Moral Principle Puns

I am the only person who has acess to my computer and phone yet sometimes I catch myself opening an incognito tab to look something up that I dont want to see in my search history. Its almost as if I want to hide the fact that I looked up a certain question from my future self. Is this a subconscious effort to maintain moral discipline?

Anyone else do this or does this just sound wild?

What bothers me most about Ethan Klein is that he has no principles or morals… Since the beginning of his career on youtube, his opinion is whatever is popular at the time or convenient to him.

The things he is outraged about with Trisha, he dgaf when it’s his friend or someone he is neutral with like Pewdiepie “death to all jews" or drawing a swastika Is he a literal Nazi? Because Ethan & Hila gave him a pass for the first and participated in the drawings. source

Superbam incident: he only talks about superbam claiming videos on behalf of creators when it’s Trisha. He is silent on Amouranth or anyone else. Superbam’s only client isn’t Trisha… source

Or how about James Charles grooming 16 year olds… Obviously that’s disgusting but when it was his own dad getting caught on how he slept with Donna at 16, (which is statutory rape) Ethan found it funny. source

The time he acted like Keem Star dating a 20 year old was reprehensible to him but both Ethan and Hila were cracking jokes about their friend Boogie2988 doing the same on their podcast. source

How about when Ethan was supporting Seth when he was opening up about the sexual abuse he experienced at the hands of Jason, orchestrated by David, but after Trisha left Frenemies, Ethan offered an invitation to Jason for his show and followed him on Instagram. So much for standing up for victims of sexual assault. It's more important to stick it to Trisha I guess. source source source

All to say; Ethan Klein has no morals or principles to stand on. He is a petty bitch that will weaponize his audiences emotions and morals whist having non himself to further his agendas.

If so, what are they for you?

From childhood, I had a huge problem with accepting authority figures and rules imposed by society. On the other hand, I like to think of myself as a righteous and fair person. Therefore, quite early on, I created my own moral code that I am trying to follow. Another thing is that it is not very extensive, because in everyday life I am rather a moral relativist and I believe that a lot depends on the circumstances.

Here is an example of such rules:

1. If you can do something good and helpful that does not require great sacrifice, try to do it.
2. Don't be cruel to people who don't hurt you and don't get in your way.
3. Try to defend the weaker and defenseless, especially when they are attacked by someone.
4. Don't hurt people and animals who are defenseless, dependent, and stand no chance with you.
5. Before doing anything, consider whether the negative consequences of the action will not outweigh the benefits for you.
6. You can show your worst side to people who think they are better than others, to sadists, and to those who try to impose their opinion or command you.
7. You have the right to take revenge and to respond by whatever means available to you when someone harms you.
8. As for everything else, pretty much anything is allowed.

How is it in your case? I am curious about your opinions.

Did you buy into a one size fits all institutional construct? Were you born into an institution and since use the buffet method of only adopting that which you agree with? If you have fully embraced an institution, how does your mind justify the continuation of conflicting doctrine or dark history of your institution? Do you only believe what your institution tells you or do you take a pragmatic approach to understanding history and philosophy from a wide variety of respected sources? Do you loosely mix and match regardless of the rigidity and stipulations of the sources?

Or have you lived a self examined life, looked deep inside yourself, inside humanity through studying the literary works of the great minds of man, and developed your own core principles and moral values? And having such, dedicated your life to living true to yourself? Choosing to live deliberately?

Letting an institution do the work for you will only result in failure to know thyself. You don't need saving from anyone but yourself. If anyone tells you otherwise, they want your money.

I’m not necessarily looking for anything to validate my opinion, so you can say whatever you want. Maybe you can change my mind. To simplify things, let’s pretend we live in a world where 100% of the prison population is definitely guilty of a crime, and let’s assume that everyone agrees whatever crimes they committed should correctly be classified as crimes.

I don’t support the death penalty because the purpose of incarceration is to prevent criminals from repeating the crimes, and nothing beyond that. Killing them or allowing them to die does not help us reach that goal, so society should be willing to cover the costs for minimal necessities like food. Providing a comfortable life does not help us reach that goal either, so society should not be obligated to cover costs for anything that is not essential to keeping them alive. Using prison inmates to test new drugs or therapeutics would be enormously beneficial to society for many reasons. We would be engaging in torture if we did this. One might say that this is acceptable because people who rape or murder deserve this, but that is an emotional argument and I’d rather be objective about this.

Maybe my opposition to this idea is more knee-jerk than anything. I guess at some level I believe that human life, no matter what type of human, should not be subjected to torture…but then again there are hypothetical scenarios where abstaining from torturing someone could lead to a worse fate for more people. If it saves more lives than it hurts, then I’m tempted to believe it’s acceptable in at least some scenarios. But that brings us back to the original point that my classmate made. Testing new drugs on inmates (again, assuming that these people are inmates for a good reason) would absolutely save more lives than it destroys. Hopefully I’ve explained this conundrum well enough. I’m interested in other people’s opinions on this.

Edit: A lot of people are misunderstanding what i mean by presupposing moral realism. What I am NOT saying is, that it should be accepted without argument. What I AM saying is that, if you already hold to moral realism, then this is an attempt to derive God from that view.

First off, let's be clear. I am NOT saying that atheists cannot act morally, that is completely besides the point.

This argument presupposes that there exist objective moral duties, and is not trying to justify this. That is another discussion completely.

I do believe, that an atheist might have grounding for objective moral values, in something like moral platonism. So why not just stop there? Well, without the duties, the values are pretty much pointless. You might as well be accepting objective chairs. Sure, they are there, but it does not tell you much about what to do with them, they are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. You decide yourself wether to strive for the values or not, pretty much making it pointless, that they are objective.

Let's define some terms first:

Theism: The belief, that there exists a necessary trancendant mind at the bottom of reality.

Atheism: The belief, that there does not exist a necessary mind at the bottom of reality.

Necessary: The case in all possible worlds.

Contingent: Not the case in all possible worlds.

Objective: Beyond the infuence of humans (or other sentient creatures).

Ought: A normative statement.

Intentionality: The property of being about something.

Now, the syllogism:

1. Objective moral duties exist
2. Objective moral duties are oughts
3. There exist objective oughts (1, 2)
4. Producing oughts is a property exclusive to mind
5. Oughts are non-physical
6. For something non-physical to be objectively the case, it has to be necessary
7. There exists something producing necessary things, with a property exclusive to mind (3, 4, 5, 6)
8. Something contingent, cannot produce something necessary.
9. There exist only contingent and necessary things
10. There exists something necessary, with a property exclusive to mind (7, 8, 9)

Remember, we presuppose premise 1. Premises 3, 7, and 10 follow from other premises. So the premises that need defending are: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.

Let us begin.

Premise 2: Objective moral duties are oughts

I think that is obviously the case. Moral duties are imperatives of how to achieve "the good". They are not themselves "the good", and rely on the hidden premise, that you must achieve "

https://preview.redd.it/wnto35mmtku71.png?width=443&format=png&auto=webp&s=220b4b93255703ad1b9bdbf7d9c2e4c0557c4a44

I wanted us to talk a little bit about morals and principles. Fi is associated with "unmovable" principles an individual holds, also with moral compass and a self-finding journey. It is not only a thing of Fi, of course, as every person does have morals. We just associate Fi with it more than any other function(together with Fe).

What morals do you hold, and would you say you are good with ethics?

Any type can join the discussion.

No matter where you go nowadays, it seems people are spouting stuff about equality/equity/an equal society etc. The latest I saw today is Phil Quin the political bloke calling rich countries stockpiling vaccines immoral, but I see it everywhere.

Now, personally, I'm left-wing/communist. I believe in social equality and redistribution.

But here's the thing! I realise that it's my view and not necessarily shared by everybody else. It's a political viewpoint. If Jimmy over there doesn't care about an equal society and is a libertarian, guess what? That's fine. We can debate it as long as neither of us treats our perspective as some sort of scientific fact.

Covid and the whole Maori thing has really brought this to the spotlight. So, for the sake of clarity, here are some political views that can and should be disputed.

1. Saving lives is more important than the quality of those lives (survival vs. freedom)
2. We should aim for equity in the vaccination rate
3. Saving lives is more important than economic growth (forgetting economic growth saves more live-equivalents in the long run)
4. New Zealand has a duty to other countries' health
5. The government has no choice to lockdown, and the only alternatives are short, sharp lockdowns or long shitty NSW style lockdowns
6. All races should have equitable outcomes
7. Indigenous cultures are inherently superior to introduced cultures
8. Colonialism is evil and didn't benefit the colonised

I am sure there are many, many more. Keen on other people adding to this.

Anyway, my central point is this: have humans always been this "assertive" about their ethical viewpoints, or is it part of contemporary puritanism?

He instead claims that moral laws should be binding for each reasonable being, and that we can deduce said laws from the very concept of a reasonable being (Groundwork, 412).

I guess my question boils down to: what other reasonable beings other than humans could Kant have in mind? Why is it problematic to base our moral understanding on, say, the concept of a human instead?

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot)

> Praha - Zhruba p?tina lidí v ?esku v??í v Boha, by? n?kte?í s pochybnostmi, v n?jakou vyšší moc v??í 35 procent dotázaných a v ani jedno nev??í 23 procent lidí.

> Víru v Boha nebo ve vyšší moc si p?ed dosažením dosp?losti uv?domilo 57 procent takto založených lidí.

> Do ?etby bible by se v budoucnu rádo pustilo 19 procent respondent?, 63 procent se na to spíše ?i v?bec nechystá.

> V p?ípad? církví a náboženství p?sobících v ?esku více než polovina lidí uvedla Církev ?ímskokatolickou, 47 procent ?eskobratrskou církev evangelickou a 32 procent Církev ?eskoslovenskou husitskou.

> V souvislosti s p?vodem života na Zemi tém?? polovina respondent? míní, že se tak stalo souhrou náhod, v zásah vyšší moci v??í 15 procent lidí a v to, že zasáhl B?h, osm procent dotázaných.

> Tém?? 62 procent respondent? je zastáncem evolu?ní teorie, v?bec jí nev??í p?t procent lidí a 20 procent uvedlo, že neví.

Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: procent^#1 lid^#2 e^#3 respondent^#4 v^#5

Post found in /r/europe.

NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.