You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Understanding What is Right, Good, and Moral is Our Responsibility
and we have to admit that what people feel is "right" or "wrong" is going to be driven as much by their personality as it is by anything else.
People that vale and feel secure in group consensus will choose morals that are "right" in that context.
...while people that value self-determination and personal responsibility will actually be right ;>
Kidding aside, you can see that difference at the base of most political differences and "moral" declarations.
[Edit] the above assumes that the person has broken completely away from whatever moral system he had been socialized into previously
[Edit] the above assumes that the person has broken completely away from whatever moral system he had been socialized into previously
a nearly impossible feat for most of us.
actually, you see it a lot as people move from peer group to a new peer group; one example is college kids getting brainwashed by liberal professors
The morals don't significantly change. Murder for example is considered immoral to both a liberal and a conservative. What changes is their ideology in how to achieve homogeneity of a population (both are morally wrong). Forcing someone to behave in one way or another is no morality at all, especially if you do it in the name of morality.
[Edit]
An example is being racist against white people to combat racism, there is no morality in this. Both the racist and the so called non-racist have no moral high ground here.
upvoted you to counter the asshole ;>
They change significantly...personal and property rights are subsumed by the good of the borg in the liberal worldview. Murder is fine as long as the target is an ungood person.
I didn't follow this; it seems like you are saying that the white person is indeed a racist. If someone is innocent of actually being a racist, and is attacked, then they have the high ground. Second, if the "victim" is indeed a racist, then punishment needs to be proportionate. You don't get to assault people because they disagree with you and/or have stupid thoughts
you do get to shoot them if they burn a cross on your property ;>
[edit] you could skip to the last 2 paragraphs, I left the rest so you can read my train of thought. Also who was the ass hole?
I am saying that morals don't differ significantly (that is to say the basic morals that I think people have almost instinctively), however the reasons for going against what ones so called "morals" are, differs from group to group. Everyone agrees that indiscriminate murdering is immoral. However indiscriminate murdering occurs quite a bit, because it is justified by something else, something like a sub moral. We will kill you indiscriminately on the basis that we find something you do morally wrong.
I am saying that engaging in racism is racist no matter what colour you are. People have physical properties and they have properties of their character, judging people 's character on their physical properties is fallacious. Like claiming that red cars go faster.
The white person is only a racist when engaing in racist behaviour (not just comments), I'm talking about things like not hiring a certain race for instance (happens a lot in Japan). Just as the anit-racist is racist when engaging in racism towards any group. This is not about colour, if you think that you missed the point, its about what group you belong too.
Both the racist and the so called non-racist have no moral high ground here.
I did word this badly. Somebody who believes racism is wrong and then engages in racism towards white people (on the basis that some white people historically were racist) are in fact racist. Their mentality is that the end justifies the means, which is not moral, its Marxist ideology. The opposite also applies.
I don't fit in to the groups that are currently available. This is why for me the most beneficial view that people can take, is one closer to individualism. If everyone was like this I would't need to worry about collectivist burning crosses, I do think that every individual should have the right to protect oneself. Where I am from we don't have this right, it is an offence.
...wait I might be wrong, however I will leave the above so you can read it anyway.
So the liberal who thinks that it is immoral to tease someone (with words) and hurt their feelings, has learnt this new moral. I was not including that as a moral (partly because I think it is retarded). You are saying above that, these young people are picking this up in uni (actually from when they start school) and the like. I would agree with that. But I would question if what they refer to as morals are actually morals at all, or just called morals to incite compliance with them. I would perhaps call them rights (or lack there of ).
Above I was thinking about a moral that seems to be ingrained in most of us. Only a very small minority of people engage in murder without acknowledging the moral cost.
nested reply:
very well said altogether ;>
I didn't hink you were accusing in the quote that I pulled; you explained that it was poorly worded and I understand that now; thanks for the reply!
too true, but we have to recognize that as man is a social animal many people instinctively choose collectivist "Morality"
Apology for the long comments in advance, I am more getting down my thoughts then asking questions that requiring responses, but please do if you want, it helps me develop.
too true, but we have to recognize that as man is a social animal many people instinctively choose collectivist "Morality"
I do recognise this, however if this is what we call morality, does morality just become an excuse for an ideology? If moral is something that we just make up, and not see to be true (really apparent) is there any use in it, because we can just keep making up new morals to justify breaking old ones.
To see it to be true, I mean could we (I don't know if we could) have a set of "morals" that are apparent, that can be confirmed by anyone through application of thought. We know when we look over a cliff exactly what will happen if we jump off, it is apparent. I have an idea that this may be possible, however it is just an idea. I need to think about it some more.
So in terms of the post, yes we don't know how to determine morals, other than using past and possibly flawed knowledge (moral knowledge not technical knowledge). Then the issue, may be how do we come up with something objective, without letting go of the past influences.
Side note:
I think a society built on the morals based on technical scientific knowledge would be something similar to what is portrayed in "We" a book by Yevgeny Zamyatin. I did a post on him.