Logical positivism said this about truth, and it almost destroyed science. There's also another thing you are not seeing here. Much of science is guided by moral prescriptions: one must search for evidence, one must subject their theories to experimental testing and so on. To say that morals are subjective is to say that science is subjective.
 
Last edited:
Ren said:
On top of that, no philosopher has ever managed to prove that morals were transcendental, i.e. that certain propositions of ethics have the truth value of logical axioms. So in a sense morals really are subjective. Nietzsche's morals of the overman would probably celebrate certain forms of genocide. And if that makes us want to shriek, that is only because we are speaking from our own perspective.
Click to expand...

I'm a Popperian! I dont think I have to explain my objection :sweatsmile::sweatsmile:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ren
wolly.green said:
I'm a Popperian! I dont think I have to explain my objection :sweatsmile::sweatsmile:
Click to expand...

Of course. And it's good to have objections on a philosophy thread to keep the debate alive. Welcome, Popperian! That being said I'm not entirely convinced by your response... I think I'll let @Tin Man get back to you first and will respond later in the day when I have more time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top