• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

How often do examine your ethics and general

if you find yourself thinking about your moral code, it's probably pretty suspect. that shit is autonomic, and shouldn't need much attention as an adult.
 
asthmodeus said:
if you find yourself thinking about your moral code, it's probably pretty suspect. that shit is autonomic, and shouldn't need much attention as an adult.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with this but I understand the reasoning. Some situations just aren't that cut and dry imo.

Say you're inside a bank and it gets robbed by a few gents that are armed. The moral thing would be to try and stop them, the smart thing to do is let it all unfold because I value my life more than the couple thousand bucks they'd walk out with. Morals have their place, actions lining up with them varies from situation to situation.
 
on a meta level like that, probably never.


I try to "do the right thing" every time I have to make a decision...
 
Meter Man said:
The older I get, the less I subscribe to the social contract.
Click to expand...

Morality is defined by the individual, not the social contract. I don't really see the two being directly relevant to one another other than the social contract typically reflecting common definitions.

Morality is defined by individuals and individual choice.
 
i can't remember the last time i examined my ethics. never found them particularly interesting or unusual. most of those i've met are pretty much like me - just trying to make it through the day without harming or being harmed.
 
JesasaurusRex said:
Not sure I agree with this but I understand the reasoning. Some situations just aren't that cut and dry imo.

Say you're inside a bank and it gets robbed by a few gents that are armed. The moral thing would be to try and stop them, the smart thing to do is let it all unfold because I value my life more than the couple thousand bucks they'd walk out with. Morals have their place, actions lining up with them varies from situation to situation.
Click to expand...

well, i feel no moral obligation to protect money in a bank personally, but say they are pistol whipping the teller and you see an opportunity to hammerfist a nice sturdy pen into the robbers brain stem and go for the ol' gusto- even then your actions aren't necessarily dictated by ethics, they are dictated by situation analysis and bravery.
 
JesasaurusRex said:
Not sure I agree with this but I understand the reasoning. Some situations just aren't that cut and dry imo.

Say you're inside a bank and it gets robbed by a few gents that are armed. The moral thing would be to try and stop them, the smart thing to do is let it all unfold because I value my life more than the couple thousand bucks they'd walk out with. Morals have their place, actions lining up with them varies from situation to situation.
Click to expand...

Blankpage said:
Yeah I ain't taking a bullet for Bank of America.
Click to expand...

It's not for the money or for bank of america. Robbery is a violent person crime that happens to have a theft component. It's for the people.

Anyways, the way I see it...if one were in a position to intervene and made the decision to get involved and thwart the robbery, they are on the right side of morality. However, chosing not to get involved is not on the wrong side of morality. In fact, preserving oneself so one is in a position to be a good witness is certainly better than winding up as another victim.

The wrong side of morality lies with those who perpetrate the robbery, and those who assist them after the fact, help to hide them, and those who lie and cover up the truth.
 
Eldritch said:
Morality is defined by individuals and individual choice.
Click to expand...

I agree, but assume the question asks if one questions the choices or assumptions that formed their morality.

I would see it a bad sign if most people reacted purely by instinct or conditioning.
 
Blankpage said:
Yeah I ain't taking a bullet for Bank of America.
Click to expand...
. Me either, hand the money over faster next time and you won't be getting pistol whipped. Those lumps will subside eventually.

bojangle said:
It's not for the money or for bank of america. Robbery is a violent person crime that happens to have a theft component. It's for the people.

Anyways, the way I see it...if one were in a position to intervene and made the decision to get involved and thwart the robbery, they are on the right side of morality. However, chosing not to get involved is not on the wrong side of morality. In fact, preserving oneself so one is in a position to be a good witness is certainly better than winding up as another victim.

The wrong side of morality lies with those who perpetrate the robbery, and those who assist them after the fact, help to hide them, and those who lie and cover up the truth.
Click to expand...

Fair points, I just made up an extreme example to prove a point to astomouth . Obviously day to day is probably less of a dilemma than what I was getting at but the complexity can remain similar.
 
Rationalization is the bane of ethical (and moral) behavior.
I've run across a ton of people over the last decade who considered themselves to be very ethical/moral and yet their actions were well out of line with true ethical/moral behavior. The enabler was their rationalizations which allowed them to smooth over any moral qualms over what they had done.

It's always good to get some outside input on whether you're behaving in a good manner, especially as you get older and have cause to be more cynical than in your youth. Sometimes we forget to engage in self-examination.

Good thread! :thumbup
 
Moral behavior in my daily life, played out today in the act of cutting down some lower limbs on a tree along side the road, that blocked or impared the view of the road, for drivers.
Then later in twisty / rise and fall, road surface, I came up on a 2x4 about 6 ft long.. well out into the lane...
Came up on it so quick (very short sight line) I dodged it OK, but was past it and no shoulder/ turn out spot to stop...
Went on till the nagging thought of someone else hitting it or hitting an oncoming car while dodging it, said...
Turn the fuck around, find a spot to get off the road, get out and get that 2x4 off the road...

So I did. :)
 
Last edited:
Like Mr. Incredible and Lou, it is just a way of life. It generally doesn't come up, I just live a normal life, treat people with respect, and hopefully, it comes back at me the same. I'm not looking to scam or score anything for free, if something comes up where I can help, I do, and it isn't anything I really strive to do, it is just what I do. If that makes any sense.
 
corndog67 said:
Like Mr. Incredible and Lou, it is just a way of life. It generally doesn't come up, I just live a normal life, treat people with respect, and hopefully, it comes back at me the same. I'm not looking to scam or score anything for free, if something comes up where I can help, I do, and it isn't anything I really strive to do, it is just what I do. If that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

:thumbup Makes perfect sense to me, Like I've said before, we are the same person. :)
 
JesasaurusRex said:
Not sure I agree with this but I understand the reasoning. Some situations just aren't that cut and dry imo.

Say you're inside a bank and it gets robbed by a few gents that are armed. The moral thing would be to try and stop them, the smart thing to do is let it all unfold because I value my life more than the couple thousand bucks they'd walk out with. Morals have their place, actions lining up with them varies from situation to situation.
Click to expand...

Why is it moral to stop them? You're making assumptions on a subjective definition. Hell, especially when Banks tell you that the policy is to not interfere.

cfives said:
I agree, but assume the question asks if one questions the choices or assumptions that formed their morality.

I would see it a bad sign if most people reacted purely by instinct or conditioning.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you are correct. My first answer defines my response. Every day. Most of my friends find my commitment to analysis on these matters exhausting.
 
Last edited:
cfives said:
I would see it a bad sign if most people reacted purely by instinct or conditioning.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how people make their decisions, though. The notion that humans rationally consider their actions before acting has been shown false in neurological studies.

We are little more unsophisticated machines who mistake their consideration of actions after the fact as the process of decision making. Perhaps over time, an individual can condition themselves to follow some kind of reflexive morality. But on a real time, decision-by-decision basis, our rational minds are passengers and our irrational bodies are in the driver's seat.

Thinking about morals and ethics can provide fun thought experiments, but in the end it is just naval gazing. Humankind has not done a good job demonstrating any greater sense of morals or ethics than any other animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top