What is your fundamental moral compass?

@Thomas,

Quote:

It's perfectly possible for good people to do evil things.

Well said. Which is why we have a collective moral compass, and are quite happy to execute anyone who disagrees with ours ie Nuremburg War Crime Trials.

Quote:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions---by good people.

This sums up a lot of my attitude towards do-gooders...I want to see results, not letter perfect policy.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Quote:

2) Your analogy of greyhounds was not only inept but revealed your ignorance of the issue being discussed.

You mentioned the basic instincts of animals Jack. Here--

Quote:

So the moral compass that one entertains is rooted in some emotions which was pregnated and fertilised by the process of socialisation, or more often is based upon basic instincts which humans and other animals have.

Quote:

Generosity has nothing to do with bullying.

Okay. If it's genuine. How do you tell if it is? Princess Diana's virtuous good works were publicly criticised as self promotion.

I have seen a large number of examples of generosity. But are you saying I should trust them all to have not been motivated by self interest. It's a good feeling to be thought to be Mr Nice Guy.

I think all movies, films, videos etc are doctored--yes. Even live events have a delay on them these days. I measured it once with the help of a friend who was at the game I was watching on TV using a mobile phone. It was 3 seconds.

All I was meaning was that you can't draw hard and fast conclusions from movies except in relation to the movie making process itself.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Do babies being born harm their mother ?

Do they have a choice?
So harm is OK, it is just that you need to be in a position of saying "well its not my fault".

Quote:
Quote:
Does watching people starve do harm ?

How could it?
You dont have a problem with the problems of the world, just so long as others cause them.

Quote:
Quote:
How does "do no harm" promote survival of the fittest ?

Who said that it does?
So you are happy if your policy allows the extinction or slow deterioration of the human race.

What you have said is that anything is OK so long as you dont have responsibility...this is the sort of person who is capable of watching all sorts of evil in the world because they are happy that they are morally superior. The sort of person who watches immoral and illegal behaviour with a shrug....not your fault is it ? Seriously, think before you post buddy...

Pangloss is right... Morality is being responsible for ones own behavior, and I would add, in regard to those for whom one has some responsibility... The Jews kill the Arabs and the Arabs kill the Jews, and each are acting morally in regard to their own group.... Moral behavior is not rational behavior, but if there is a rational that can be found it is in support of ones own ethnic group, and I am certain the connection between ethnic and ethic is obvious... Moral behavior grows our of an emotional attachment between people which is something that cannot be taught... In fact, our society does much to unteach morality in the constant assault upon communities, as law does, even to the family by breaking all people into individuals, even children... If you have law you must have crime, because law destroys the authority of communities over their own.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
2) Your analogy of greyhounds was not only inept but revealed your ignorance of the issue being discussed.

You mentioned the basic instincts of animals Jack. Here--

Quote:
So the moral compass that one entertains is rooted in some emotions which was pregnated and fertilised by the process of socialisation, or more often is based upon basic instincts which humans and other animals have.

Quote:
Generosity has nothing to do with bullying.

Okay. If it's genuine. How do you tell if it is? Princess Diana's virtuous good works were publicly criticised as self promotion.

I have seen a large number of examples of generosity. But are you saying I should trust them all to have not been motivated by self interest. It's a good feeling to be thought to be Mr Nice Guy.

I think all movies, films, videos etc are doctored--yes. Even live events have a delay on them these days. I measured it once with the help of a friend who was at the game I was watching on TV using a mobile phone. It was 3 seconds.

All I was meaning was that you can't draw hard and fast conclusions from movies except in relation to the movie making process itself.

Morality is irrational, or prerational... You cannot teach people to bond with others... You can do much to teach people to unbond, but there goes the basis for morality... Morality grows out of a certain emotional attachment to people, usually only certain people, of family and community... Since there is no logic to it, morality cannot be taught... If a person is moral, and has that moral connection, the best on can hope for is to expand that feeling to others, including humanity at some point... If the Jews and Arabs of Palestine are moral, and they are, in the fullest sense of the word, defending their own, they are not at all humanists in that they do not hold humanity as equal, and who does, really???

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

But people, and you, dont help others do they....

A nice blanket statement/assumption that is simply naive and incorrect. "People" and me, don't help others, but I guess you do? Because you're such a great guy, right? Please...and your compass is what? "Point me to another thread to hijack"?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Well said. Which is why we have a collective moral compass, and are quite happy to execute anyone who disagrees with ours ie Nuremburg War Crime Trials.

Nazi Germany had a collective moral compass. Its problem was that collective moral compasses are no more than the sum of enough individual moral compasses. As soon as enough individual compassess fail, evil gets established as the new good. That's what happened with Germany's collective moral compass from 1933-1945. And it's also what happened with America's moral compass when it came to antebellum slavery, Indians, and the World-War-II treatment of Japanese-Americans. Collective moral compasses can be wrong, and an outlaw's individual moral compass can be right. It's that complicated.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Exactly. The 9/11 hijackers and their kind also had a moral compass, where their actions that resulted in the killing of thousands of people, were considered to be right and justified. It took certain individuals with their own sense of morality to overcome the collective compass that allowed slavery, that wouldn't allow women to vote, and that allowed for the violation of blacks' civil rights. The "collective moral compass", more often than not, has been the excuse throughout history for many of man's most memorable atrocities.

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Quote:

Quote:
But people, and you, dont help others do they....
A nice blanket statement/assumption that is simply naive and incorrect. "People" and me, don't help others, but I guess you do? Because you're such a great guy, right? Please...and your compass is what?

I have stated my moral compass before. Strange you should think that people does not include me. A little defensive arent you ? People are quite happy to have a good view of suffering and say things like....well I cant help them....you have to look after your own backyard first....

Do no harm is negative. It involves watching Rome burn and playing your violin. You didnt start the fire...it is not your fault. It also involes ignoring important aspects of life. How do you eat, how are you born if you are to do no harm ? How do you knock back a breeding partner and hurt them if they are inadequate by your instincts ?

And you have to cheek to say things like "A nice blanket statement/assumption that is simply naive and incorrect".

Quote:

"Point me to another thread to hijack"?

Do you have any idea how I am hyjacking this thread by disagreeing with you ? That is a lot of fear for someone I dont recall talking to before.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

A little defensive arent you ?

Defensive, when being criticized for not helping others, when you have no idea what it is that I do.

Quote:

Do no harm is negative. It involves watching Rome burn and playing your violin. You didnt start the fire...it is not your fault. It also involes ignoring important aspects of life.

Like I said, it's a fundamental moral code, it does not at all mean that one should not strive to help others. On its own, it is neither negative nor positive, and your inability to understand this is mind boggling.

Quote:

Do you have any idea how I am hyjacking this thread by disagreeing with you ? That is a lot of fear for someone I dont recall talking to before.

You can disagree all you want. But, your failure to understand a very trivial proposition, and then to spout off about it, post after post, making claims about myself and others, who apparently do no good for anybody, is hijacking this thread. And if you want to talk about do-gooders in ivory towers, well, you seem to fit the bill pretty well with the statements you've made here.

2 Replies

@Pangloss,

Quote:

when being criticized for not helping others, when you have no idea what it is that I do.

But that was your following reply to me...that I didnt help others. You are taking it personally when what was intended was that without a change in your moral compass you can quite happily watch others suffer. Your inability to understand this is staggering.

Quote:

Like I said, it's a fundamental moral code, it does not at all mean that one should not strive to help others.

But with that code you do not have to help anybody. You can live with that code and do nothing to anyone. The code doesnt even pass the first test of life being born.

Quote:

your failure to understand a very trivial proposition

Is it your fundamental moral code on which you build everything else or isnt it ? Because there is nothing trivial about the result. I think I understand it rather well.

Quote:

it is neither negative nor positive,

Of course it is negative. It states inaction. How is inaction positive ?

Quote:

then to spout off about it, post after post,

Are you here to discuss morality or attack me as an example of your morals ? What happened to do no harm ? I might be crying my eyes out over your defensive criticisms of a trivial proposition.

Quote:

making claims about myself and others, who apparently do no good for anybody, is hijacking this thread.

I make no claims about you just your moral compass. Read the title of the thread.

Quote:

if you want to talk about do-gooders in ivory towers

Actually I only mentioned do-gooders, I dont care where they live.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Look, i will forgive your rhetorics, since ithink i mentioned to help you out.

Quote:

Okay. If it's genuine. How do you tell if it is? Princess Diana's virtuous good works were publicly criticised as self promotion.

See, in the wide world you can't pick up scoundrels and royalties , and ask me to explain how theire works are genuine or not.

Quote:

I have seen a large number of examples of generosity. But are you saying I should trust them all to have not been motivated by self interest. It's a good feeling to be thought to be Mr Nice Guy.

No i am not saying that. Where did i say that. Read the answer above.

Quote:

All I was meaning was that you can't draw hard and fast conclusions from movies except in relation to the movie making process itself.

Since you have not given me your age, i can't answer such 'hard and fast conclsuions' that you have drawn from an EXAMPLE, while missing the whole point completely.

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Morality is irrational, or prerational... You cannot teach people to bond with others... You can do much to teach people to unbond, but there goes the basis for morality... Morality grows out of a certain emotional attachment to people, usually only certain people, of family and community... Since there is no logic to it, morality cannot be taught... If a person is moral, and has that moral connection, the best on can hope for is to expand that feeling to others, including humanity at some point... If the Jews and Arabs of Palestine are moral, and they are, in the fullest sense of the word, defending their own, they are not at all humanists in that they do not hold humanity as equal, and who does, really???

Hi Fido, nice to hear from you.

Its interesting you brought the issue of Jews and Arabs.......... a complex issue no doubt. It is ironical that the origin of a personal God introduced by Abraham, is the region of the greatest and longest conflict zone in the entire history of the human world.

Your quote is quite profound.........
If a person is moral, and has that moral connection, the best on can hope for is to expand that feeling to others, including humanity at some point.

And this feeling, or a moral compass, is what religions set out to do in the first place. Make men more civilised. The dichotomy lies in the nature of man. Self interest is often a valid reason to break away from any moral constraints. But self interest has always succumbed to force or moderation. An appeal to intellect, or adherence to force, is a way how humanity has tackled self-interest. In the Israel conflict theatre, it seems Ego is the greatest factor which disallows any intellectual solution or a moral solution or a military solution.

There is also a complex moral issue, more complex than any other issue the said conflict brings. It subsumes the political, social, cultural and economic issues. Has the Moral God given up on the Morality of these religious ethnic group, both or the trio (if christians are also included) ethnic or socio cultural groups, claiming adherence to the same Almighty God, is at loggerheads for ages and millinieums.

What morality do they teach their children. Morality, in todays times have become dysfunctional - the onslaught of modernity, consumerism, individualism, liberty, democracy all seems to have taken a toll on Morality.

What kind of a compass as the OP suggest do these groups hold?

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

But, your failure to understand a very trivial proposition, and then to spout off about it, post after post, making claims about myself and others, who apparently do no good for anybody, is hijacking this thread.

In the spirit of doing no harm: I don't know if you've already noticed, but A2K has a defensive, yet surprisingly effective protection against thread-hijackers. We call it the "ignore" button. To use it, click on the name of the person you want to ignore. That brings up their profile page. On that page, in the top-right corner, you will see the avatar. Below the avatar are three green buttons. The lowermost of them is the "ignore button". I couldn't live without it.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Pangloss wrote:
But, your failure to understand a very trivial proposition, and then to spout off about it, post after post, making claims about myself and others, who apparently do no good for anybody, is hijacking this thread.

In the spirit of doing no harm: I don't know if you've already noticed, but A2K has a defensive, yet surprisingly effective protection against thread-hijackers. We call it the "ignore" button. To use it, click on the name of the person you want to ignore. That brings up their profile page. On that page, in the top-right corner, you will see the avatar. Below the avatar are three green buttons. The lowermost of them is the "ignore button". I couldn't live without it.

I don't like the ignore feature. I have seen some people hijack certain threads which if i followed your reasoning here would have put them on ignore and then in some other threads i saw the very same people make some sound reasonable posts. So in one way they were trolling and in other they had a legitimate argument. Not only that but i absolutely hate censorship in any way. I think it is just plain silliness that you can't let someone say something even if it is completely retarded.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Not only that but i absolutely hate censorship in any way.

It's not censorship. They post what they want, you read what you want. The "ignore" feature helps you not read what you don't want. I don't mean to hijack this thread to make it about the ignore button---just wanted to let you philosophy-forum people know that you have that option here.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

You (or rather Pangloss, who was the one talking about the thread being hi-jacked) don't have to blanket ignore someone.

You can simply vote their post down on a particular thread, and YOU will not see it.

Threads here are, in my view, often hi-jacked by the same small group of people.

(Others would say the same, but be referring to a different group, of course!)

These people can't really do any real harm themselves, it is easy for lots of us to simply scroll past their posts. or have them on ignore..whatever floats your boat.

However, often people get very irritated by them and respond. This is really when a whole thread can be de-railed...when it becomes masses of postings between a few people, on things not pertaining to the thread, and frequently in the form of ever-increasing personal insults.

Once this has happened, people often give up and stop posting on what had been a really interesting discussion.

This is when I really wish people would use the aids to ignoring given them...if they cannot simply scroll past.

I am not saying you don't have the ability to do that without artificial aids, but lots of folk seem not to have, and this de-railing can be quite a destructive thing when it happens.

With very little modding here, there's nobody to stop this process except us.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

The lowermost of them is the "ignore button". I couldn't live without it.

That's amazing! I can live perfectly well without it, never used the ignore button..

1 Reply

@Francis,

Neither have I. It's the wimp's function. Mom's apron.

1 Reply

@spendius,

My fundamental moral compass: Cause and Effect. Logic. Happiness. All from Aristotle who influenced the basic scholasticism in the early Catholic Church. All of it leads to a moral compass that embraces universal truth. Religious thought clarifies these truths. It seems that modern man has to re-learn all of this.

I am new to the forum and very interested in what passes for philosophy these days. I studied the history of philosophy and religion in a Salon in the eighties. It was there I found my moral compass without having to join a church and am eternally grateful.

You have to know where people are coming from in order to debate these subjects.

You have to count your blessings and then you understand compassion.

Forget labeling....we are too diverse as human beings to pigeon hole ourselves and others.

Courting a cynical philosophy leads to a dead end, but is usually common in youth.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Yep, I got it figured out. I'll let this thread get back on course, and leave certain users to riding around on their high horses, if they so choose. Thanks.

0 Replies

What is your fundamental moral compass?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know