A moral compass in an TEOTWAWKI Scenario

[Triple_sod]

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.

Isn't that basically to say, morality is great until it conflicts with your wishes
at which point you can conveniently 'evolve to a more advanced form of thinking'
in order to justify your actions?

could it just be whoever decided the 6th commandment was to be worded as such,
set out to make it deliberately vague in order to allow room for such shenanigans?

The first recorded 'straw man argument' perhaps?

Certainly if you take the vast number of Christians in the US,
who'd consider the use of napalm, agent orange and landmines on the children of Vietnam 'regrettable',
yet the termination of a foetus the size of a jelly bean as an act of pure evil,
it would seem they were greatly successful.

[2ndRateMind]

Isn't that basically to say, morality is great until it conflicts with your wishes
at which point you can conveniently 'evolve to a more advanced form of thinking'
in order to justify your actions?

I take your point. It's a fair one. I would phrase it differently, however. I would say 'Other people's morality is great, (and I will use it) until such time as it conflicts with my reason or my conscience. And then I will think it all through for myself, and urge others to do the same.

The problem with a liberal approach to ethics, such as this, is the risk one takes that that thinking will not be done, or will be done without rigour, and poor conclusions arrived at. But without dictating to other people how their morality should be, which would be a gross abuse of a fundamental freedom, and more than likely counter-productive anyway, I don't see any alternative to taking that risk.

Cheers, 2RM.

[redskies]

Please stop. It's been one hell of a month, and I think you two are going to make my brain dribble out of my ears!

[Cocotte]

Please stop. It's been one hell of a month, and I think you two are going to make my brain dribble out of my ears!

Hush now and dribble in peace. Some of us are avidly following with bowls of popcorn.

[2ndRateMind]

My keyboard's broke! I'll get back to you later.

Cheers, 2RM

[2ndRateMind]

OK, new keyboard just arrived, and now I can type input again! (I love Amazon!)

I just wanted to tidy up a couple of points. The first one is about exemptions, and moral 'Laws'. One thing is quite clear; that a universal law with a load of exemptions isn't a universal law. Secondly, about the maturity of moral systems; exemptions can get to be just so many that it is clear that a new system altogether is required. 'tis my belief that Western morality, based on the thinking of the Old Testament, the ancient Greeks, the New Testament, the scholastics of the middle ages, and interventions from people like Mill, Hume and Kant, has reached that point.

That is where the proposal I made earlier in this thread, about human best interests, and advancing them being moral, and degrading or denying or destroying them being immoral, comes in to play. My current thinking is that you can build a consistent, coherent and comprehensive moral system based on this idea. It wouldn't give easy, facile solutions to problems like - is it moral to kill to protect my family from the unprepped at the end of civilisation? - but I do think that a debate initiated along those lines might end up being definitive.

Now, I've said quite enough for the moment. It's time for everyone else to have some input.

Best wishes, 2RM

[SooBee]

I still like Mrs Do-as-you-would-be-done-by from "The Water Babies".
She was full of moral compass.


Soobee

[Bodhihermit]

I suppose that most people would like to think that their moral compass will remain intact, but you cant dismiss the unknown variables here either, you cant really say what you would do untill you are actually in that situation for real, never forget we are members of the animal kingdom, and in a TEOTWAWKI WROL situation, coupled with Hunger and fear, thats when we lose our conditioned guise of civility and the Instincts kick in big time, even the most mild mannered person when faced with a life threatening situation can take a life without blinking, if you are starving to death, that tin of beans the bloke sitting on the pavement is holding looks really nice, oh god im so hungry, why has he got them, i deserve them more than he does im younger than him, i have more to live for.

You drop the brick and walk off down the road clutching the tin of beans as your feet trail blood down the path....

Sounds nasty doesn't it, but thats the reality, i firmly believe that it's one of the unspoken psycological reasons why a lot of us prep in the first place, all that food, equipment, and strategies will firmly anchor us to our old lives so we can avoid becoming the man with the brick.

[Quercus-robur]

As Shakespeare once said 'There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.

The most basic and fundamental law that governs Mankind is survival of the fittest. When SHTF the maxim survival of the fittest will supersede any man made law. This is so fundamental to the nature of all things that it is even enshrined in law under the legal maxim 'Quod est necessarium est licitum - That which is necessary, is lawful'.

'Leges bello siluere coactae - But silenced now are laws in war'. Post SHTF people will kill one another over a loaf of bread. Our moral code is an integral part of being human. But to kill in order to eat is not to abandon our sense of morality. The topic of this thread was maintaining a set of morals post SHTF. But it is not the action in itself that is morally good or bad but the reason why we do it that gives it its moral definition. Some of us might worry about the morality of killing someone in the street for the food they have. While society is still standing and so long as we have Rule of Law then the killing would be unjust and punishable under societies laws. But WROL in a collapsed society, to kill to feed yourself and your family would be a necessity satisfying the innate urge to survive and as such your moral compass remains intact.

Qr

[IfInDoubt]

I have a fairly strong sense of right and wrong. That's not to say I don't apply 'situational ethics', because I do. But my sense of right and wrong, and the fact that I have to live with my actions and their consequences, tends to keep me straight.

My general attitude is that I'll help anyone I can, even if it means putting myself out, because, well, that's what you do. However, family, whether blood or those I see as family, comes first. Every single time. If I have something we don't necessarily need or can manage without, and someone else needs it, then it's theirs. But I see to my own first.

I'd kill, without hesitation, to protect. Not just family, but anyone weaker. I'd prefer not to, but would if I had to.

I'm lucky to live in a very strong community; we pull together to do things. In any SHTF situation, it'd shift things a bit, but that sense of cooperation would, I think, remain.

I think the sense of community we have in this country is still one of its greatest assets. from the council estate I grew up on to the country village where I now live, in a disaster the community generally comes together to help out and keep our moral compass pointing in the right direction.

You only have to look at disasters in other 'civilised countries' (New Orleans for example) to see the difference. I'm pretty confident that if my village flooded and we had to be evacuated to the nearest municipal facility we would be sharing cuppas and having a sing song rather the incidents of rape and violence that was reported shortly after the N'yorleans evacuation.

I would gladly share (got give) whatever I have to help people as I would like to think that if I wasn't there and my family needed help someone would. Naïve maybe but that is generally what my experience of this country has shown me.

The phrase 'I would kill to protect my family' is frequently heard but surely it doesn't need to be said - no one would expect any less. The question is would you kill to protect your family from hunger by murdering me and stealing my food. That ends with an unstoppable force/immovable object scenario and nobody wins.