Do you have a moral standard?

[Michael Chris]

The only one that exists.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^ That still doesn't narrow it down.

 

[StarryEyed]

No, I don't. I do try to follow the moral standard. The standard as laid down by God.

Show me this moral standard.

 

[Amaris]

Here we go. /facepalm


J.

 

[Jax]

I have moral standards but there far from black n white for example I don't like the idea of murder but would be glad to put a bullet into the head of some of the most evil men on the planet without so much of a 2nd thought.

The problems with Morals is that it all depends on the situation and anyone trying to follow a certian set of rules IE - bible for example is heading for failure.

 

[AstroSmurf]

I can't speak for the rest of us but that was not my intention J. I was just curious to which religion/deity he was being so vague about.

But as they say, curiosity killed the cat. I should know better.

 

[Amaris]

I can't speak for the rest of us but that was not my intention J. I was just curious to which religion/deity he was being so vague about.

But as they say, curiosity killed the cat. I should know better.

I certainly mean no harm or accusation by it, I only mean that this could end badly. Every time I see "the true one, the one in the Bible" or "in God's Word" followed by "which one?", well, I get prepared because it's going to be a long ride.

J.

 

[Jadzia]

But I would not call that practice a "do unto others" thing at all. I call it basic respect for others. Besides, people don't really "do unto themselves" all that well as it is, which is probably why they treat others they way they do.

The trouble with "do unto others" as a maxim, is that it presupposes that others want to be treated the same way as you want them to treat you.

People are all unique, with their own values and interests. So only use the maxim insofar as making an effort to learn how others want to be treated. Or in the absence of communication, inferring (not assuming) as best as one can.

 

[RegFan]

Yeah, it does. Like I said, it depends on the person you ask.

Then morals are irrelevant.

You can easily find every opinion in the world. Thus everything is moral to someone.

Morals are not irrelevant. There are things that almost anyone would say that they are right/wrong. Is it right to kill another person for absolutely no reason? Is it right to help someone?

It is true that individuals have different moral standards, but they also depend on one's culture.

 

[AstroSmurf]

But I would not call that practice a "do unto others" thing at all. I call it basic respect for others. Besides, people don't really "do unto themselves" all that well as it is, which is probably why they treat others they way they do.

The trouble with "do unto others" as a maxim, is that it presupposes that others want to be treated the same way as you want them to treat you.

People are all unique, with their own values and interests. So only use the maxim insofar as making an effort to learn how others want to be treated. Or in the absence of communication, inferring (not assuming) as best as one can.

QTF. I could not agree more. And I also think that your interpretation of that maxim is the most elegant and attainable so far here. If people intend on using it they should do it with caution and care.

 

[Pingfah]

I have numerous moral standards. One just doesn't seem to cut it.

You mean a standard you hold yourself to, a standard you hold others to, and a standard you hold politicians and leaders to?

A standard to hold politicians to. Interesting, but futile concept

I definitely don't see a treat other how you want to be treated.

If I was being a dick, i'd want people to call me a dick so I could stop being a dick.

Therefore, if I think somebody is a dick, I must call them a dick. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

 

[StarryEyed]

I have a challenge for the folks who claim they have access to THE moral standard handed down by God. It will take at least five of you (for a workable sample size) but more are certainly welcome. Here is how it will work:

I will pose a moral question here in the thread. Each volunteer will PM me with his/her answer. I will post the answers once I have received them from all the participants. The answers of course, should be pretty much the same because all the participants will have access to the One True Moral Standard as handed down by God.

If you are one of the people in possession of God's moral standard and would like to participate, post your willingness in this thread. Once there are five of you, we can begin.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I have numerous moral standards. One just doesn't seem to cut it.

You mean a standard you hold yourself to, a standard you hold others to, and a standard you hold politicians and leaders to?

A standard to hold politicians to. Interesting, but futile concept

Well, I was thinking a lower standard, obviously.

I also agree I'd want to be called on my shit if I was being an arsehole, and have been a few times when people haven't recognised my sarcasm or humour.

 

[Jadzia]

I will pose a moral question here in the thread. Each volunteer will PM me with his/her answer.

That sounds like fun.

It'll be like watching Family Fortunes, but with moral dilemmas instead of 'name a fruit'.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

I will pose a moral question here in the thread. Each volunteer will PM me with his/her answer.

That sounds like fun.

It'll be like watching Family Fortunes, but with moral dilemmas instead of 'name a fruit'.

But will the questions be ones surveyed to a hundred different people? (And if the answer's there, I'll give you the money myself. )

And what about the car and the top 5 answers and things...? Answering questions for prizes is a moral dilemma in itself.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I also live by the Ethic of Reciprocity.

Morality is very simple in concept, though, like anything involving Human Beings, can become complicated in practice. In essence, if it hurts someone, it's immoral, and if it helps someone, it's moral.

A lot of the confusion about morals has more to do with people confusing the concept of morality with law, custom, prejudice et cetera. There is no such thing as moral relativity; there are only those who use arbitrary rules as a substitute for morality.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Well, I took one of those online tests about alignment, and it told me that my "morals" are Good and my "ethics" Lawful, so it must be true. I started a thread about it a while back somewhere.

 

[Jadzia]

In essence, if it hurts someone, it's immoral, and if it helps someone, it's moral.

In the interests of philosophical discussion, what does it mean to hurt or help? How do we measure these factors? Who gets to define what hurting or helping is?

What if someone tried to tell you that you were hurting them, even though you could not see that you were?

 

[Gepard]

^And what about actions that cause pain or harm in the short term, but are beneficial in the long term; for example, surgery or amputations in the days before anesthesia?

 

[RJDiogenes]

In essence, if it hurts someone, it's immoral, and if it helps someone, it's moral.

In the interests of philosophical discussion, what does it mean to hurt or help? How do we measure these factors? Who gets to define what hurting or helping is?

What if someone tried to tell you that you were hurting them, even though you could not see that you were?

For example, shooting someone is hurting them; saving a gunshot victim's life is helping them.

Not that there aren't gray areas-- which is why I said it can get complicated-- but common sense can settle a lot of it. If somebody's Mother tells him that he hurt her by not becoming a Doctor, that's pretty much on her; it doesn't mean passing on Medical School is immoral.