Author Topic: How do you define morality?  (Read 2189 times)

Deidre

How do you define morality?
« on: May 18, 2019, 06:47:24 pm »
It seems to me anyway, that morality is largely subjective. We have laws in society to warn us that if we break them, there will be dire consequences, so on some level, we believe that morality can be defined in a somewhat objective way. The abortion controversy that's going on in politics right now, got me to thinking about morality on a broader scale, now.  There will be many people who are in agreement with stricter abortion laws, and others who disagree. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Are there any moral absolutes out there, do you think?

"Don't look for riches, look for rich experiences." - Lucian Black

Onyx

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2019, 08:51:38 am »
Human beings are essentially amoral and selfish to the core. If we weren't, why would we need to agree on any social contracts or create laws intended to keep the peace? Our attempts to do so have partially worked, but often only create even more division.

Therefore I think you are correct in saying that morality is subjective, and I'll add that judgement calls are based on circumstances. As I've said many times before, usually one can live-and-let-live, but sometimes it's appropriate to live-and-let-die.

Etu Malku

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2019, 01:43:37 pm »
Eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature." - Plato

Platonic philosophy defines morality & ethics based on a Eudaemon life. A life of self-discovery, the evolution of one's potential and a sense of purpose and meaning. Happiness and Well-Being is the goal of attaining a virtuous morality not based on some non-obligatory moral law (e.g. 'Law Giver'). Non-obligatory moral law means morality cannot be an obligation to doctrine as emphasized by religion or culture. Rather, morality must issue as a principle from the individuals own soul, heart, and conscience as opposed to doctrinally instituted and enforced. Plato believed, and I agree with him, that Man is inherently moral, that we know the difference between what is beneficial for ourselves and others as opposed to what is detrimental to both.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.

IAMTHATIAMNOT

Mindmaster

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2019, 07:19:39 am »
It seems to me anyway, that morality is largely subjective. We have laws in society to warn us that if we break them, there will be dire consequences, so on some level, we believe that morality can be defined in a somewhat objective way. The abortion controversy that's going on in politics right now, got me to thinking about morality on a broader scale, now.  There will be many people who are in agreement with stricter abortion laws, and others who disagree. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Are there any moral absolutes out there, do you think?

Morality only exist by consensus, ergo it fails by divergence. It's not so much a right, as a "right now."

Anyway, Nietzsche was pretty smart about this concept in that most ideas espoused by the popular consensus are actually whatever serves the "master". Thus, any good "virtue" exposed by contemporary views is really just to keep the "slaves" in line. The master makes the rules as necessity dictates while the slave obeys either through fear, peer pressure, or guilt. The wikipedia article on the subject gives a good summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality


The laws, morality, and other constructs of this nature largely exist to serve the masters whom break them at will -- this hasn't changed since forever. However, in that, it generally isn't useful for such masters to have it known that they do so. Their currency is popular opinion, which they use to trigger the plebs into reacting adversely to their opposition.

Where there is an apparent clash on an issue, such as abortion, it's merely the masters of the religious right feuding with the masters of the lunatic left. Be your own master, set you own rules, and don't take the bait - your head space is your property. :D

For every supposed sin or immoral act, I can find valid reasons to engage in them if events demand them. If you can't your thinking is colored by these "slavish tropes" that have been previously discussed. (Likely through no fault of your own, mind you.) That, however, doesn't mean that those activities are profitable, conductive to your freedom, or useful. The master evaluates risk and reward, in our example, then acts accordingly and would not merely break with the conventions of society for the sake of doing so, it's just no obstacle when the need arises.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2019, 10:34:31 am by Mindmaster »

Lily_Belial

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2019, 10:22:37 am »
A friend shared with me an interesting take on morality recently. What he shared was the Kohlberg Study. Now, it isn't without problems, however I find it an interesting perspective. I've included it in my framework of understanding morality immensely. Basically, as I understand it, the study notes that people develop an understanding of morality in levels. The most basic level is one of obedience and punishment (usually by parents and then others), which is called Pre-conventional Morality. Level 2 is where most people eventually fall. This is a stage in moral development where a person adheres to the morality standards of their peer group/society. Morality is not questioned, but rather, a person desires to be included and approved of by their friends or society. This is called Conventional Morality. Level 3, is actually where I think most who use the term Satanist would naturally fall. This is perhaps a rare stage in moral development though. Level 3 is called Post-conventional Morality, and features an individual who can determine and adhere to their own moral compass. The most noteworthy thing about this kind of morality is adhering to these morals despite societal detriment.

So, are there moral absolutes? Yes, but they're subjective. That's the entire problem when debating issues regarding morality. You'd have to match the same moral development level, societal senses (in most cases), and (in most cases) share someone's subjective experience. None of that is a likely occurrence. But, hypothetically, people on that last level of morality may have a higher chance of agreeing.

If you'd like to read more on the psychological study, here's a link where I got my information: https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
"Words mean more than what is set down on paper. It takes the human voice to infuse them with deeper meaning." -Maya Angelou

Liu

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2019, 03:47:39 pm »
I guess then I'm either on level 2.5 of that Kohlberg system, or skipped level 3 and moved to level 4, depending on how you define things: While I follow the morality of my peer-group for a large degree out of practical reasons, I don't subscribe to it beyond that. But I also don't have any inner moral system that I would call such. I aim to do what seems most prudent to me for my own happiness, i.e. I'm a kind of amoral utilitarian.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.
Do you thereby not presuppose that acting beneficial for humanity is part of the morality of everyone's Greater Self?
While my actions are normally at least not very detrimental to other people, the reason behind acting like that is not that I would aim for them to be beneficial for others. Perhaps that means I'm not in contact with my Greater Self, but it could just as well mean that my Greater Self has other views on morality than yours.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2019, 03:51:18 pm by Liu »

Etu Malku

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2019, 11:39:48 pm »
I guess then I'm either on level 2.5 of that Kohlberg system, or skipped level 3 and moved to level 4, depending on how you define things: While I follow the morality of my peer-group for a large degree out of practical reasons, I don't subscribe to it beyond that. But I also don't have any inner moral system that I would call such. I aim to do what seems most prudent to me for my own happiness, i.e. I'm a kind of amoral utilitarian.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.
Do you thereby not presuppose that acting beneficial for humanity is part of the morality of everyone's Greater Self?
While my actions are normally at least not very detrimental to other people, the reason behind acting like that is not that I would aim for them to be beneficial for others. Perhaps that means I'm not in contact with my Greater Self, but it could just as well mean that my Greater Self has other views on morality than yours.
I don't believe our Greater Self cares much for the populace. Striving for a harmony of all mankind is a western left hand path/Luciferian thang.
IAMTHATIAMNOT

Deidre

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2019, 01:35:48 am »
I guess then I'm either on level 2.5 of that Kohlberg system, or skipped level 3 and moved to level 4, depending on how you define things: While I follow the morality of my peer-group for a large degree out of practical reasons, I don't subscribe to it beyond that. But I also don't have any inner moral system that I would call such. I aim to do what seems most prudent to me for my own happiness, i.e. I'm a kind of amoral utilitarian.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.
Do you thereby not presuppose that acting beneficial for humanity is part of the morality of everyone's Greater Self?
While my actions are normally at least not very detrimental to other people, the reason behind acting like that is not that I would aim for them to be beneficial for others. Perhaps that means I'm not in contact with my Greater Self, but it could just as well mean that my Greater Self has other views on morality than yours.
I don't believe our Greater Self cares much for the populace. Striving for a harmony of all mankind is a western left hand path/Luciferian thang.

There's a western LHP?
"Don't look for riches, look for rich experiences." - Lucian Black

Deidre

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2019, 03:43:21 am »
Human beings are essentially amoral and selfish to the core. If we weren't, why would we need to agree on any social contracts or create laws intended to keep the peace? Our attempts to do so have partially worked, but often only create even more division.

Therefore I think you are correct in saying that morality is subjective, and I'll add that judgement calls are based on circumstances. As I've said many times before, usually one can live-and-let-live, but sometimes it's appropriate to live-and-let-die.
It's funny you say this, the RHP views this as well - that people are essentially evil by nature. I don't know, I want to believe that we have the capacity to do evil, but that there is a balance in us all. Otherwise, we would be in constant chaos, right?
"Don't look for riches, look for rich experiences." - Lucian Black

Deidre

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2019, 03:44:51 am »
Eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature." - Plato

Platonic philosophy defines morality & ethics based on a Eudaemon life. A life of self-discovery, the evolution of one's potential and a sense of purpose and meaning. Happiness and Well-Being is the goal of attaining a virtuous morality not based on some non-obligatory moral law (e.g. 'Law Giver'). Non-obligatory moral law means morality cannot be an obligation to doctrine as emphasized by religion or culture. Rather, morality must issue as a principle from the individuals own soul, heart, and conscience as opposed to doctrinally instituted and enforced. Plato believed, and I agree with him, that Man is inherently moral, that we know the difference between what is beneficial for ourselves and others as opposed to what is detrimental to both.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.
Thank you for explaining your view. Do you believe that one can ever achieve a Greater Self, or are we always in search?
"Don't look for riches, look for rich experiences." - Lucian Black

Deidre

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2019, 03:48:04 am »
A friend shared with me an interesting take on morality recently. What he shared was the Kohlberg Study. Now, it isn't without problems, however I find it an interesting perspective. I've included it in my framework of understanding morality immensely. Basically, as I understand it, the study notes that people develop an understanding of morality in levels. The most basic level is one of obedience and punishment (usually by parents and then others), which is called Pre-conventional Morality. Level 2 is where most people eventually fall. This is a stage in moral development where a person adheres to the morality standards of their peer group/society. Morality is not questioned, but rather, a person desires to be included and approved of by their friends or society. This is called Conventional Morality. Level 3, is actually where I think most who use the term Satanist would naturally fall. This is perhaps a rare stage in moral development though. Level 3 is called Post-conventional Morality, and features an individual who can determine and adhere to their own moral compass. The most noteworthy thing about this kind of morality is adhering to these morals despite societal detriment.

So, are there moral absolutes? Yes, but they're subjective. That's the entire problem when debating issues regarding morality. You'd have to match the same moral development level, societal senses (in most cases), and (in most cases) share someone's subjective experience. None of that is a likely occurrence. But, hypothetically, people on that last level of morality may have a higher chance of agreeing.

If you'd like to read more on the psychological study, here's a link where I got my information: https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
This is pretty fascinating, thanks for the link!

I believe in God, and so he is ''my''moral compass, but then again...people can still question if my morality is subjective, and to an extent it is.
"Don't look for riches, look for rich experiences." - Lucian Black

Liu

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2019, 04:46:45 am »
I don't believe our Greater Self cares much for the populace. Striving for a harmony of all mankind is a western left hand path/Luciferian thang.
I see - but if your Greater Self doesn't consider it important, why you then still pursue it the name of spirituality?

Etu Malku

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2019, 09:47:06 am »
Becoming More Than Human (collectively) is part of the western left hand path, a Promethæn goal I suppose. Harmony between sentient beings seems to be something inherent in evolved souls.
IAMTHATIAMNOT

Liu

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2019, 07:03:53 pm »
Becoming More Than Human (collectively) is part of the western left hand path, a Promethæn goal I suppose.
Since you seem to put a lot of effort into spreading that term western left hand path, and since I therefore assume that even if it doesn't include all practitioners of the LHP in the west it at least describes your own approach, let me ask again:
Why does this path of you not share the same moral goals as your greater self?
Quote
Harmony between sentient beings seems to be something inherent in evolved souls.
What are your reasons for this belief? I also encountered the contrary belief.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 07:17:36 pm by Liu »

Etu Malku

Re: How do you define morality?
« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2019, 10:32:36 pm »
Becoming More Than Human (collectively) is part of the western left hand path, a Promethæn goal I suppose.
Since you seem to put a lot of effort into spreading that term western left hand path, and since I therefore assume that even if it doesn't include all practitioners of the LHP in the west it at least describes your own approach, let me ask again:
Why does this path of you not share the same moral goals as your greater self?
Quote
Harmony between sentient beings seems to be something inherent in evolved souls.
What are your reasons for this belief? I also encountered the contrary belief.
Our Greater Self is beyond human morality and ethics, however, we are Not! Perhaps this article I posted elsewhere will aid in some insight to your inquiry.
______________________________________________________________


Eudaimonia: "The good composed of all goods; an ability which suffices for living well; perfection in respect of virtue; resources sufficient for a living creature." - Plato

Platonic philosophy defines morality & ethics based on a Eudaemon life. A life of self-discovery, the evolution of one's potential and a sense of purpose and meaning. Happiness and Well-Being is the goal of attaining a virtuous morality not based on some non-obligatory moral law (e.g. 'Law Giver'). Non-obligatory moral law means morality cannot be an obligation to doctrine as emphasized by religion or culture. Rather, morality must issue as a principle from the individuals own soul, heart, and conscience as opposed to doctrinally instituted and enforced. Plato believed, and I agree with him, that Man is inherently moral, that we know the difference between what is beneficial for ourselves and others as opposed to what is detrimental to both.

As Mercuræns we understand morality & ethics to go hand in hand with the gradual atonement with our Greater Self. The further we bring our Greater Self into our mundane existence, the clearer our moral compass becomes. We strive towards a beneficial and virtuous life in accordance with a reason not only for ourselves but for all of Humanity as well. We maintain that a life of pleasure coincides with a life of virtue and thus morality and ethics are seen as living in harmony with objective and subjective reality.
IAMTHATIAMNOT