How do you arrive at you morality?

[JansenDowel]

That's exactly the reason why that is what the conversation would devolve into.

I'm not sure about that. We are looking for reasons to believe that morality is objective/subjective. If morality is about oughts, the next question to ask is: can you be wrong about what you think you ought to do?

 

[Pizzabeak]

God gives us all free will. When we inevitably fail, we suffer. We learn that what we did causes suffering. We do not do that again. Morality.

If you didn’t know what happened because you either weren’t there or were proverbially “late to the party”, and so couldn’t witness an event, let alone really participate, then that should a priori either explain a lot or make certain things not matter.

As it is, in the Bible (Exodus) it states the people of Israel multiplied due to oppression. It therefore originally had nothing to do with “less intelligent people procreate more”, although sometimes it is that, but that a side effect of any oppression could result in that mindset. Also, when rodent populations exceed a threshold, traits such as homosexuality and cannibalism occur more frequently, as if to add factors that incite resource conservation.

 

[QuickTwist]

That's exactly the reason why that is what the conversation would devolve into.

I'm not sure about that. We are looking for reasons to believe that morality is objective/subjective. If morality is about oughts, the next question to ask is: can you be wrong about what you think you ought to do?

I personally believe it's actually impossible to talk about morals in their purest form. The best we can do is something like a parable or story that represents a point about a particular moral.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I personally believe it's actually impossible to talk about morals in their purest form. The best we can do is something like a parable or story that represents a point about a particular moral.

Sure thing, but the deal is that a lot of morality derived by parable or stories can contradict. In one instant you can easily tell a story and in other instant contradict that story. What is stopping anyone making this mistake in parable?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

ah ok, that's a great argument.

Its not an argument, its a fact. Conjectures and refutations are about more than just physical reality.

You keep repeating this “physical reality”. Unless ethics is the only subject outside the realm of physical science and Popper happened to write about falsificationism as applied to ethics, I don’t know what to do with your statement other than perhaps printing it out and use it as toilet paper.

Yes he did write about ethics. Why are you pretending you know anything about him? You clearly don't. All you know is what you've read online.

My intellectual hero growing up was Nassim Taleb, who talks about Popper quite a lot. So because of that I've read books like "Conjectures and Refutations" first-hand. I know Popper has talked about ethics, and falliblism in light of ethics, but you're talking about falsificationsim as applied to ethics in particular, which to me makes zero sense and I can't recall ever to have read anything from Popper about that. The basic premise of falsificationsim is that there is an actual true structure behind things which you gradually reveal by means of conjecture and refutation. Like I said, you can't have that premise in ethics. So maybe instead of making these vague statements like "he wrote about ethics" you could point to what he specifically wrote then we would have a more interesting discussion

 

[Pizzabeak]

All philosophy is bullshit and nothing interesting. Just a hobby for morons to look more “inteligent” Eurocentrically. It isn’t some BS pop quiz competition Ken contest. That’s why you always change the topic to detail instead of it’s very own big picture, I suppose. Shut the hell up.

 

[JansenDowel]

My intellectual hero growing up was Nassim Taleb, who talks about Popper quite a lot. So because of that I've read books like "Conjectures and Refutations" first-hand. I know Popper has talked about ethics, and falliblism in light of ethics, but you're talking about falsificationsim as applied to ethics in particular, which to me makes zero sense and I can't recall ever to have read anything from Popper about that. The basic premise of falsificationsim is that there is an actual true structure behind things which you gradually reveal by means of conjecture and refutation. Like I said, you can't have that premise in ethics. So maybe instead of making these vague statements like "he wrote about ethics" you could point to what he specifically wrote then we would have a more interesting discussion

I said conjecture and refutation not falsification. Now you're just making stuff up. Just stop.

 

[JansenDowel]

All philosophy is bullshit and nothing interesting. Just a hobby for morons to look more “inteligent” Eurocentrically. It isn’t some BS pop quiz competition Ken contest. That’s why you always change the topic to detail instead of it’s very own big picture, I suppose. Shut the hell up.

Rubbish. Do you know David Deutsch? He's a philosopher and physicst.

 

[Pizzabeak]

All philosophy is bullshit and nothing interesting. Just a hobby for morons to look more “inteligent” Eurocentrically. It isn’t some BS pop quiz competition Ken contest. That’s why you always change the topic to detail instead of it’s very own big picture, I suppose. Shut the hell up.

Rubbish. Do you know David Deutsch? He's a philosopher and physicst.

So he wrote a book you can learn something from?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

My intellectual hero growing up was Nassim Taleb, who talks about Popper quite a lot. So because of that I've read books like "Conjectures and Refutations" first-hand. I know Popper has talked about ethics, and falliblism in light of ethics, but you're talking about falsificationsim as applied to ethics in particular, which to me makes zero sense and I can't recall ever to have read anything from Popper about that. The basic premise of falsificationsim is that there is an actual true structure behind things which you gradually reveal by means of conjecture and refutation. Like I said, you can't have that premise in ethics. So maybe instead of making these vague statements like "he wrote about ethics" you could point to what he specifically wrote then we would have a more interesting discussion

I said conjecture and refutation not falsification. Now you're just making stuff up. Just stop.

Facepalm. I take it you haven’t read that book, considering you didn’t know that C&J means falsificationism.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

C&R*
Boy, sometimes that edit button would come in handy

 

[JansenDowel]

Facepalm. I take it you haven’t read that book, considering you didn’t know that C&J means falsificationism.

C&R is not about science...

 

[JansenDowel]

So he wrote a book you can learn something from?

Absolutely. One of its lessons is that you can't have science without philosophy. The 'scientific method' is itself a philosophy about how to discover truth about.

 

[ZenRaiden]

A lot of stuff has to do with the experience people have. For example you cant fault people who have unreal expectations to reach unreal conclusions about solutions to moral decisions. For example we usually have more empathy to people who are going through things which are similar to our experience. That way it can be pretty easy to downplay the harm we are doing to people, when we arent able to walk in their shoes.
Thats why I am not really surprised a lot of people are so uncarring to other people when they dont connect on emotional level.

 

[Kormak]

Experience, analasis and continuous updates once new information is aqured.
Idk, I just go through life experience and analize it, read phylosophy like Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Nietzsche. I'll even read stuff ppl advise against, for example Hitler's Mein Kampf.
Read religious texts and analize contemporary religious sect member behaviour. You gotta do a lot of information aqusition and reading in between the lines to get a good macro understanding of patterns and universal truths. The more information you have the clearer the map becomes. The more you think and come to comprehand these truths, the easyer it becomes to always have a readymade logically consistant and accurate answer.

Sometimes even stories or videogames can provide useful leaasons. This one stuck with me ever since I discovered it, perticularly the "To believe in an ideal is to be willing to betray it." part.


From all that I synthsize & continuously update my own moral and phylosophical understanding.

To be honest, more then anything Kreya's character back when I was still a teen had a very lasting impact on me and over time with more life experience under my belt I have come to apreciate her perspective even more:

 

[redbaron]

i arrive at my morality on a scooter wearing a dress made of sequins

 

[Tenacity]

Everyone is self-interested because they want to maximize their utility, and their utility is defined in different ways for different people and for different cultures. Morality and religion, I believe have the most in common, attributing to developing self-importance through heroism and sacrifice.

Re: Google search:
"late Middle English: from Latin moralis, from mos, mor- ‘custom’, (plural) mores ‘morals’. As a noun the word was first used to translate Latin Moralia, the title of St Gregory the Great's moral exposition of the Book of Job, and was subsequently applied to the works of various classical writers."

I like to think I have good morals because I naturally care about humanity, even though I don't identify with a particular religion. This is to the point where if I must inflict blame, I end up inflicting it upon myself, and throughout life realized that I need to stop doing this because there are people out there who have not had the opportunities I've had, and that I should do what I can to improve the well-being of humanity in tangible ways. So I blame systems. And I try to then fix systems. Most people part of the system don't even know the system is broken, so then you have to spend considerable amounts of time learning to communicate with people who are perhaps considered highly immoral to most people, yet may be moral to their immediate families, or people who are permanently ignorant. I attempt to better myself only in the hopes I can inspire others. Perhaps that is the only thing that keeps me moving on the day to day. I see fragments of myself in others that I hope to repair. I am also likely to be prone to attack from people that don't understand me, and I must be able to defend myself and my family in this case. I see people with greed and issues of violent desires and immediately think that they had tried to skip over some aspects of motivational development re: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - They didn't know where to find love, or food, or shelter, or safety, or acceptance, so it turned into something overly destructive, or, society prevented them from moving up so they had to fight for it. I see a world where we can heal, where we don't need to suffer because the truth is we have enough resources and we can make it work. This is all highly optimistic of me, but it is what I tell myself.

Alas, after all my efforts, if I cannot be as moral as I wish or intend, so be it. I'll spend more time with nihilist philosophy and build a cool Batman-esque hideaway and eat cupcakes all day every day. I'll be a female version of Banksy.

 

[gilliatt]

First of all, my morality, the morality of reason, ex. existence exists. Another thing, one choice--to live. Everything else proceeds from these. Take reason-purpose-self-esteem. These three requires all of man's virtues. In dealing with morality, you are dealing with man's free will, man's choices. Principles, what about something like a roadmap to guide your life, rather than just random driving around.

 

[Rolling Cattle]

I don't think I can answer this thoroughly.

There's different approaches to judge right and wrong, and they can conflict. A decision could be honorable but foolish, and the smart decision could be unfair.

Generally, I'd look at the effects of everyone involved and base my assessment on equity, but leaving some flexibility for the situation. Keep an open mind to alternative solutions.

 

[Rebis]

I think this question presupposes there's an option when we arrive at our morality: We arrive at our morality through intuition, it is not a choice. It is only when we try to influence the situation that our participation becomes a choice. If I decide this is a situation I want to take action in I analyse the situation at hand, try to consider all variables and opt for the one of least suffering. That general principle underlies most of everybody's morality: to inhibit suffering. Having said that there's few situations in the modern world where I'll ever be a judicator that solicits a display of morality and ethics.

 

[dragula]

You guys should have a like button on this forum.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You guys should have a like button on this forum.

Your morals brought you to this conclusion?

I like the idea, but I don't think I would like that element to much, or rather, I would like more than one "reaction" as Facebook puts it. Like is too vague and I feel the lone possibility of them would be toxic. An assortment of reactions would be nice as it would give us more possibilities for expression and we wouldn't be fishing for simply likes.
Then again my paranoia tells me that it would just be giving information to indexing info-tech companies that will sUrEly use the information for malignant purposes.

 

[dragula]

You guys should have a like button on this forum.

Your morals brought you to this conclusion?

I like the idea, but I don't think I would like that element to much, or rather, I would like more than one "reaction" as Facebook puts it. Like is too vague and I feel the lone possibility of them would be toxic. An assortment of reactions would be nice as it would give us more possibilities for expression and we wouldn't be fishing for simply likes.
Then again my paranoia tells me that it would just be giving information to indexing info-tech companies that will sUrEly use the information for malignant purposes.

Nah, my laziness did. Valid points though.

 

[Rebis]

I don't miss likes, I think they play a a social role where people form factions and routines of liking a person's content in approval. Like I'll get people on facebook that like/love a point I posted and it makes me uncomfortable at tmes because I'm unsure if they understand the point I'm making. If they verbalise their thoughts, I can know if they understood my point or they extracted a fine-hair from my argument and use it for their own ideological justification. People that discuss politics do this a lot:
Political aficionado: "I'm very heavily right-wing and posts about feminists 24/7"
Me: *Makes a point against a specific domain of representative feminism*
Political aficionado: *Likes my comment, initiating solidarity*
Third party: "They must be in agreement as political guy liked Rebis' comment*

And since this is all going inside their heads and isn't discussed, it's hard to refute without any concrete evidence. If someone likes my comment, non-verbal communication it'd be strange for me to say "Don't like my comment I don't agree with your point, we're not pals, pal". Now that I've thought about it, it'd be a funny thing to say, but in the moment it is not a conclusion that you would come to. We don't remark on individuals who like our comments.