what are YOUR morals and ethics.

[actsnoblemartin]

When did you decide that those would be your morals and ethics, and why are they youre morals and ethics.

Since you preety much already know what mine are, i'd rather hear yours.

[avatar4321]

i sought out the truth and tried to live it

[gabosaurus]

I learned from my parents. I further adapted my views when I met the man who is now my husband and when I found God.

[midcan5]

Both an easy and very hard question, the golden rule should suffice, "Do to others what you would have them do to you." Matthew 7:12 But how many live by that simple rule. Think of so many things where we don't follow it and you wonder whether morality is nice but most often ignored. And is morality always ethical, Derek Parfit writes, "It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." This one is easy to think of today, it forced Al Gore to add wind mills and solar energy to a too large home. But hey, I always wanted a big car, a big home. So my morals are based on the above, I try like heck to follow the golden rule and I live locally and think locally.

[midcan5]

Actsnoblemartin, you must have confused all the wingnuts no one is answering a simple but complex question. Thought this interesting, this topic has always interested me as I find evil hard to fathom but way too prevalent.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10126

"Further evidence that emotions are in the driving seat of morality surfaces when people are probed on why they take their particular moral positions. In a separate study which asked subjects for their ethical views on consensual incest, most people intuitively felt that incestuous sex is wrong, but when asked why, many gave up, saying, "I just know it’s wrong!"—a phenomenon Haidt calls "moral dumbfounding."

It’s hard to argue that people are rationally working their way to moral judgements when they can’t come up with any compelling reasons—or sometimes any reasons at all—for their moral verdicts. Haidt suggests that the judgements are based on intuitive, emotional responses, and that conscious reasoning comes into its own in creating post hoc justifications for our moral stances. Our powers of reason, in this view, operate more like a lawyer hired to defend a client than a disinterested scientist searching for the truth."

[Nukeman]

Actsnoblemartin, you must have confused all the wingnuts no one is answering a simple but complex question. Thought this interesting, this topic has always interested me as I find evil hard to fathom but way too prevalent.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10126

"Further evidence that emotions are in the driving seat of morality surfaces when people are probed on why they take their particular moral positions. In a separate study which asked subjects for their ethical views on consensual incest, most people intuitively felt that incestuous sex is wrong, but when asked why, many gave up, saying, "I just know it’s wrong!"—a phenomenon Haidt calls "moral dumbfounding."

It’s hard to argue that people are rationally working their way to moral judgements when they can’t come up with any compelling reasons—or sometimes any reasons at all—for their moral verdicts. Haidt suggests that the judgements are based on intuitive, emotional responses, and that conscious reasoning comes into its own in creating post hoc justifications for our moral stances. Our powers of reason, in this view, operate more like a lawyer hired to defend a client than a disinterested scientist searching for the truth."
So do you feel that we should remove all emotion from our "moral" judgements? That way we can look at thing from a purely logical stand point?

[My Winter Storm]

I just thought about what I thought was acceptable. I learned none of this from my parents, they were good enough to let me make my own decisions on things. My parents and sister have different views on certain things than I do, so we all have different ideas of what morality is, I guess.
I'm a lot more relaxed when it comes to the moral side of things.

[midcan5]

So do you feel that we should remove all emotion from our "moral" judgements? That way we can look at thing from a purely logical stand point?

Not sure how you jumped that far ahead but certainly as we get older and more mature it is important we think about our actions.

[Nukeman]

Not sure how you jumped that far ahead but certainly as we get older and more mature it is important we think about our actions.
I made that leap by quoting you

this part there.


Further evidence that emotions are in the driving seat of morality surfaces when people are probed on why they take their particular moral positions.

I bring this up because if we DON"T use our emotions in our moral judgments and thoughts than we run the risk of becoming more evil than anyone can possibly imagine.

for example. "bio ethicist" believe in a great many things to better mankind by eliminating the weak and inferior. Try reading "Practical Ethics" by Peter singer. They propose that one person should sacrifice their own life to save 2-3 others with their organs even if they are perfectly healthy with no problems, "sacrifice one to save 3" or sacrifice 100 to save 300 or 1000, to save 3000 so where would it end. Try reading "The Elimination of Morality"by Anne Maclean, you may see where I am going with this. People can not "give up" their feeling and emotions and still be Moral and ethical.. IMHO

What I am saying is that MOST of us would use our emotions to determine our own ethics without compassion and love you will not have a person with true ethics or morals.

You can rationalize almost anything even the taking of innocent life if you say it is for the greater good. Is that moral of ethical?

[DragonStryk72]

I screwed up alot, and in new and interesting ways as I went along. Learning from those mistakes is how I have aligned my morals and my ethics.

I tell the truth, save in instances where truth causes more harm than good, and I do not view truth as being harsh by necessity, unlike some 'realists' I know (most who claim realist are, in fact, pessimists, as they seem to almost always see the bad, without a balance of the good).

I help those that I can, but not if it will put me in the hole. There is no use in trying to help people to their feet while you're flat on your back. Better to get yourself up first, and then offer a hand.

I see the truth of the people around me. I do not let my friends off the hook simply because they are my friends. If I believe them to be wrong in the current situation, I will say as much, along with why I feel that way.

[midcan5]

I bring this up because if we DON"T use our emotions in our moral judgments and thoughts than we run the risk of becoming more evil than anyone can possibly imagine.

for example. "bio ethicist" believe in a great many things to better mankind by eliminating the weak and inferior. Try reading "Practical Ethics" by Peter singer. They propose that one person should sacrifice their own life to save 2-3 others with their organs even if they are perfectly healthy with no problems, "sacrifice one to save 3" or sacrifice 100 to save 300 or 1000, to save 3000 so where would it end. Try reading "The Elimination of Morality"by Anne Maclean, you may see where I am going with this. People can not "give up" their feeling and emotions and still be Moral and ethical.. IMHO

What I am saying is that MOST of us would use our emotions to determine our own ethics without compassion and love you will not have a person with true ethics or morals.

You can rationalize almost anything even the taking of innocent life if you say it is for the greater good. Is that moral of ethical?

I agree with much you wrote but having read Singer, that sounds like a philosophical argument about the consequentialist view of ethical behavior. I want to check out Maclean. The point I would make that unless emotions are 'good' as you note then anything is possible, but if we instead argue rationally about our actions and their impact we may arrive at a better place. This is why openness is so important in dialog. Would the holocaust have occurred if the topic were debated by all?

[midcan5]

"Maclean also exposes the inadequacy of a utilitarian account of moral reasoning and moral life, dismissing the claim that reason demands the rejection of special obligations. She argues that the utilitarian drive to reduce rational moral judgment to a single form is ultimately destructive of moral judgment as such. This vital discussion of the nature of medical ethics and moral philosophy will be important reading for anyone interested in the fields of health care ethics and philosophy." from amazon.com

Nukeman, I would agree, as with political philosophies, moral philosophies need to be broad and inclusive. If you are interested in this topic Derek Parfit's 'Reasons and Persons' examines the consequences of key moral forms starting with one I have argued, self interest theory.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball2568/parfit/bibliography.htm