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 June 27 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 June 29 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 July 1 by BigSkyDiamond

[BigSkyDiamond]

On 6/27/2025 at 3:37 AM, Paradoxal said:

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. 

 

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!

 

(a) "politely discuss our views" is at odds with (b) "looking for proper arguments" and "check fallacies"

the former (a)  is individual expression and clarification of views.  the latter (b) is spoiling for a fight
 

because "politely discuss our views" is an expression of individual opinion, views, beliefs based on personal values. (even the post above recognizes this is varied and personal).  whereas "proper arguments" and "check fallacies" are contentious, fighting, and focused on "i'm right, you are wrong"

 

ar·gu·ment

noun

 

1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

synonyms: quarrel, squabble, fight, clash, altercation, dispute, war of words, debate
 

2. reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by BigSkyDiamond

[Cobie]

The DDJ defines ‘virtue’ e.g. in ch. 51 (Henricks):

… 

 7. 生 而 弗 有 也  (sheng1 er2 fu2 you3 ye3)  It gives birth to them but doesn't try to own them; 

 8. 為 而 弗 志 也 (wei4 zhi4)  It acts on their behalf but doesn't make them dependent; 

 9. 長 而 勿 宰 也 (zhang3 wu4 zai3)  It matures them but doesn't rule them. 

10. 此 之 謂 玄 德 (ci3 zhi1 wei4 xuan2 de2)  This we call Profound Virtue. 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Cobie

[Lairg]

It seems that "moral" comes from the Latin "mores"

 

mores(n.)

"customs," 1907 (W.G. Sumner, "Folkways"), from Latin mores "customs, manners, morals" (see moral (adj.)).

 

Thus to be moral is to conform to the customs of the local society

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

51 minutes ago, Lairg said:

It seems that "moral" comes from the Latin "mores"

mores(n.)

"customs," 1907 (W.G. Sumner, "Folkways"), from Latin mores "customs, manners, morals" (see moral (adj.)).

Thus to be moral is to conform to the customs of the local society

 

which sounds like it bypasses "conscience"

[Lairg]

Perhaps "principled behavior" is a better concept

 

 

[BigSkyDiamond]

8 minutes ago, Lairg said:

Perhaps "principled behavior" is a better concept

i like that

[steve]

Empathy is the most meaningful moral foundation and currency, in my experience.

 

[Paradoxal]

21 hours ago, BigSkyDiamond said:

(a) "politely discuss our views" is at odds with (b) "looking for proper arguments" and "check fallacies"

the former (a)  is individual expression and clarification of views.  the latter (b) is spoiling for a fight

Apologies, but you are clearly mistaken in that assertion.

 

Individual expression, aka 'opinion', is still based upon logic. 'Argument', in this particular context, refers to a debate in which logic is used and challenged to compare viewpoints with the goal of all sides coming out a little bit smarter (see your second definition). If it devolves into a simple slinging of insults, then that shows at least one side refuses to listen...

 

This is philosopy 101-level stuff; if you claim to know enough about religion, morals, or other topics to present your opinion, I highly recommend doing research into argument / debate in an academic sense.

 

 

15 hours ago, Lairg said:

Thus to be moral is to conform to the customs of the local society

Would you then argue for collectivist values? I suppose my question is, where would you draw the line?

If the local society decides that a certain group of people should die with no visible cause, is it moral to oblige?

[心神 ~]

36 minutes ago, Paradoxal said:

This is philosopy 101-level stuff; if you claim to know enough about religion, morals, or other topics to present your opinion, I highly recommend doing research into argument / debate in an academic sense.

 

Not everyone likes to converse via debate, and the users who aren't interested in that style of communication are making that clear when addressed. 

 

Personally, I approach conversations here like interviews instead of debates. I'm interested in understanding what a person believes and how they came to believe it, not proving a person to be incorrect. Debating the belief itself gets in the way of the information I'm looking to receive, and is therefore unproductive for my personal goals.

 

Other users here have different perspectives and approaches, and are not wrong for seeking debate. But just as there are guidelines for debate, there are also conversational guidelines for learning instead of teaching, and those who prefer that approach are not wrong for seeking to develop an environment that allows for such.

[BigSkyDiamond]

4 minutes ago, 心神 ~ said:

 

Not everyone likes to converse via debate, and the users who aren't interested in that style of communication are making that clear when addressed. 

 

Personally, I approach conversations here like interviews instead of debates. I'm interested in understanding what a person believes and how they came to believe it, not proving a person to be incorrect. Debating the belief itself gets in the way of the information I'm looking to receive, and is therefore unproductive for my personal goals.

 

Other users here have different perspectives and approaches, and are not wrong for seeking debate. But just as there are guidelines for debate, there are also conversational guidelines for learning instead of teaching, and those who prefer that approach are not wrong for seeking to develop an environment that allows for such.

 

yes yes yes yes

well said.  brilliant.