So, I’ve been chatting with my buddies lately, and it’s turned into a bunch of debates about right and wrong. I think I have a pretty solid moral compass, I’m not bragging haha, but most people I know can’t really explain why something’s right or wrong without getting all circular or contradicting themselves.
So, how do you figure out what to do? No judgment, just curious. I’ll share my thoughts below.
Thanks!
Edit: Oh, all you lil’ philosophers have brought me a cornicopia of thoughts and ideas. I’m going to take my time responding, I’m like Treebeard, never wanna be hasty.
Pee when you have the chance.
When going out into the cold during the winter, especially if you are going on a bit of multi hour journey … poop first, even if you don’t feel like it.
How do you poop when you don’t feel like it?
I’m caught in a loop.
deleted by creator
Hahaha, I know right!
- don’t be an asshole
- everything is allowed as long as nobody is getting hurt
- act when you see something wrong
- when you are able to help do so
- in all other cases mind your own business
A good starting place is considering what society would look like if everyone did whatever thing.
Everyone steals - doesn’t work
Everyone murders - dosen’t work
etc.
Another approach is the Terry Pratchett argument that everything boils down to just not treating people like things.
- etc.
From an old Irish friend I’ve known for many years
Whatever you do in life, no matter the situation or circumstances … always be kind
Great philosophy, gotta make sure people dont take advantage of that though.
It also acts as a filter in life … whenever you meet unkind people, you stay away from them
Whenever you meet people who would take advantage of your kindness … you kindly stay away from them
When you meet other kind people, you do your best to stay with them, live with them, work with them or encourage them
Everyone always remember a few key things in life … people remember others who were unkind to them … people also remember people who were kind to them.
Life is short and it gets shorter every moment … whatever you do in life … just be kind … because most of the people you will ever meet you will only ever know for that one moment or just for a very short time.
deleted by creator
Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you’ve got a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies-“God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”
Pushing 4 decades, and the older I get the more I try to live by a philosophy of: be the person you wish you had when you were in their shoes.
Biggest thing is school right now: I did the college thing a bit a long time ago, struggled academically and financially, joined the military instead, separated, and now I’m back for round 2 using the GI Bill. I try to generate as many resources for my classmates as possible, run study groups, host group chats, send out reminders… The VA gives me a stipend for supplies each semester, which I’ll use in it’s entirety and give those supplies to the class. At clinicals (on-the-job education - nursing school) I’ve noticed a few students don’t eat cuz weren’t able to pack a lunch and hospital cafeteria food is WAY expensive for the average broke-ass college student, so I’ll cover the odd meal and tell em to just pay it forward once they get their RN. Shit like that. Kinda feels like I have 50 sons and daughters lol. But I remember my first attempt at college and how overwhelming everything felt… idk if having a ‘me’ would have made any difference in the outcome of round 1 - can’t make the horse drink and all - but if I can hook these kids up with an easier ride, then fuck yeah I’ll do what I can!
I try to apply that kind of approach to pretty much any context - be it school, work, or just random encounters with people.
Feels good to be helpful.
This is the best advice I’ve heard in a long while
Don’t be a dick.
Shut up, Wesley
Be kind.
Logic is the wrong tool for ethics. In formal logic, you can only assign values like true or false to something called “descriptive statements”. These are statements of fact, that can be observed.
Morality deals with “prescriptive” statements. Unobservable and unstable statements about how the world ought to be.
Logic breaks down because it’s impossible to argue for something that should be using only facts about how thing are.
The prescriptive statement “it’s wrong to harm” relies on the prescriptive statement “harm is bad”. Their is no bottom to it.
Well if we follow that to its conclusion I may as well delete the thread and try not to think about it.
Most other animals develop rapidly from birth to self sufficiency, while humans are born so very unfinished - totally dependent on others for our most basic needs, for years and years. If any values can be said to resonate with “human nature”, it’s prosocial and community-building values.
Just about every major religion glorifies some version of The Golden Rule - do unto others as ye would be done by.
Yep, that all tracks for me, is there anything underneath the golden rule, a more base rule, if you will.
Like what about people who have different lines over what would trigger a physical response to hostility? One guy might only respond to direct physical attacks, and another will respond to verbal threats of physical attacks. Who’s right?
I don’t think you can boil it down further, and that’s why Western law is an evolving patchwork of codes and penalties that vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Too many nuances, situational factors, edge cases and value priorities that vary from persn to person (and culture to culture) to decide every imaginable scenario consistently.
If you’re not familiar, you might gain some perspective from a summary read about Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorems. Goedel’s Proof deals with systems of logic, where logic is something we hope for in systems of law. Goedel’s Proof shows that a “sufficiently powerful” system of logic is necessarily incomplete - that is, we can pose problems in mathematical-systemic terms that have no solutions under that system.
In mathematical logic we have “axioms” like “1+1=2” or “a triangle is a plane figure defined by exactly 3 lines”. In law, axiom-like propositions are called “maxims”, often stated in Latin, and convey foundational legal principles like “contracts must be honored”, or “people can own things”. In a hypothetical properly Communist society, and by “proper” I mean to exclude failed would-be Communisms like the USSR or PRC, “people can own things” isn’t necessarily a maxim; they might instead have a maxim that codifies “things belong to the State” and exclude any notion of individual ownership.
The implication for legal systems is that there are inevitably legal disputes that can’t be decided strictly by the letter of the law, so we have to fall back on fiat of judicial opinion.
I think you might be approaching this in the wrong way. There is no objective right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Life and humans are simply too complex to create simple, objective rules that would be interpreted in exactly the same way by a decent number of humans for a reasonably complex situation. And you don’t even have to include ethical dilemmas for that, like deciding whether to shoot down a plane hijacked by terrorists or interrogating a kidnapper via torture.
Nonetheless, many homogeneous groups get to a decent degree of ethical alignment, and asking people for their ethical rules or guidelines is an interesting question to get inspiration and to find out how others try to navigate the complexity of the world. Just don’t expect these rules to be objective.
My ethos boils down to…
- The Golden Rule: Your rights end where other’s rights begin, and vice versa.
- Natural Rights: Any action or inaction, thought, or word, spoken or written, that does not cross the line of the Golden Rule is a natural right.
- Ethics: All ethics are founded upon, and entirely dependent upon, points 1 & 2.
- Morality Is Unethical: Morality, allowing for arbitrary precepts, is inherently unethical.
- Effort: Strive to live ethically.
- Inaction is Action: Inaction is, itself, an action. If your inaction results (even indirectly) in someone’s natural rights being infringed, your inaction is unethical.
- Consideration: Actions often have cascading, indirect consequences, and you bear full responsibility for them. Therefore, failure to consider the indirect consequences of your (in)actions is also unethical.
- Graciousness: Treat others the way they wish to be treated. Recognize the dividends that gracious behavior has on preserving the natural rights of both yourself and others.
- Defend the Social Contract: Ethical behavior is a contract between individuals. Aggressors and instigators who violate that contract are not subject to its protections. As such, adherents are obliged to defend both themselves and others from such infringements to preserve the greater social stability.
- Imperfection: Acknowledge that no body, no thing, and no system is perfect. Not you, not others, not nature, not these precepts. Mistakes are inevitable, it is the effort and intention that matters. Accept and treasure imperfection, and be faithful to the spirit rather than the letter.
The Parable of the Teacup
"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
The Parable of the Strawberry
"A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.
Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!"
Learn the difference between a necessary risk and an unnecessary one, and whenever possible, decide with intent when to deploy the latter.
Other than that, leave things better than you found them. That goes a long way.
If you want to judge the character of a person:
Observe how they treat those they have power over, usually in terms of social hirarchy or economic position.
Edit: Read the question wrong. Be nice to the service workers you rely on to get things done, like janitors, servers, cleaners, basically the bottom ranks of the totem pole.
If you have to ask why and need a selfish reason:
These people often are in positions where they can sabotage you, make your life difficult or slow you down. You really dont want to scream at the people who handle your importent paperwork, which can easily “get lost in the administration”…
What are you most basic principles for life?
Spell check
Ugh.
Try to make life better for yourself and for everyone else. Try to have compassion for everyone. You don’t have to agree with them or support what they do, but treat them as having worth.
