Are you moral?

[sserafim]

As in, do you have a fundamental moral compass that you strictly follow? What is it built on and does it differ from what is largely accepted in your society? What is your definition of a moral person?

I realised recently that I don't really have a moral compass. I do terrible things (by my own understanding) to one person no questions asked, but torture myself over doing it someone else because I liked them. The reason I like people isn't moral either; if someone gives me enough attention or validates my indulgences I will like them enough to violate my so-called morals. It's pathetic but it is what it is. Realistically I don't believe in good & bad. I believe most people are just a result of their experiences during childhood, and everyone deals with those experiences in different ways. To that end, I find it ridiculous to treat everyone with the same general mannerisms or have a broad concept of good or bad to apply on people when interacting with them (if ever). I would rather adjust my character to suit the needs of that person's character if I know them well enough. "Normal" people say this is manipulative but I don't care. It works for me.

 

[fleetingnight]

I think a lot of people do that, at least to an extent. Both adjusting your morals, and caring more when it comes to people you like. I think it's good to try and be unbiased in most situations, but being biased is part of being human, I think.

I try my best to be a moral person, I think a lot about how to improve, but I'm not that good at it. I make really bad decisions very impulsively, and I can't help but pretend I agree with people to avoid conflict a lot of the time

 

[Lady Laudanum]

I would say so. I'm no saint and I've done things that are genuinely bad, to people who deserved it. For example, when I was at my parents' house, my abusive dad (who is disabled now) fell and couldn't get up anymore. I saw him, and then ignored him and went to sleep until my mom got back. Then I pretended to not know that my dad fell. However, I've never purposely hurt someone who didn't deserve it.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Mostly. It's based on not causing suffering. Immoral acts are harmful acts. Being good isn't difficult. It doesn't involve doing good deeds. It just involves not causing harm. Being neutral in your behavior can often be good.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I used to get so lost in trying to be good. I was almost like one of the characters from The Good Place in that my efforts to be good were problematic in their own ways.

Since then though, I've lost my soul from having my heart broken 8-9 years ago. The only compass guiding me is which outcome causes the least amount of conflict or effort. Sometimes this aligns with good morals but half the time it doesn't so that still makes me evil.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Adjusting your behaviour and character depending on who you are interacting with is considered to be normal and is just a basic aspect of socializing. Along with that, people ignoring their morals for the sake of those to whom they happen to have a strong emotional attachment to or because someone gives them attention and validation is also normal. When we become emotionally attached to someone or when someone gives us the validation we desire we usually end up having extreme biases in their favour, so if they do something bad we may find ourselves trying to make excuses for them. A lot of what is described is just normal human behaviour.
People also aren't just products of their experiences during childhood. They are also a product of their genetics. Most of what makes you you comes down to a mixture of nature and nurture.

With that out of the way, I guess I do consider myself to be kind of a moral person, idk. I guess it depends on how I'm feeling. I do have a set of moral beliefs based on what I personally view as harmful vs beneficial. I understand that good and bad are just subjective at the end of the day and that most people don't fall into either category. I know that I cannot evaluate a person's character based solely on whether or not they follow my particular set of morals, because morals are subjective. My morals come from my subjective interpretation of the world around me. I also understand that life is complicated and thus I can only judge others on a case-by-case basis. Murder is wrong unless it's being done out of self-defence, and stealing is wrong unless it's being done out of need and desperation. Morals cannot be treated in a strict black-and-white manner. How we apply them to others has to be based on the reasoning behind their actions, not just the actions themselves.

I've had cases where I've failed to live up to my morals. Those instances still cause me to feel a great amount of shame. At the end of the day, all I can do is try to do better. A perfectly moral person doesn't exist. Humans do terrible things to each other sometimes, whether we realize it or not. Morals are something that evolved as a result of our reliance on cooperation and sympathy. They aren't meant to be treated as something you follow perfectly in order to be considered a good person. The idea of a "good person" doesn't even exist, because a person is a mixture of good and bad aspects and everything in between. People do bad things but we are supposed to reflect on and learn from those experiences to become better people.

Sadly, I feel like morals have just become a tool used by many to establish dominance over others. The people who tend to talk the most about morals nearly always end up being the least moral individuals for a reason, yet I don't think that they are even aware or willing to acknowledge that. That black-and-white view they have probably contributes to it. Something that's original purpose was the bring a sense a harmony and allow for us to better live and interact with each other has now just become a tool used to harm others. Even things that have nothing to do with morals, like being fat, are treated as moral-failings by wider society. They're now used to enforced the social hierarchies in place.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

Yes, I have a fairly strict code of conduct that I impose on myself, most of which has developed naturally over the years. Some of it is my own invention, some of it is generally agreed-upon social convention. Much of it is based around truthfulness, putting myself in others' shoes, minimizing suffering, acknowledging my own fallibility, and giving grace to others.

 

[damyon]

I would rather adjust my character to suit the needs of that person's character if I know them well enough. "Normal" people say this is manipulative but I don't care. It works for me.

That is how it should be. What is considered morally good for someone can be bad for others.

Morals are a heuristic practice that people use to justify their behavior; you should not take morals as a strict direction you should follow unless it benefits you and the people who are ready to follow you. (same as religion, for example)

~~~
Has it always been like that for you, or did you change your initial opinion at some point?

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Moral is sth very subjective that changes over time. Today we would say slavery and Gladiator Games like in the Roman Empire, or slavery how it was in the 16th/17th century in the "New World" is immoral. For society back then it was normal no questions asked. So it is today. It's basically what society accepts as normal and what society does not accept as normal.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Moral is sth very subjective that changes over time. Today we would say slavery and Gladiator Games like in the Roman Empire, or slavery how it was in the 16th/17th century in the "New World" is immoral. For society back then it was normal no questions asked. So it is today. It's basically what society accepts as normal and what society does not accept as normal.

Gladiators are not immoral. Pay per view

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Gladiators are not immoral. Pay per view

I think we should re-invent gladiator games again.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I think we should re-invent gladiator games again.

I want to die in the arena with glory.

 

[Havnis]

I will treat people as they treated me, I am just a reflection, I will just turn that around and I give it back to you, But I will break my moral code for a higher cause, or in the name of irrationality, since it is an unsegregated part of the human condition, and it also serves my anti humanist transgressional principle.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I will treat people as they treated me, I am just a reflection, I will just turn that around and I give it back to you, But I will break my moral code for a higher cause, or in the name of irrationality, since it is an unsegregated part of the human condition, and it also serves my anti humanist transgressional principle.

I wait and see and then react. Is it common what we do?

 

[derpyderpins]

As in, do you have a fundamental moral compass that you strictly follow? What is it built on and does it differ from what is largely accepted in your society?

I hope I do. It's hard to self-assess. I'd be curious to know what you think my answer should be.

What is your definition of a moral person?

Obviously a big question, but "do unto others" seems like a fair guideline to follow.

I realised recently that I don't really have a moral compass. I do terrible things (by my own understanding) to one person no questions asked, but torture myself over doing it someone else because I liked them. The reason I like people isn't moral either; if someone gives me enough attention or validates my indulgences I will like them enough to violate my so-called morals. It's pathetic but it is what it is.

This sounds like you're feeling guilt, which would suggest you DO have a moral compass, else you wouldn't describe yourself with words like "terrible" and "pathetic" or self-reflect in this way. Having a moral compass doesn't mean you always follow it. You may be feeling guilt because you know you've strayed.

Realistically I don't believe in good & bad. I believe most people are just a result of their experiences during childhood, and everyone deals with those experiences in different ways. To that end, I find it ridiculous to treat everyone with the same general mannerisms or have a broad concept of good or bad to apply on people when interacting with them (if ever). I would rather adjust my character to suit the needs of that person's character if I know them well enough. "Normal" people say this is manipulative but I don't care. It works for me.

As others have said, it's natural to adjust your character in different interactions. There's no problem with that and it isn't inherently manipulative so long as you aren't being dishonest. We all have multiple faces we're capable of wearing.

I'd like to examine this a little closer:

"I believe most people are just a result of their experiences during childhood, and everyone deals with those experiences in different ways,"

I am absolutely with you up until you seem to conclude that we're stuck however childhood leaves us and incapable of change and growth. If you're concerned about your moral compass, you can ALWAYS do better going forward. You aren't stuck being who your childhood made you.

 

[Havnis]

I hope I do. It's hard to self-assess. I'd be curious to know what you think my answer should be.


Obviously a big question, but "do unto others" seems like a fair guideline to follow.


This sounds like you're feeling guilt, which would suggest you DO have a moral compass, else you wouldn't describe yourself with words like "terrible" and "pathetic" or self-reflect in this way. Having a moral compass doesn't mean you always follow it. You may be feeling guilt because you know you've strayed.


As others have said, it's natural to adjust your character in different interactions. There's no problem with that and it isn't inherently manipulative so long as you aren't being dishonest. We all have multiple faces we're capable of wearing.

I'd like to examine this a little closer:

"I believe most people are just a result of their experiences during childhood, and everyone deals with those experiences in different ways,"

I am absolutely with you up until you seem to conclude that we're stuck however childhood leaves us and incapable of change and growth. If you're concerned about your moral compass, you can ALWAYS do better going forward. You aren't stuck being who your childhood made you.

Man, did you have a conversation with her? I can ensure you that none of what you said about her is true if you did. Basically, the concept of humanism "that you are working with" or inherited intrensic human interpretations is wrong, people are distinctively programmed.

 

[derpyderpins]

Man, did you have a conversation with her? I can ensure you that none of what you said about her is true if you did. Basically, the concept of humanism "that you are working with" or inherited intrensic human interpretations is wrong, people are distinctively programmed.

So the only thing I really said about her there is that I think she does have something of a moral compass . . . I don't understand what you are taking issue with? That I believe people can improve? That I don't think she's an irredeemable monster?

Your comment is honestly baffling to me because most of the comment you're replying to was speaking generally and not about her in particular.

Man, did you have a conversation with her? I can ensure you that none of what you said about her is true if you did.

I seriously am lost here. Breaking down the syntax:

• Did I "have a conversation with her"?
• If yes, THEN it can be ensured BY YOU that everything I said is wrong.

What does that even mean? Who are you?

 

[Havnis]

So the only thing I really said about her there is that I think she does have something of a moral compass . . . I don't understand what you are taking issue with? That I believe people can improve? That I don't think she's an irredeemable monster?

Your comment is honestly baffling to me because most of the comment you're replying to was speaking generally and not about her in particular.

I seriously am lost here. Breaking down the syntax:

• Did I "have a conversation with her"?
• If yes, THEN it can be ensured BY YOU that everything I said is wrong.

What does that even mean? Who are you?

I meant that conversation is the best way to truly know a person. I didn't have conversations with her, but by assessing her posts and replies, I can tell you that your suggestion about her feeling of guilt isn't always a sign of morality, but it can be induced by personal beliefs like her aromanticism and social pressures, where she only adheres to the common social morality to her benefit, not because she inherently embraces conventional morality. I don't think it is even a guilt feeling, to be honest. It is more like self-serving remorse that cause her low self-esteem.

 

[derpyderpins]

I meant that conversation is the best way to truly know a person. I didn't have conversations with her, but by assessing her posts and replies, I can tell you that your suggestion about her feeling of guilt isn't always a sign of morality, but it can be induced by personal beliefs like her aromanticism and social pressures, where she only adheres to the common social morality to her benefit, not because she inherently embraces conventional morality. I don't think it is even a guilt feeling, to be honest.

I would love and be very open to having a back and forth conversation. All I have to work with is what she's divulged, which is that she'll do "terrible" things to random people and not care but she beats herself up when doing it to someone she cares about. If she wants to clarify what these "terrible" things are and it turns out they aren't terrible at all, then I'm happy to have that talk, but I'm going to take her at her word at the get-go.

Romanticism has nothing to do with morality. We can talk about what it means to be moral, and that is a fun philosophical topic, but in general there are going to be themes. Like, "don't hurt people for your own benefit", "don't treat some people kindly and some people poorly for no reason." If that is nothing but a societal construct, then fuck yeah society you are superior. I don't believe this post modern "well, morality is all subjective, I could fuck little kittens and it could be moral based on my viewpoint because society can't tell me what is moral and what isn't" nonsense. It's an unlimited excuse to be bad with no consequences.

I'm honestly annoyed because instead of telling me 'i think it might not be guilt,' you told me that "if had a conversation with her," then you were certain I was wrong, like you have some insider baseball but aren't going to divulge it. My tone did not suggest that I thought I was absolutely right. I said it might be what's happening. It was just a suggestion.

Someday I'll learn to stop touching the fucking stove and being surprised when I get burned.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

No, I'm not really moral, at least not in heart. I would do immoral things if it benefitted me. I never cared about morality to begin with and I am okay with being immoral because most humans are pieces of shit anyway. Of course what prevents me from actually being immoral to others in reality is that I don't have the skills to do so. I can't even small talk so I definitely have no way of manipulating others. Besides, doing such a thing would only be exhausting anyway. I only act moral because there are laws and regulations which force me to but, if all of that was gone, I would be a different person entirely. Right now, the only so called "immoral" act I'd do would be to kill myself (though I don't think that this is immoral at all unless if I have dependents which I don't)

 

[Dark Moon]

As in, do you have a fundamental moral compass that you strictly follow? What is it built on and does it differ from what is largely accepted in your society? What is your definition of a moral person?

I realised recently that I don't really have a moral compass. I do terrible things (by my own understanding) to one person no questions asked, but torture myself over doing it someone else because I liked them. The reason I like people isn't moral either; if someone gives me enough attention or validates my indulgences I will like them enough to violate my so-called morals. It's pathetic but it is what it is. Realistically I don't believe in good & bad. I believe most people are just a result of their experiences during childhood, and everyone deals with those experiences in different ways. To that end, I find it ridiculous to treat everyone with the same general mannerisms or have a broad concept of good or bad to apply on people when interacting with them (if ever). I would rather adjust my character to suit the needs of that person's character if I know them well enough. "Normal" people say this is manipulative but I don't care. It works for me.

I follow the rules of society because I have to everyone does.

In social situations if someone hates/doesn't like me then I won't give a damn about that person and avoid them but if someone likes me then I'm more likely to engage with them so yeah sort of.

 

[sserafim]

That is how it should be. What is considered morally good for someone can be bad for others.

Morals are a heuristic practice that people use to justify their behavior; you should not take morals as a strict direction you should follow unless it benefits you and the people who are ready to follow you. (same as religion, for example)

~~~
Has it always been like that for you, or did you change your initial opinion at some point?

I think that it's always been like that for me. I've always changed my character and behavior to suit the other person, even my interests and beliefs. It's easier to talk to people if you share interests and have the same views. I usually agree outwardly with the other person, even if I disagree inside. I think I do that to keep the peace. I feel like a chameleon lol

 

[ijustwishtodie]

It's easier to talk to people if you share interests and have the same views.

This is true and I really hate it. It makes social situations much more tiring to go through especially when I don't really have any interests to begin with. I'm definitely not cut out for socialising at all

 

[lovedread]

i try to be/i thought i was but im realizin mayb e not

 

[derpyderpins]

This is true and I really hate it. It makes social situations much more tiring to go through especially when I don't really have any interests to begin with. I'm definitely not cut out for socialising at all

It doesn't have to be true. I love talking to people I disagree with so long as they're willing to be respectful. It's the best way to learn and improve the truth of my own beliefs. An art that I think is lost is - when you disagree - being able to find the point at which the disagreement begins and why it's there. You'll often find that you agree to a certain point and we're a lot more alike than we think even if we draw different conclusions.

Same for listening to someone's passion that I'm unfamiliar with... Unless it's soccer.

 

[Mirrory Me]

I do consider the reasons and consequences of my actions.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

It doesn't have to be true. I love talking to people I disagree with so long as they're willing to be respectful. It's the best way to learn and improve the truth of my own beliefs. An art that I think is lost is - when you disagree - being able to find the point at which the disagreement begins and why it's there. You'll often find that you agree to a certain point and we're a lot more alike than we think even if we draw different conclusions.

Same for listening to someone's passion that I'm unfamiliar with... Unless it's soccer.

I may be wrong but I feel like you're the exception to the rule rather than fitting in the rule itself. It seems like, nowadays, people only want somebody who agrees with them on some of the major views. Of course no two friends are going to perfectly agree with each other but I feel like most people have some sort of tolerance for how much they are okay with other people disagreeing with them

 

[derpyderpins]

I may be wrong but I feel like you're the exception to the rule rather than fitting in the rule itself. It seems like, nowadays, people only want somebody who agrees with them on some of the major views. Of course no two friends are going to perfectly agree with each other but I feel like most people have some sort of tolerance for how much they are okay with other people disagreeing with them

I don't think you're wrong. We've gotten further apart and more ideological. It's more common for people to stick to their echo chambers. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way.

Be the change you want to see in the world!

 

[AbusedInnocent]

I take morality very seriously, I believe that utilitarianism is in some form objectively true as maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering are innate human desires present in everyone, however it's impossible to know objectively which actions are most moral in most situations as it would require an objective way of measuring suffering and being certain of the consequences of your actions which basically means predicting the future perfectly. many other moral values can be derived from utilitarianism.

An example of this taken to its extremes:
I think taking revenge is weak and stupid from a moral point of view, some people believe that the law should punish criminals and that a fair god would punish sinners but that's just ridiculous, taking revenge benefits no one, it only multiplies suffering, an eye for and eye and the world goes blind, the law should work to prevent criminals from further harming others and a truly merciful god would send everyone to heaven, no point punishing someone in hell after everyone is dead and can't cause each other harm anymore.

If saying that even the worst people should go to heaven doesn't speak about my morals and mercy then I don't know what does.

 

[Havnis]

maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering are innate human desires present in everyone

Yes but in individualistic level not collective, utilitarianism is oppressive and the reason why I will commit suicide.

the law should work to prevent criminals from further harming

"Third, in Paragraph 154 and Note 29 I considered the possibility that advanced techniques could some day by used to identify children who might become criminals, and to suppress their criminal tendencies through a combination of psychological and biological treatments. This may actually be done in a limited number of individual cases, but I no longer think it is likely to occur on a mass basis. It now seems clear that techniques for controlling human behavior will be excessively difficult to apply on a large scale, if those techniques require individualized decision-making by the people who apply them. Much more effective are techniques that can be applied to the population in general and without distinguishing between individuals, such as the techniques of propaganda. If individualized control of behavior ever occurs on a large scale, it will probably be carried out through sophisticated computer programs that respond to individual differences without any need for individualized decision-making by human beings."

Does that sound good according to you?