Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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.
Nah, just asserting my disgust with moral relativism. Also I agree with you as far as people conflating social norms with actual morality goes, and with condemning people for victimless actions.

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 try not to be a dick, while realizing the world isnt set up to make that possible 100% of the time.

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

ryDOy3AosBw

Lol. I like that song

http://www.imagesbuddy.com/images/195/this-is-my-simple-religion-there-is-no-need-for-temples.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d7/8e/bb/d78ebb2e955c5d137d1591be2afd3fb7--funny-sayings-funny-memes.jpg

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

^^^i'll stick by my caveat to that, though.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^i'll stick by my caveat to that, though.
-------
My moral in life is pretty simple, you treat me good & i'll definitely treat you
better, simple is that!

Does this work inversely as well? If I insult you will you murder my whole family? lol

Chaotic Good

Originally posted by cdtm
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.

What is my morality: Study everything, Scrutinize everything, Ambitiously inform yourself of everything. Based on such information create yourself a path to righteousness. Leave the bad outside; don't let evil consume you. But above everything, believe in something.

I am an Open Minded person. I open my mind to everything, but i never let my body do everything.

There is a fine line between being open in mind and being open in body.

Is that a 'morality' or a 'mantra'?

generally speaking I'm amoral personally, however, I'm comfortable thinking and acting from a moral perspective in order to preserve my public image. Everything is an act.

Kill or be killed.

At a fundamental level, it's maximize aggregate quality of conscious experience for all beings.

Heuristics for that:

- practice gratitude for what I have
- have love and compassion for everyone except when it's not practical to
- take care of myself and others
- don't let my happiness be too vulnerable to external events
- don't let cognitive biases sabotage myself or others
- be productive with my time, whether that means productively working or productively relaxing, etc.

Of course, I don't perfectly follow these rules - I'm fallible, after all.

So to clarify my position, I am a Christian, and that context will be there when explaining my moral standpoints, but I don't think you need to buy into any divine authority to appreciate what I'm saying.

So to my understanding, Genesis establishes two fundamental truths about humanity.

First is the presupposition that man is made in God's image, which carries with it two statements, the first of which is an implication of the worth of each individual person, and it's actually this idea that the emergence of individual rights in political philosophy was rooted in. The second of which is a statement to our capacity as individuals, with the assertion that man is made in God's image immediately coming after an account of God creating everything through articulate speech. It is as a consequence of our articulate capacity that we can shape ourselves and the social and physical structures we inhabit to an extent that no other species on Earth can, and our extremely fast rate of progression as a species is culturally rooted, essentially an ongoing millennia long dialogue.

The second truth established is the fundamental dilemma posed to humanity, which is the emergence of self-consciousness and with it an acute awareness of our own vulnerability and insufficiency. And the problem posited with this is how we deal with that vulnerability since we're aware of it.

Now I realize I just cited a religious contextualization of those presuppositions about two fundamental human truths, however those presuppositions are something I would be willing and capable of defending without making a citation to any authority.

Now with those two fundamental truths, I largely think morality is dependent on which of those things you subordinate to the other. The mistake would be to subordinate human worth to your awareness of your own vulnerability as say... Adam and Eve did in the Genesis narrative after eating the fruit. They became ashamed of their nakedness, vulnerability, and insufficiency and let that shame drive them away from God (or in a less religious context the highest ideal), not living forthrightly and honestly because of their shame, and to cope with shame people generally become arrogant, such as Adam did when he refused to take responsibility for his mistakes and resentfully tried to shift the blame to Eve and God for his actions. Now my take on subordinating human worth to awareness of vulnerability is that such a thing leads people to a deprecation of human worth in a sort of nihilistic light, they become ashamed, and often times people deal with that shame arrogantly, either through outright boastfulness or the self-centered justification for wrongdoing of reveling in self-pity and self-victimization, and this I think is the root if immoral behavior such as resentment, covetousness, or irresponsibility.

I think virtue however stems from subordinating vulnerability to human worth. Now Jesus's great commandment which is at the heart of my own moral code is to love God, and to love yourself and everyone else. Now I think even the first part of that could have some benefit to atheists if you consider that to a religious person God is the highest ideal, and I think it's a very good moral imperative to conceive of the highest ideal you can imagine and try and live in accordance with that ideal and move the world in that direction, I actually think that's a wise thing to take into account. And the second part of that statement is basically to love every person, which to me is taking the presupposition of the worth of every individual to heart, as well as your own self-worth as an individual. So if you subordinate vulnerability to human worth and approach your vulnerability from the angle that you and other people have intrinsic value, then the core of your motivations are love and humility, so you can honestly take account of your flaws and deal with them with the proper motivations, and I think this leads to virtuous behavior. I think to honestly approach human vulnerability from the motivation of love and humility leads to virtues of reconciliation, so forgiving other people and a willingness to admit and repent for your own mistakes, virtues of sacrifice, so charitable generosity and patience, and virtues of responsibility, such as diligence and courage.

So to put it in more simple terms:

To frame human worth through the lens of vulnerability leads to a sort of nihilistic approach to human worth, which leads to shame, which leads to arrogance, which leads to evil.

To approach vulnerability through the presupposition that human beings are intrinsically valuable leads to love and humility, which leads to virtuous behavior.

No matter how much you dislike someone, there's a time and a place to show a little empathy.

A cousin lost his father. Some members of my family don't really respect this cousin, and badmouth him all the time. At the wake, he was snubbed by these people..

Not gonna say who it is, or their relationship to me (Aside from being a blood relation), because even to online strangers, I refuse to throw family under the bus. But I was the only one in this group who went up to him a said "I'm sorry for your loss."

I'm not trying to toot my own horn here, I just think people should have some bare minimum standards, under certain circumstances. If that makes me ungenuine, so be it.

Seen this kind of behavior too many times, from various friends/family. And of course, it happens in online forums too, like the time a guy actually died on this wrestling board I went to, and this one bigmouth just has to say the eqivilent of "Yeah, well he was a jerk. **** 'em".

"Collateral damage" is wrong. Period.

In everything I believe, I try and ask "if that were me."

Could I accept my friends, family, or community being destroyed in someone elses overzealous efforts to protect their interests? No, I could not.

And the people who pass these judgements are transparent in their rational at treating people different based on any number of reasons, such as country, political affiiliation, or personal importance to them.


That is a double standard. It dehumanized everyone into "Good for me", "Not good for me", "Don't care."


And that's wrong. Rationalizing away someone elses life to avoid empathy is wrong.

Of course, our nature isn't to love everyone. But it's a moral duty to everyone that claims to be a moral being to go against their instincts, and place value on every human life, as much as they value them and theirs.