A moral compass in an TEOTWAWKI Scenario

[smoggiebowman]

Well arent you a philosophical lot? didn't expect to find that on here at all!

I have a healthy respect for my fellow man, my morals are my own and not based on anyone elses belief system - think nobodies should be if im totally honest (back to the religious morals there I guess) and during short term turmoil id like to think id be hauled up in relative safety keeping my head down.

However. . . My 'preparation' - physically, mentally and logistically carries a theme of being able to defend myself and provide for those close to me, I try to hone that ability to turn off conscience for the sake of necessity. No real way to know how far that would go though I guess.

I'd love to think that we lived in a world where everyone would pull together in the face of adversity but I simply can't - its unfortunately not human nature when some have and others dont.

I think im going to like it here - I wrote that without the concern that everyone would look at me like im insane. . Makes a nice change

[2ndRateMind]

To me there is no "right" or "wrong", merely actions and consequences. Those consequences may be beneficial or detrimental, but morality is simply a restrictive means of thinking that we are taught. Then again, being a sociopath may be influencing that view point.

Ah but isn't that a self-detonating statement as by claiming 'there is no right or wrong',
you are indeed asserting that the concept is objectively...wrong.

A clever point. Provided, that is, you are not using the word 'wrong' ambiguously, to confuse 'immoral' and 'untrue'.

I can't help thinking that many people reject morality altogether because they resent it's claims on them; when those claims are unjustified, and obedience is expected for no rational reason, I have a lot of sympathy with them. The solution though, is not to reject morality altogether, but simply to think through an ethical code of your own. You will be in good company. Prophets and philosophers have been doing just that for thousands of years. And there is still more debate than consensus. It's a knotty issue.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Triple_sod]

A clever point. Provided, that is, you are not using the word 'wrong' ambiguously, to confuse 'immoral' and 'untrue'.

I can't help thinking that many people reject morality altogether because they resent it's claims on them; when those claims are unjustified, and obedience is expected for no rational reason, I have a lot of sympathy with them. The solution though, is not to reject morality altogether, but simply to think through an ethical code of your own. You will be in good company. Prophets and philosophers have been doing just that for thousands of years. And there is still more debate than consensus. It's a knotty issue.

Best wishes, 2RM

Definitely, although if a belief system claims morality and yet is un-true and unjustifiable is that not the epitome of immorality?

[SooBee]

I strongly suspect that for all our admirable moral fibre in a position of bodily comfort, the only real test is one of hardship and hunger and fear.

Personally I don't plan to test that any time soon...(I probably shouldn't be allowed sharp things either)

Soobee

[Arzosah]

I strongly suspect that for all our admirable moral fibre in a position of bodily comfort, the only real test is one of hardship and hunger and fear.

Personally I don't plan to test that any time soon...(I probably shouldn't be allowed sharp things either)

Soobee

What she said



Smoggie - yep, here we are, welcome!

[2ndRateMind]

Definitely, although if a belief system claims morality and yet is un-true and unjustifiable is that not the epitome of immorality?

While agreeing with the sentiment, the problem lies in demonstrating any moral system to be 'untrue'. Morals aren't statements of fact, of the sort science grapples with. They are something between subjective personal approval and a desire regarding how things ought objectively to be. They are more in the way of a recommendation than a law. And recommendations aren't true or false, just good or bad, better or worse. That is a qualitative issue, with subtle greyscales, rather than a binary truth-value.

Furthermore, the only way we can justify a morality effectively is to appeal to a common goal. If person 'A' thinks that morality is about shaping a decent society, and person 'B' thinks that morality is a ticket to a blissful afterlife, and person 'C' thinks it a tool to get what he wants from others, and person 'D' considers it a cheap way to keep the masses in order, and person 'E' is concerned with keeping his conscience quiet, they are unlikely to agree a common code of ethics, and will probably end up each thinking the others woefully immoral. The problem is not any particular ethic concerned, but the differing conceptions of the entire enterprise. Only once we have agreed on ends can we have a useful discussion about the means.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Triple_sod]

Ah but isn't such a demotion is very simple indeed when a Belief System states a universal law, that all men should follow.....and then creates exemptions to it?

[redskies]

And that is precisely why I like the eight word version. It's nice and simple, and if action needs to be taken, it doesn't require a sit down symposium with food and drink to sort out whether the action is right, wrong, moral, ethical or not!

[Triple_sod]

Yeah certainly always seemed to me that
those claiming the truth is complicated,
are often attempting to complicate the truth.

[2ndRateMind]

Ah but isn't such a demotion is very simple indeed when a Belief System states a universal law, that all men should follow.....and then creates exemptions to it?

You could view this as progress. Take such a law: 'Thou shalt not kill,' say. It's a good start. But there may be occasions when killing can be justified. Soldiers in a defensive war. The assassination of a murderous dictator, or euthanasia at the wish of the terminally ill and suffering. Abortion after rape. In the context of this board, the defence of your family from unprepped hordes at the end of civilisation. And perhaps other situations not envisaged by whoever framed the law in the first instance. Making exemptions may be considered a sign of the growing maturity of a moral system.

People who want a simple formulation can take the original commandment, and use it quite readily until they reach a point when it no longer serves them well, and they need more complicated, and advanced, thinking.

Best wishes, 2RM.