What is you Code?

[TimeAsylums]

Because you're not seeing my answer.

We are now talking about completely different subsets underneath the Golden Rule.
You're primarily concerned with the Law deciding (lol I wouldn't expect any less from a Ti dom...), but I'm particularly talking about social interaction. I don't disagree with you that the Law has final word on serious issues, it would be stupid to argue on that - but I'm concerned with the social aspect of it.

"Treat others as you expect to be treated"

Unfortunately this leads to an asymmetry, others do not treat me with the consideration I give them. For example, I expect to be given the independence to be my own person.

All of you that abide by it are destined to have failings in your expectations with other people constantly because not everyone has the same expectation and it is difficult to meet both of the parties' expectations.

"But, I'm being so nice and considerate to him! Why isn't he reciprocating??"

Why would one assume that the other desires such consideration or reciprocation? Maybe he expects different levels of whatever you expect.

Socially, how does this comply with different expectations?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Objective morality: minimize harm.
See a situation and reason with it.
Life is too complex to be morally dealt with using a set of policies, a code.

If that is not the case, anyone could include anything in their moral code, including rape and murder. That wouldn't make them much moral, for they are hardly minimizing harm. Yet in the eyes of subjective morality, they are perfectly moral in their own world.

I would like to hear your guys' thoughts on this.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Objective morality: minimize harm.
See a situation and reason with it.
Life is too complex to be morally dealt with using a set of policies, a code.

I would like to hear your guys' thoughts on this.

It works, no objections. It generally falls down to "do no harm/little as possible"
for me, but I refrain from putting it into an objective statement as it changes from situation to situation, but yes I like "see a situation and reason with it" + "minimize harm." No ultimate statement from me, yet.

Open ended as usual as you might expect from an ENP/EP(me)

oops, rambling,

anyway, yes it works, its good. - I'm sure you can find some people arguing that if you aren't actively doing good then you are only increasing harm, but I'm not on that side, so uh anyway yep good.

 

[Analyzer]

For me it's the Non-aggression principle or you can call it the Golden Rule. Like what Architect said, the simplicity of it is it's beauty and strength. However this has it's negatives as people for some reason are more prone to complexity, rather then simplification. This can lead itself to disregard for ethics and what Hayek calls social relativism. The consequences of such thinking is apparent today in political economy, morality, coercion, and other unintended consequences.

I think the problem with that phrase is that we teach it to kids growing up but we don't really follow it as a society. The Non-aggression Principle is pretty much a more rational and sound name for the moral code of the Golden Rule.

From the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus in 300BC to the American economist Murray Rothbard in the late 20th century, the formulations have continued: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle#History

The Eastern version of this idea can be related to Taoism even before Epicurus' time.

 

[Architect]

We are now talking about completely different subsets underneath the Golden Rule.
You're primarily concerned with the Law deciding (lol I wouldn't expect any less from a Ti dom...), but I'm particularly talking about social interaction. I don't disagree with you that the Law has final word on serious issues, it would be stupid to argue on that - but I'm concerned with the social aspect of it.

"Treat others as you expect to be treated"

Socially, how does this comply with different expectations?

OK, well I still think it applies as well as anything. Social interactions are muddy and messy any way you cut it.

 

[TimeAsylums]

OK, well I still think it applies as well as anything. Social interactions are muddy and messy any way you cut it.

Unfortunately this leads to an asymmetry...

All of you that abide by it are destined to have failings in your expectations with other people constantly because...

I fail to see why people would engage in a moral ideology that only shortsells themselves.

 

[TimeAsylums]

For me it's the Non-aggression principle or you can call it the Golden Rule. Like what Architect said, the simplicity of it is it's beauty and strength. However this has it's negatives as people for some reason are more prone to complexity, rather then simplification. This can lead itself to disregard for ethics and what Hayek calls social relativism. The consequences of such thinking is apparent today in political economy, morality, coercion, and other unintended consequences.

Like Architect, you are attempting to address a larger issue (law/politics). I have stated I am referring to social interaction. Architect has admitted this leads to asymmetry, as I have stated as well.
Also, just going by words: "Non-Agression Principle" = /= "The Golden Rule"

The Golden Rule being "Treat others as you yourself want/expect be treated"

As I have repeatedly stated, not everyone has the same desires/wants/expectations, therefore just about everyone who abides by this rule is bound to recognize defeat in the interaction of such a rule...if everyone actually desired the same thing it would be fantastic...except they don't.

"I treat X with Y amount of respect, I expect the same from him; reciprocation."
"However, X treats most people with Z amount of respect, he expects reciprocation."
Each person with a different level of expectations is going to be disappointed as not every level of expectation can be fulfilled.

Its weakness is in its elementary ideals and simplicity.

 

[Analyzer]

Like Architect, you are attempting to address a larger issue (law/politics). I have stated I am referring to social interaction. Architect has admitted this leads to asymmetry, as I have stated as well.
Also, just going by words: "Non-Agression Principle" = /= "The Golden Rule"

The Golden Rule being "Treat others as you yourself want/expect be treated"

The Non-agression princple is a principle based of the loosely defined princple of "The Golden Rule".

"Treat others as you yourself want to be treated" - by following this you are asserting that morality is determined by the individual. The non-aggression principle takes this a bit further by establishing a rational ethical framework. If you believe morality is determined by the individual, then violating the individuals right to abide by their own interpretation is a contradiction. With this you can see how Lockean natural rights theory have been furthered developed. This is not universal/physical law remember, so you can bring up lifeboat situations all day and it wont invalidate the principle.

As I have repeatedly stated, not everyone has the same desires/wants/expectations, therefore just about everyone who abides by this rule is bound to recognize defeat in the interaction of such a rule...if everyone actually desired the same thing it would be fantastic...except they don't.

"I treat X with Y amount of respect, I expect the same from him; reciprocation."
"However, X treats most people with Z amount of respect, he expects reciprocation."
Each person with a different level of expectations is going to be disappointed as not every level of expectation can be fulfilled.

Its weakness is in its elementary ideals and simplicity.

Sure, its impossible to make everyone abide by a principle or even physical laws. People thought the earth was at the center of our solar system for centuries. The NAP is not all based on simple interpretations. There have been countless of philosophers who have used axiomatic and empirical evidence for justificaiton.

 

[Analyzer]

...You literally sidestepped my entire argument and just went on to talk about the Non-Aggression Principle...Regardless, fine with me as it looks you don't seem to defend the Golden Rule.

Actually I used your argument to support my argument, to further your argument.

In the end of the day I believe you are right, but instead of decrying it because of simplicity I would say its bad because of its vagueness.

Everyone has heard of "The Golden Rule" and we are all taught it in primary school but what has it accomplished?

*Ne going off

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

It works, no objections. It generally falls down to "do no harm/little as possible"
for me, but I refrain from putting it into an objective statement as it changes from situation to situation, but yes I like "see a situation and reason with it" + "minimize harm." No ultimate statement from me, yet.

Open ended as usual as you might expect from an ENP/EP(me)

oops, rambling,

anyway, yes it works, its good. - I'm sure you can find some people arguing that if you aren't actively doing good then you are only increasing harm, but I'm not on that side, so uh anyway yep good.

Thank's for your post.
Only, it can be objective even though it changes outcomes based on the variables in play. Like a function giving us different results whenever we change some of the input.

Now, about being lazy
If you can do some good and you don't, you are not doing harm nether you are minimizing it, you're simply neutral. Yet, in a situation like this it is a good idea to add "maximize happiness" to the basis of reasoning. Now the model ought to work in all cases

 

[Trebuchet]

I'll go along with the Golden Rule. I understand the objections raised but they don't really apply. It isn't about doing only what people like, or thinking everyone likes the same things.

For example, in the face of disagreement, some people want deference from others, and some people like it when others challenge them. Some vary by mood. So the Golden Rule can't decide between those when you disagree with someone. But it is probably fair to assume most people want to be listened to, taken seriously, and their points considered fairly. There is always some part of how you want to be treated that can be applied generally.

I also think it is fair, when someone is mistreating you, to insist that they stop it. I don't enjoy being corrected, but it isn't necessarily a failure of the Golden Rule to do something someone doesn't enjoy. In this case, the assumption is that most people want to be treated like an adult, and they want to keep their friends. (If they don't, well, too bad.)

Of course I have more details than "The Golden Rule." Here is some of it; probably there is more but I can't think of it right now.

Don't take people for granted.

Use good manners, especially with loved ones.

Keep your integrity, so don't cheat, steal, etc.

Respect other people's personal space and privacy.

Learn from mistakes.

Be responsible for your own actions, but not for other people's.

If the only thing keeping you from doing something is fear, don't let the fear stop you. (I have a really hard time with this one.)

Treat other people gently and consider what circumstances have led them to do what they do. Forgive. (I have a hard time with this too.)​

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Seriously people?
The whole idea of moral codes was popularized by religion for those uncapable of reasoning for the sake of commonwealth. No simplistic miscellany of rules can always work well in all circumstances, period.
If anyone here really cares of making an important moral decision, will you look the answer up in your codebook or think about what you want and then project it to others?
Wouldn't you just reason with common welfare in mind?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Seriously people?
The whole idea of moral codes was introduced by religion for those uncapable of reasoning for the sake of commonwealth. No simplistic miscellany of rules can always work well in all circumstances, period.
If anyone here really cares of making an important moral decision, will you look the answer up in your codebook or think about what you want and then project it to others?
Wouldn't you just reason with common welfare in mind?

rofl Glad someone else said it. Pretty much sums my thoughts up...As if there would be some simple answer to every single complex question...brought this up awhile ago anyway...People desire simple answers to their complex questions...oh..

 

[Analyzer]

Seriously people?
The whole idea of moral codes was introduced by religion for those uncapable of reasoning for the sake of commonwealth. No simplistic miscellany of rules can always work well in all circumstances, period.
If anyone here really cares of making an important moral decision, will you look the answer up in your codebook or think about what you want and then project it to others?
Wouldn't you just reason with common welfare in mind?

So moral codes didn't exist before religion? Institutionalization of religions just made it into a dogma.

Isn't reasoning with common welfare in mind a presupposition of ethics?

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

So moral codes didn't exist before religion? Institutionalization of religions just made it into a dogma.

Isn't reasoning with common welfare in mind a presupposition of ethics?

Of course they did, but hardly to a non-negligible extent. I just rephrased that into "popularized", thank's for pointing that out.

Yes, it well is.
I was just objecting dogma-like moral codes that are unchangeable. Having already made one's mind before even accessing the particular situation can be dangerous.

 

[Trebuchet]

I rather doubt that any moral code can cover every circumstance, and therefore flexibility is necessary. However, while it is true that a bunch of miscellany doesn't work, some situations come up repeatedly and predictably.

There was a previous mention of academia. If you are in academia, it is probably worth considering what the limits of your behavior are. People do give in to the temptation to plagiarize or falsify data or sabotage competitors. It seems so easy, and many never get caught.

Everyone encounters situations where someone needs help, or might need help, and it would be so much easier to say it is not my business. And embarrassing to try to help and get it wrong. That decision needs to be considered in advance if you don't want to default to doing nothing.

Specifics can't cover all situations, but some focused generalities are useful, and they accumulate over time as we learn from mistakes. Starting with overly-specific rules isn't terribly sophisticated or deep, but it is a good starting point and shouldn't be dismissed as useless. At least it shows a willingness and ability to ponder what a code should be.

 

[Cyberpunk]

I'm fascinated by the fact that so many of you seem to have a more or less coherent, personal systems of ethics. It leaves me with sort of a what came first, the chicken and the egg question.

Because I don't have a code that I follow, at all. I'm way to opportunistic and too much a slave under my feelings to follow any system of ethics. I should however probably get one, it might regulate my behavior in some desirable ways.

So anyways, I'm guessing that your personal ethics depend on your temperament and personality, and that the coherence is more of a result of introspection?

Asking these sort of questions to introverted people might perhaps come of as a bit retarded, but as a very emotional extrovert, it's things like this that fascinates me.

Also, I'm not sure that I've made any sense at all.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

I rather doubt that any moral code can cover every circumstance, and therefore flexibility is necessary. However, while it is true that a bunch of miscellany doesn't work, some situations come up repeatedly and predictably.

There was a previous mention of academia. If you are in academia, it is probably worth considering what the limits of your behavior are. People do give in to the temptation to plagiarize or falsify data or sabotage competitors. It seems so easy, and many never get caught.

Everyone encounters situations where someone needs help, or might need help, and it would be so much easier to say it is not my business. And embarrassing to try to help and get it wrong. That decision needs to be considered in advance if you don't want to default to doing nothing.

Specifics can't cover all situations, but some focused generalities are useful, and they accumulate over time as we learn from mistakes. Starting with overly-specific rules isn't terribly sophisticated or deep, but it is a good starting point and shouldn't be dismissed as useless. At least it shows a willingness and ability to ponder what a code should be.

Yes, I we all should imagine ourselves in some basic situations in advance, and ponder about the best actions to take, in order to be more efficient in similar situations in real life, I agree, of course.
Yet, there's not always much work to be done there. We can all come up with generalities on the spot, for if we needed much time to get to them, that would imply that they are more specific, therefore more usless in the real world. As far as that goes, all would be of the form "One will not steal". Yet even generalities as simple as that don't prove themselves as useful in the real world (not that people around me steal, lol). And we haven't even taken a step towards sopthistication.
So yea, can't prepare much for life.

Now, if you are traveling between cultures, that's a different matter. A perfectly moral thing in Saudi Arabia could be hardly prosecuted in the US, for example.
Than we have to learn about the moralities of the culture (typical moral codes, let's say, and cultures being suroundings we cannot change). Simply because we dont even have the basis of it. Let's say you travel from US to SA and you're learning about their culture.
Learning about it would bring you to the same level of moral preparation (very possibly lower) to the one you had in the US. So, given that we know the very foundations of the moralities of our suroundings, we can't get further than the obvious in our moral preparation.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

I'm fascinated by the fact that so many of you seem to have a more or less coherent, personal systems of ethics. It leaves me with sort of a what came first, the chicken and the egg question.

Because I don't have a code that I follow, at all. I'm way to opportunistic and too much a slave under my feelings to follow any system of ethics. I should however probably get one, it might regulate my behavior in some desirable ways.

So anyways, I'm guessing that your personal ethics depend on your temperament and personality, and that the coherence is more of a result of introspection?

Asking these sort of questions to introverted people might perhaps come of as a bit retarded, but as a very emotional extrovert, it's things like this that fascinates me.

Also, I'm not sure that I've made any sense at all.

Hmm.

Simply add a bit of T into your mix. That should help.

 

[Cyberpunk]

Hmm.

Simply add a bit of T into your mix. That should help.

I try, but when I try to fight my feelings with thoughts, it becomes a question of pure will-power, and the feeling intensifies. As if no thought or idea can have, on it's own, more power over me than my emotions.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yet, there's not always much work to be done there. We can all come up with generalities on the spot, for if we needed much time to get to them, that would imply that they are more specific, therefore more usless in the real world. As far as that goes, all would be of the form "One will not steal". Yet even generalities as simple as that don't prove themselves as useful in the real world (not that people around me steal, lol). And we haven't even taken a step towards sopthistication.
So yea, can't prepare much for life.

I don't agree with this at all. We can't come up with generalities on the spot.

Coming up with the right reaction on the spot is hard. There are all kinds of reasons why people will take the easy way rather than the right way: anonymity, peer pressure, fear of embarrassment, fear of retribution or other harm, conflicting loyalty, etc.

Thinking about very specific thorny questions is actually very good practice for how to think in a moral dilemma. Even if an exact situation never arises as you imagined it, a real situation might draw from several scenarios that have been considered.

If you want a very in-depth look at this issue, I recommend The Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo. It is a fascinating and sometimes very dark book by a psychologist who has dedicated his life to understanding evil, and more recently to understanding heroism. He argues passionately, and with decades of studies to back him up, that if you don't prepare yourself to do the right thing, you won't.

So anyways, I'm guessing that your personal ethics depend on your temperament and personality, and that the coherence is more of a result of introspection?

Sure, probably a lot of that. I would also include study, talking to other people, and experience as sources for a personal code.

 

[redbaron]

If you don't prepare yourself to do the right thing, you won't.

I agree completely. It's something I've noticed in people; that they often simply won't do the right thing even when they agree that it IS the right thing.

There's myriad excuses reasons why they don't, but I came to the conclusion a while ago that doing the right thing is actually quite habitual. It's not something you can switch on, or rather you can't switch off old habits to do the right thing when required.

Thanks for the author reference Trebuchet

"Treat others as you expect to be treated"

I actually hate this saying, because it seems to assume that the person next to me wants to be treated the same way I do, or vice-versa. It strikes me as almost the epitome of close-mindedness, almost justifying the line of thinking, "I am like this, so everyone else must, or should be like this".

I prefer:

Treat others the way they want to be treated.

 

[Spirit]

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select Start

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

I don't agree with this at all. We can't come up with generalities on the spot.

Coming up with the right reaction on the spot is hard. There are all kinds of reasons why people will take the easy way rather than the right way: anonymity, peer pressure, fear of embarrassment, fear of retribution or other harm, conflicting loyalty, etc.

Thinking about very specific thorny questions is actually very good practice for how to think in a moral dilemma. Even if an exact situation never arises as you imagined it, a real situation might draw from several scenarios that have been considered.

If you want a very in-depth look at this issue, I recommend The Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo. It is a fascinating and sometimes very dark book by a psychologist who has dedicated his life to understanding evil, and more recently to understanding heroism. He argues passionately, and with decades of studies to back him up, that if you don't prepare yourself to do the right thing, you won't.



Sure, probably a lot of that. I would also include study, talking to other people, and experience as sources for a personal code.

Preparing for the things we see coming is obvious. But in that case, since we or more or less know the circumstances we will find ourselves in, we more or less make the moral decision right away. This is not what I was arguing against.
I was arguing that we cannot prepare (on average) for the situations we don't see coming further than the obvious, which could be done on the spot. I am talking about generalities like "One shall not steal.". You don't need much time to get to that, do you? Even after that, you won't find it much helpful (we were talking abstractly for too long, give me an example of your useful generality that you cannot come up at the spot). If you try to specify any general case, it becomes less likely that you will get to use it, for it refers to a more specific situation.
The more specific the imaginary situation we are solving is, the more useless it will be in real life, for we cannot possibly hope that life will grant us that specific situation or draw from it (talking about randomness here).

P.S. Thank's for the recommendation, I will take a look at it.

 

[pjoa09]

my sig is my code.

 

[Lucifer van Satan]

Treat others the way they want to be treated.

Reason

 

[Trebuchet]

I prefer:

Treat others the way they want to be treated.

Nope, sorry, not buying it. I know people who want to be treated like they are God's gift to the world, who are greedy and power-hungry and in one case sociopathic. They want to be given all the accolades, money, and decisions.

There are others who want to be treated with kid gloves, who can't stand anyone to correct them even gently and kindly, who can't tolerate the slightest contradiction to their narrow world view.

I have a daughter who no doubt would like to have more time to play video games and a later bed time and more desserts.

Treat others as you would be treated is a very general statement. It doesn't mean I should give recordings of drum solos and bagpipes to people for their birthdays, just because I like those things. It does mean I should remember their birthdays because I want them to remember mine.

As for "don't steal," there are subtleties to that, and I am sure I couldn't list them all here, but here are some I have encountered in real life or known someone who has.

What if you find something and don't know who owns it?

Is downloading copyrighted material stealing? What if you already had a physical copy but the copyright owner declined to create a digital version? What if they did produce a digital copy and want you to buy it again?

Is the "tragedy of the commons" stealing from your neighbors, if you overuse something shared, in violation of the unwritten social contract?

What about keeping something you paid for, if you learned it was stolen?

What if your wages were paid by a boss who got the money by embezzling?

How about leaving your job and using what you learned there to benefit your new boss?

Suppose a waiter gives you too much change or forgets to charge you for something?

What if your 2-year-old puts something in her diaper bag at the store and you find it later?​

"Don't steal" isn't any simpler than any other moral consideration.

 

[Soulreaper]

I am Blacker than the Void
I am as blue as a world without emotions

I am both selfish and rational. i use manipulation, deception and information to further my agenda; at best, I'm discreet and efficient; at worst, I'm scheming, ruthless, and untrustworthy

 

[DelusiveNinja]

I am Blacker than the Void
I am as blue as a world without emotions

I am both selfish and rational. i use manipulation, deception and information to further my agenda; at best, I'm discreet and efficient; at worst, I'm scheming, ruthless, and untrustworthy

I like these colors and the motto. *check approved (this should be blue or black)*

 

[SOLROCK]

Do no harm

 

[Soulreaper]

I like these colors and the motto. *check approved (this should be blue or black)*

living life this way has made no shortages of enemy and if the world is your sand box with the people and relationships your toys life is fun seeing what people will do in any given manipulated scenario.

 

[Soulreaper]

*check approved (this should be blue or black)*

I'm new sorry for asking but what does the above mean

 

[EdgarAllnPwn]

"Being purified by his intelligence and controlling the mind with determination, giving up the objects of sense gratification, being freed from attachment and hatred, one who lives in a secluded place, who eats little and who controls the body and the tongue, and is always in trance and is detached, who is without false ego, false strength, false pride, lust, anger, and who does not accept material things, such a person is certainly elevated to the position of self-realization. "

 

[DIALECTIC]

"1. To think for oneself
2. To think in the position of everyone else.
3. Always to think in accord with oneself."
EMMANUEL KANT

.