Perspectives on Morality

[Paradoxal]

As this came up in a thread recently, I thought perhaps it best to make a dedicated thread asking for opinions and arguments on morality.

 

I'm of the opinion that there cannot be a 'universal' good or evil; rather, individuals have their own views based around their particular values. 

For example, one of the things I value most is saving lives (not only human) and preventing suffering. Thus, to me, killing will always be 'evil', but if done in the name of saving lives, it becomes 'good'. If you kill a warlord, that's one life traded for thousands (if not millions) saved. 

If you cause suffering for the sake of preventing harmful ideologies or practices that would cause many times more suffering, what is it but a moral obligation? 

I suppose it all comes back to the infamous trolley problem; I am of the opinion that not pulling the lever to save the many at the expense of the few is the worse option. 

 

I'm distinctly aware that my views on this are not universal however, so I'd love to open a thread where we (politely) discuss our views on morality; I'm looking for proper arguments here, so let's make sure we check up on fallacies!

 

 

 

What would you say "good" entails? What is "evil"? How do they blend? 

[Lairg]

I am not sure human concepts of good and evil are particularly useful in the cosmos.  

 

On the other hand The Source of All presumably was not just mucking around when generating various universes.  Accordingly there may be merit in carrying out human actions so as to support the intent underlying the existence of this universe.

 

Since that intent is largely unknown conceptually, perhaps it is a matter of humans having right instincts

 

 

 

 

[Paradoxal]

12 minutes ago, Lairg said:

Since that intent is largely unknown conceptually, perhaps it is a matter of humans having right instincts

What, exactly, would define "right" instincts, then? 

[Lairg]

Rightness of instincts requires consistency with the intent/directionality of that part of the local universe.   

 

That of course assumes that there is inherent intelligence within a universe.  Some prefer to believe in randomness

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 12:16 PM by Lairg

[Sherman Krebbs]

2 hours ago, Paradoxal said:

I'm distinctly aware that my views on this are not universal however, so I'd love to open a thread where we (politely) discuss our views on morality; I'm looking for proper arguments here, so let's make sure we check up on fallacies!

 

I might write more later, but I think conceptually there can be no universal system of truth--and I think that applies to ethics too.   I can establish this through the statement:  "This sentence is false"  It seems silly, but this statement (and ones like it) get at incompleteness, which I think applies to morality as well. That there can be no universal system of ethics, only individual preferences weighing things as net good and less net good, on the balance.  

 

For example, there is the argument that 1) crime is evil and eliminating crime is good 2) Giving anyone who commits crime the death penalty will eliminate crime ->  therefore, it would be good to give anyone who commits a crime the death penalty.   This is valid logic and will virtually eliminate all crime, but on the balance will kill a whole bunch of petty thieves an shop lifters. It would also make me really nervous to j-walk across the street.  so I think any sort of ethical or moral decision, like this, is going to involve tradeoffs and different people may come to different balances.  

 

What is good and what is evil though?  I have no problem killing a fly, but I would feel bad killing a small bird. I indirectly kill chickens by eating them, but I dont really think about it. I have butchers in a factory do the dirty work for me.   I feel there is something primordial to good an evil.  I know at my core what is good and bad, and dont need a math formula to tell me that. 

 

Here is how I think of it: just as I know what is good art and what is bad art (like ethics, there can be no universal system to define what is good art and what is bad), I know what is good and what is evil, and when I act against that primordial understanding, its like hitting a flat note in a symphony.

[Krenx]

It depends on the reference point. If the reference point is suffering, and the end of suffering, there are universal laws that function in specific ways due to the nature of the mind and existence. Specific kind of morality is to be embodied and perfected to achieve that goal.  

 

If the reference point is NOT the end of  suffering, but various worldly goals. Then morality is subjective to the the various  worldly goal. Worldly goals meaning goals that has attachment towards existence and craving towards sense desire as its basis. 

 

Nobody has some authority over morality. Everyone is free to choose what they want to do to achieve their goals. But cause and effect always applies, and nobody has authority and control over the nature of mind and existence either. 

 

Choose the morals that serves your goals. And be heedful what goals you pick in life.  

Edited Sunday at 06:19 AM by Krenx

[stirling]

Quote

Unethical behavior:  To deliberately cause suffering or to not care if suffering is caused. - My teacher

 

[Cobie]

 

4 hours ago, Paradoxal said:

… What would you say "good" entails? What is "evil"? How do they blend? …

imo most evil comes from  ‘righteous’ indignation.

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

On 6/27/2025 at 5:15 AM, Lairg said:

Rightness of instincts requires consistency with the intent/directionality of that part of the local universe.   

That of course assumes that there is inherent intelligence within a universe.  Some prefer to believe in randomness

 

as humans we set the intent ourself.

intent and intelligence are not the same.

 

Edited 26 minutes ago by BigSkyDiamond