Are you moral?

[derpyderpins]

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.

Interesting line of thought I can certainly understand. I always enjoy asking people what they think prison is for, essentially in three parts: punishment, rehabilitation, and protection of society from the dangerous criminals. I'm probably at 10%, 50%, 40%, or something like that, but I know a lot of people are largely about the punishment. I do think there should be some punishment as a deterrent, but I think in general we probably punish more than necessary, and the length of a sentence should only be super long if (1) rehabilitation is unlikely and (2) the chance of re-offending is high [thinking serial killers/serial rapists], but I don't think prison should be terrible just to punish them.

The term utilitarian scares me, though, because of my general principle of non-aggression. Strict utilitarianism means it's okay to harm someone innocent so long as it is a net benefit to the group as a whole. Boo to that, imo.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Interesting line of thought I can certainly understand. I always enjoy asking people what they think prison is for, essentially in three parts: punishment, rehabilitation, and protection of society from the dangerous criminals. I'm probably at 10%, 50%, 40%, or something like that, but I know a lot of people are largely about the punishment. I do think there should be some punishment as a deterrent, but I think in general we probably punish more than necessary, and the length of a sentence should only be super long if (1) rehabilitation is unlikely and (2) the chance of re-offending is high [thinking serial killers/serial rapists], but I don't think prison should be terrible just to punish them.

Everyone should get their chance with rehabilitation but if it doesn't work out they should serve life in prison, I just think prison should be as nice as possible, no point punishing them if they're never harming anyone ever again, also prisoners retain the right to voluntary euthanasia.

Strict utilitarianism means it's okay to harm someone innocent so long as it is a net benefit to the group as a whole.

Causing a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm sounds fine to me, I can't really think of many cases where harming an innocent person would prevent a greater total harm to others, if they're causing others harm they're probably not completely innocent.

 

[Havnis]

Everyone should get their chance with rehabilitation but if it doesn't work out they should serve life in prison, I just think prison should be as nice as possible, no point punishing them if they're never harming anyone ever again, also prisoners retain the right to voluntary euthanasia.


Causing a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm sounds fine to me, I can't really think of many cases where harming an innocent person would prevent a greater total harm to others, if they're causing others harm they're probably not completely innocent.

Are left wingers?

 

[AbusedInnocent]

"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?

Accurately predicting who will commit crimes in the future would require mass surveillance, that would give the state too much power and it would surely be abused.

The idea of taking action towards those likely to commit crimes even if they haven't caused anyone harm doesn't sound too bad if it can be implemented without harmful side-effects, we already persecute those who threaten to harm others or talk about hate, intolerance and terrorism even if they haven't physically caused anyone harm.

I'm sorry if my opinions sound completely deranged to you, it's normal for discussions on morality to get a bit heated, I'm here to hear different opinions and don't mind taking the time to think and reply.

 

[derpyderpins]

Causing a lesser harm to prevent a greater harm sounds fine to me, I can't really think of many cases where harming an innocent person would prevent a greater total harm to others, if they're causing others harm they're probably not completely innocent.

With an omniscient, benevolent dictator/ruler, I might agree, but humans will be making the decisions on who is causing harm and needs to be sacrificed for the collective, and I don't like people having the authority to make such choices.

Going to the Hitler well is so pathetic, but it is the first thing that came to mind: Nazi propaganda said the jews needed to be removed because jews spread diseases. Just an example of what can happen when you let people decide to harm one to help the many. Again, I apologize for going to the Hitler well, I should be better than that but my brain is tired.

 

[BruhXDDDDD]

I have a pretty strong moral compass but I think a lot of people would find it pretty alien.

 

[_Camille_]

I'm a die-hard negative utilitarian. I believe that suffering of sentient beings should be reduced at all cost and that reduction of suffering should be prioritized above all else. I strive to always act morally, though admittedly I could do more than what I do now.

Negative utilitarianism seems pretty far from what is commonly accepted. People generally care very little about suffering of those they do not conciser to be a part of their group, or the suffering they aren't forced to see. One could list the unethical treatment of non-human animals, the rather low support for humanitarian organizations, and hostility towards the homeless/refugees as examples. Other things which are generally viewed as morally wrong, such as incest when no children are born, are not condemned by negative utilitarianism.

I don't think that categorizing people as moral and immoral is the right way to think about morality. I prefer to think that there are moral and immoral actions, not people. Being precise about who qualifies as a moral person would be impossible, but if we focus on judging individual actions within the appropriate context, it becomes possible to talk about morality with precision. You should also always remember that we can only do so much, and doing little is better than doing nothing. If you start to think about yourself as moral or immoral, it may lead you to think that you simply are this way no matter what you do. But if you focus on your actions instead, it becomes easier to forgive or encourage yourself and move on. The same thing goes for other people.