would I do what? things that I am morally against?
no, morality has nothing to do with fear of punishment, but rather how to treat people eachother.
The things that I would do would be like smoking a j in my lab, or drinking in public, stuff that, to me, has little moral impact at all.
I wouldn't kill anyone or steal, that is wrong regardless
Originally posted by inimalist
I wouldn't kill anyone, that is wrong regardless
Tell that to war 'heroes' where the morality of PEACE is superceeded by the morality (Decided upon by politicians) to go to war. As for theft, what if it was to steal the medicine you could not afford to cure your AIDs or something.
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
Tell that to war 'heroes' where the morality of PEACE is superceeded by the morality (Decided upon by politicians) to go to war.
I tend not to let politicians define what is moral to me /shrug
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
As for theft, what if it was to steal the medicine you could not afford to cure your AIDs or something.
that question is utilitarian, not moral though
do I think stealing is wrong? yes
would I steal to ensure my survival? yes
whether or not I would get caught is not a variable that would change my action, rather, my method. If I could just walk into a pharmacy and steal the cure, rather than planning an elaborate theft, sure it would be easier, but if it is a matter of me living or dying of aids, I'm going to get that medicine.
Originally posted by inimalist
sure, it wouldn't matter though.Canadian justice system, no priors, I have a job, I'm white.
no way I'm getting serious time for knocking over a pharmacy to get medicine
Good to know! I am far more amoral than you... and the nice thing is i'm not proud of it, merely ambivalent.
Originally posted by inimalist
how is that a nice thing? you do things that you know are bad buy couldn't be bothered to act like a decent human?
You see this is where we differ, you don't let a politician decide your morality. I don't let a collective set of rules define mine. My ethics are flexible as we have shown are yours, e.g. it's wrong to steal; however, you would to ave a life. It's wrong to kill; however, i'm sure you would to save a life. Thing is, why is it wrong to steal or kill? Because a shared cultural agreement has made it so, what if for my own reasons in a given situation i disagree with that shared view for personal gain. Why would I be wrong and the majority right? You have Nietzsche in your sig, he might agrre with me......
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
You see this is where we differ, you don't let a politician decide your morality. I don't let a collective set of rules define mine. My ethics are flexible as we have shown are yours, e.g. it's wrong to steal; however, you would to ave a life. It's wrong to kill; however, i'm sure you would to save a life. Thing is, why is it wrong to steal or kill? Because a shared cultural agreement has made it so, what if for my own reasons in a given situation i disagree with that shared view for personal gain. Why would I be wrong and the majority right?
you aren't describing amorality though, you are describing a different set of morals that you follow versus those of society.
To be amoral, you would have to do things that you know to be wrong, in terms of your own moral compass, with no regard for the moral consequences one way or another.
Originally posted by ThAnus_ofTITass
You have Nietzsche in your sig, he might agrre with me......
he would agree that morals are often culturally created in order to restrain natural behaviour, yes...
even the quote in my signature suggests that he does believe there are "monsters" and an "abyss". Nihilism and Nietzsche are more nuanced than simply "there are no morals", but that another thread
Originally posted by inimalist
you aren't describing amorality though, you are describing a different set of morals that you follow versus those of society.To be amoral, you would have to do things that you know to be wrong, in terms of your own moral compass, with no regard for the moral consequences one way or another.
he would agree that morals are often culturally created in order to restrain natural behaviour, yes...
even the quote in my signature suggests that he does believe there are "monsters" and an "abyss". Nihilism and Nietzsche are more nuanced than simply "there are no morals", but that another thread
Amoral doesn't mean you know its wrong it can mean no moral Restraint or not involving right and wrong. You see I 'choose' to see amorality not as a choice (hehe) but as a calling. So Zarathrusta is a monster? Nietsche always failed to live up to his own ideals i.e. the horse, it didn't make him stronger or kill him ;-)
Originally posted by inimalistHowever being indifferent to right or wrong is Amoral, i.e. nothing is moral or immoral, merely subjective and in this case based on my subjectivism. :-) I am skeptical that morality is real and not just a meme.
ok, again though, what you described was not "no moral restraint", it was "not the same moral restraint as society"having a morality based on your contextual needs, as you described, is not amoral