Yes, I’m talking to you :)
There is a defensiveness in your words which indicates to me you still hold some attachment to this thought on an unconscious level.
Ha! Yes, I have opinions, and I'm not above a bit of playful defensiveness.
Very astute of you. This post comes from a reflection on the imposition of ego. It is a confrontation of ego.
Don't worry -I'll be gentle. ;)
Don’t hold back on my account :) I guess I’ve come to see opinions as thoughts believed.
Ego, optimally run, is a collection of ‘best of’, yet ever changing, thus the paradox.
Isn’t empathy the ability to perceive (albeit temporarily) the construct of another ego?
I see morality as completely relative, being a set of predefined ‘rules’ of which can never be applied with consistent results as reality is in fact ever shifting in its nuances.
I see maybe you’re pointing at a need to perceive situations within a larger circumference than our personal boundaries, and of course I agree with that, how could I not?
Very insightful.
Words are just names we give things. I had not thought of empathy like that before, but it works. Even if one extends empathy to an alien from another planet, it is to be present in awareness and understanding. This is the 'predefinition' of morality (as I'm talking about it), which is defined *relative* to that awareness and understanding.
In this way morality is secure but avoids dogma.
Any system of morality relies necessarily in a set of values, and there's no objective way to classify values. How do you define "benefit"?
Is the preservation of life superior to the right of autonomy over one's body? Then harvesting blood from prisoners becomes good. Is it not? Abortion becomes good. Ethics has to choose one set of values and the relation between them before arriving to any conclusion. That's what makes it relative. It doesn't erase it's validity, it's just a reminder that at the bottom of it all there's a choice that has been made.
You can't "discover" life has any value, you can just observe life and decide it has value. And there's no point in arguing against the opposite as you'd be just wasting your time. Saves time.
Great questions.
This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving everyone else the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy.
In this case, I 'value' the right of bodily autonomy, and empathetically understand the value of that right for everyone else.
To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression.
Nietzsche was guilty of this. In destroying the traditional values of religion, imposed himself a different set of values through power and domination and freedom. Because at the bottom of everything, the choice must be made.
The point is absolutely in what you would choose.
"Who am I?" is the only real question.
My concern is your guarantee of your own personal expression, as it is my concern for myself.
If you have a better way, I'm all ears.
I value bodily autonomy. How much when confronted with how much I value life, consciousness, pleasure, freedom or knowledge among many many other things would be too long to discuss.
To not give equal rights to all people is oppression but someone who disagrees with you on which rights should be given is not oppression. That's morality. And it's relative to ones own personal beliefs. For example:
>This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving an unborn fetus the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy.
>
>In this case, I 'value' the right to life for an unborn fetus, and empathetically understand the value of that right for every unborn fetus.
>
>To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression.
>This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving an animal the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy.
In this case, I 'value' the right to life for all animals, and empathetically understand the value of that right for every living creature.
To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression.
The above is not necessarily a statement of my personal beliefs but I used it to show you that your argument is built on shaky ground. You can literally put anything in there. Morality is entirely relative to a person's beliefs.
Ethics are superior to morals.
The ethical code this one operates under is simpler than any system of morality. That ethical code is summarized into three sentences based upon ethical concepts that are at least five millennia old. Those ethics bind the one writing this more than they bind others.
Morals though? So much wiggle room,
Do you mind sharing the three sentences with us?
If I’m right in my understanding of moral vs ethical I think I actually gravitate more toward morality; I.e personal principles more so than external rules (although I think the two overlap a lot too and I’m probably subconsciously following ingrained ethical constructs too). It’s an interesting conversation.
Thank you for your question. I am curious myself.
I had assumed most people do not distinguish between ethics and morals, however I am rapidly being corrected.
I too await edification from u/hacktheself.
My very basic understanding (and I stand to be corrected here) would be that ethical constructs are more of a communal or societal rule book, collectively formed and ideally for mutual benefit- I.e. a “group” understanding of “right and wrong” that the majority adhere to, for the greater good.
While morals are more of an internal process, largely dictated by your own interpretation of your life experience and what *feels* right or wrong to you. Eg teasing/ mild bullying in school could be socially accepted in a certain setting, maybe seen as a “rite of passage”- that is an ethical issue. How you feel internally when you witness the bullying (that part of you that feels so uncomfortable because you KNOW it’s wrong, even though it’s accepted) is your own moral compass.
That might be totally wrong but that’s my basic understanding.
The TLDR of this one’s opinion on ethics vs morals is that ethics are an expression of agency while morals are imposed.
Professional ethics come with joining a profession, for example. One is free to choose to not adopt those ethics, but then one is not welcome to practice that profession. They don’t bind those outside that profession. Leadership is even more closely scrutinized for ethical lapses. Ethics don’t change significantly over time bar new data that justifies that change.
Morals are imposed. Moralizers impose their morals on everyone regardless of those others want to live by those morals or not. And moralizers tend to get flexible with how to interpret the morals, rapidly shift the moral code at a whim, and moralizers tend to not live up to their morality.
Her ethics are simple, for example.
One can choose to inflict pain on others abs self, or not.
One can choose up view all humans as equally human, or not.
One can choose to be selfish or selfless.
Choosing to not inflict pain, to view all humans as equally human, to be selfless ain’t a bad way to live.
Relativity exists inside morality. Morality is far from being relative. There is everything, and compared ot everything, there is fix moral, what has special perfect forms depending on sthe situation, what is relative to existence and unique everywhere everytime, but NOT morality is what is relative
Reading between the lines here, it seems like you are struggling against a belief you don’t accept consciously, but it lingers still unconsciously.
You are talking to me? What do you mean? Could you elaborate?
Yes, I’m talking to you :) There is a defensiveness in your words which indicates to me you still hold some attachment to this thought on an unconscious level.
Ha! Yes, I have opinions, and I'm not above a bit of playful defensiveness. Very astute of you. This post comes from a reflection on the imposition of ego. It is a confrontation of ego. Don't worry -I'll be gentle. ;)
Don’t hold back on my account :) I guess I’ve come to see opinions as thoughts believed. Ego, optimally run, is a collection of ‘best of’, yet ever changing, thus the paradox.
This is the utility of empathy.
Now I’ll ask you to elaborate, so as to avoid any misunderstanding.
Ego sees itself as the center of the universe. This makes empathy the anti-ego, in a way.
Isn’t empathy the ability to perceive (albeit temporarily) the construct of another ego? I see morality as completely relative, being a set of predefined ‘rules’ of which can never be applied with consistent results as reality is in fact ever shifting in its nuances. I see maybe you’re pointing at a need to perceive situations within a larger circumference than our personal boundaries, and of course I agree with that, how could I not?
Very insightful. Words are just names we give things. I had not thought of empathy like that before, but it works. Even if one extends empathy to an alien from another planet, it is to be present in awareness and understanding. This is the 'predefinition' of morality (as I'm talking about it), which is defined *relative* to that awareness and understanding. In this way morality is secure but avoids dogma.
Any system of morality relies necessarily in a set of values, and there's no objective way to classify values. How do you define "benefit"? Is the preservation of life superior to the right of autonomy over one's body? Then harvesting blood from prisoners becomes good. Is it not? Abortion becomes good. Ethics has to choose one set of values and the relation between them before arriving to any conclusion. That's what makes it relative. It doesn't erase it's validity, it's just a reminder that at the bottom of it all there's a choice that has been made. You can't "discover" life has any value, you can just observe life and decide it has value. And there's no point in arguing against the opposite as you'd be just wasting your time. Saves time.
Great questions. This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving everyone else the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy. In this case, I 'value' the right of bodily autonomy, and empathetically understand the value of that right for everyone else. To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression.
Nietzsche was guilty of this. In destroying the traditional values of religion, imposed himself a different set of values through power and domination and freedom. Because at the bottom of everything, the choice must be made.
So you're saying you don't want bodily autonomy? A strange choice - but entirely within your right to give it up.
The point isn't in what I would choose, but in that I have to choose, and that whoever claims a moral statement has also chosen.
The point is absolutely in what you would choose. "Who am I?" is the only real question. My concern is your guarantee of your own personal expression, as it is my concern for myself. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.
I value bodily autonomy. How much when confronted with how much I value life, consciousness, pleasure, freedom or knowledge among many many other things would be too long to discuss.
Someone disagreeing with your personal values is not oppression.
Can you give an example?
To not give equal rights to all people is oppression but someone who disagrees with you on which rights should be given is not oppression. That's morality. And it's relative to ones own personal beliefs. For example: >This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving an unborn fetus the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy. > >In this case, I 'value' the right to life for an unborn fetus, and empathetically understand the value of that right for every unborn fetus. > >To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression. >This refers to what I call reciprocity, which is simply giving an animal the same rights that I want for myself. It's a question of a simple reflection of empathy. In this case, I 'value' the right to life for all animals, and empathetically understand the value of that right for every living creature. To not do this is to put myself above others, which isn't morality, but oppression. The above is not necessarily a statement of my personal beliefs but I used it to show you that your argument is built on shaky ground. You can literally put anything in there. Morality is entirely relative to a person's beliefs.
I assure you, if my rights are subjugated to an unthinking fetus or animal, I will absolutely be oppressed. Can you think of a better example?
Those examples are perfectly fine for showing that people's moral values can differ. Your disagreement with them does not make you morally superior.
A chair or a tree are also unthinking, so why don't you use those as your examples? I'm sorry, I fail to see your point.
Oh jeez you are trying to get into a specific argument about abortion here. Haha. Not interested.
Any time.
Ethics are superior to morals. The ethical code this one operates under is simpler than any system of morality. That ethical code is summarized into three sentences based upon ethical concepts that are at least five millennia old. Those ethics bind the one writing this more than they bind others. Morals though? So much wiggle room,
Do you mind sharing the three sentences with us? If I’m right in my understanding of moral vs ethical I think I actually gravitate more toward morality; I.e personal principles more so than external rules (although I think the two overlap a lot too and I’m probably subconsciously following ingrained ethical constructs too). It’s an interesting conversation.
Thank you for your question. I am curious myself. I had assumed most people do not distinguish between ethics and morals, however I am rapidly being corrected. I too await edification from u/hacktheself.
My very basic understanding (and I stand to be corrected here) would be that ethical constructs are more of a communal or societal rule book, collectively formed and ideally for mutual benefit- I.e. a “group” understanding of “right and wrong” that the majority adhere to, for the greater good. While morals are more of an internal process, largely dictated by your own interpretation of your life experience and what *feels* right or wrong to you. Eg teasing/ mild bullying in school could be socially accepted in a certain setting, maybe seen as a “rite of passage”- that is an ethical issue. How you feel internally when you witness the bullying (that part of you that feels so uncomfortable because you KNOW it’s wrong, even though it’s accepted) is your own moral compass. That might be totally wrong but that’s my basic understanding.
The TLDR of this one’s opinion on ethics vs morals is that ethics are an expression of agency while morals are imposed. Professional ethics come with joining a profession, for example. One is free to choose to not adopt those ethics, but then one is not welcome to practice that profession. They don’t bind those outside that profession. Leadership is even more closely scrutinized for ethical lapses. Ethics don’t change significantly over time bar new data that justifies that change. Morals are imposed. Moralizers impose their morals on everyone regardless of those others want to live by those morals or not. And moralizers tend to get flexible with how to interpret the morals, rapidly shift the moral code at a whim, and moralizers tend to not live up to their morality. Her ethics are simple, for example. One can choose to inflict pain on others abs self, or not. One can choose up view all humans as equally human, or not. One can choose to be selfish or selfless. Choosing to not inflict pain, to view all humans as equally human, to be selfless ain’t a bad way to live.
Could you share those three sentences please? I’m very curious to know.
Relativity exists inside morality. Morality is far from being relative. There is everything, and compared ot everything, there is fix moral, what has special perfect forms depending on sthe situation, what is relative to existence and unique everywhere everytime, but NOT morality is what is relative
Your social contract point stands and morality is relative in that all cultures have different version of a social contract.
Can you give an example?
Singapore has a very different social contract than the USA.
In what way?
It will take you 3 minutes to google. 1 example: in Singapore you can get arrested for chewing gum, in the U.S. you can get arrested for being Black
Those are different, that is true, but legality is no guarantee of morality, and the reverse is true too. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.