What's your personal morality?

Me, I tend to have a very libertarian point of view.

Essentially, I'll divide people into two classes:

1. Immediate threat (Physical/financial/psychological)

2. Non threats.

If you're in camp 2, you can live your life however you want afaic. I'll treat ambitious overachievers and shiftless lazy bums exactly the same way, because imo it's just not my place to judge people, and I feel no one else has the right to pressure others.

To that end, I certainly don't believe in the concept of "community" or "social responsibilty". NO ONE owes anything to society. Anyone who claims they do, is just a self interested arsehole trying to justify a belief that he's owed a good place to live, a good job, a good economy, a good country..

No. If you get these things, it's because enough individuals choose to he productive members of society for their own personal ends. You have no right to DEMAND that people provide you with their productivity.

If society fails, let it fail.

As a Christian, I believe that there is an objective morality. At the same time however, I don't believe in Biblical inerrancy as many Christians do, and even if the Bible were a perfect work, it comes far from addressing every possible moral dilemma. My belief is that objectively moral actions are actions taken from an absolute knowledge of everything pertinent to the situation and the motivation of love (love of oneself and others) while objectively immoral actions are taken from that same absolute knowledge of everything pertinent to the situation but with the motivation of nihilistic fear instead (a visceral fear of worthlessness that either leads to self-destructive horror, apathy, or arrogance).

Granted, mankind is not omniscient, so transcendence after death aside, we'll never truly know that objective morality in our physical lifetimes, so while I believe in an objective morality, I believe morality in human hands is functionally subjective, as it should be. Unless a person is omniscient they should not suggest they have an understanding of objective morality. I do however believe people should stick to an internal moral compass of recognizing actions taken out of love as morally motivates and actions taken out of some form of that nihilistic fear as immorally motivated, and try to act out of love with whatever knowledge is available to them, as while the tool of perfect knowledge is not within our grasp, the ability to act with moral intention is.

Even if I were an atheist, I'd hold roughly the same moral stance and moral relativism disgusts me.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Even if I were an atheist, I'd hold roughly the same moral stance and moral relativism disgusts me.

If that was directed at me, I'm absolutely NOT a moral relavist.

More of a pragmatist.. Someone strikes an old woman, you step in, even if everyone says it isn't your business.

I just don't see the purpose in shaming people for living a lifestyle you deem indesireable/beneath you. Someone wants to screw around with a lot of women/men, what's it to you (Or me?)

Someone else isn't getting any and lives with cats? Or, has a "furry" fetish? So what? They're not hurting anybody.

Into drugs? Go ahead and enjoy? Smoking, drinking, go for it. Want to grow out your beard, eat a crate of twinkies and let yourself go? Hey, it's your life.

Pretty much every "social norm" that exists, exists solely to protect "haves" from "have nots", and this happens regardless of "democrat/republican" status. It's about keeping people down/hoarding privileges.

You know the old meme about the "peace and love" hippie who rails against "the system", until he becomes a sellout as soon as he achieves financial success and BECOMES "the system".

Meritocracy must trump the inevitable outcome that reality won't be perfectly egalitarian.

Generally my political beliefs, then I add in political realism.

Originally posted by cdtm
If that was directed at me, I'm absolutely NOT a moral relavist.

I think everyone should be treated equally, unless they aren't running a two-parent household, then they should be punished. 🙁

Yes terminating a human life because it's existence is inconvenient is not something I am morally comfortable with.

It has nothing to do with punishment. In fact I can't wait for the day when birth control is so advanced that unwanted pregnancies are no longer a problem. I don't have some weird fixation over wanting people to not **** each other out of wedlock if that's what you're implying.

Wasn't implying anything of the sort mate, my comment was about the proper enforcement of the nuclear family, two parents and two children, or else, you have a problem with this?

But I agree, people shouldn't have sex unless they're prepared to have kids. 👆

Moral nihilist.

I'm mostly on board with the mostly universal standards. You shouldn't kill, steal, rape, etc. I do however, see where some of those crimes could be committed.
Killing someone to protect your family for example. Stealing so you don't starve to death. Not saying there shouldn't be punishment, but i can understand how normally good people would do things that are morally wrong to the majority.
(except rape, I can't think of a scenario where that would be reasonable).

Originally posted by cdtm
What's your personal morality?

I wish I was a better person.

^ What makes you think you are not?

Regardless of how good you are that's a pretty good thing to want.

Meh. I'm fine the way I am

Did I say a better person? What I meant to say was

YouTube video

Lol. I like that song

Don't be a dick. Words to live by. It really is that simple