Morals Ethics and Sense

[IndigoSensor]

Every single person on this planet has a moral or ethic code and standard to which they hold themselves to (the degree to which this is done is highly variable). What is interesting to me, is how people who have well established personal moral and ethics for themselves, have such a tremendous difficulty understanding another persons moral or ethics code. Even if they can manage to understand the surface principals, it is a near impossibility to intake it and truly relate to it in the way that you relate to your own morals and ethics. I recently discovered this for myself. I find it nearly impossible for me to relate to the concept that one would not follow the same moral patterns to me. I get it, but I don't understand it. Furthermore, it seems to me that nearly every person on this planet is this way.

What I want to know, is why is that? Why is it that once we discover our own moral and ethical codes (their source and genesis is irrelevant), and adopt them, is it so impossible for us to understand another method. One could say that their moral and ethics is better and the other person is wrong. That's not true. Everyone's morals and ethics are perfectly valid (I know there are loopholes for that statement, disregard them). What the issue is when these codes can not match up correctly, and thus causes conflict as they can't fit together. One would think that you could quantify and associate which is better then the other, but that is truly impossible. It is because what works for one person does not work for the other persons brain. Still, this begs the question, why? Discuss.

(btw if you turn this into an argument of which moral/ethic code is better then the other, I will beat you)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I find it easy to understand the principles of moral models other than the one(s) I hold... however, I find it hard to undestand how some people view some of these codes as good or the best way to live.

The essential aspect of a moral code (to me) is not its logical congruency, which all the codes have, nor its objectivity, which the majority of codes have.... but its foundational sense of what is good/right.

Hedonism's foundation and focus is that pleasure is good (which it is), but this good cannot every be taken as the highest or most important good in my own moral sense.

Utilitarianism's foundation and focus is that the greatest general utility (helpful usefulness/fullfilment) is the greatest good - again I see this as a good, but it cannot come before personal liberty in my sense of the greatest good.

The golden rule doesn't really hold an objective sense of what is good, but rather a subjective one, that fairness/equality should be the guiding principle - to the extent that we treat others no differently (without bias) than how we treat ourselves.

Some moral systems are not so much about attaining a good, but about avoiding evils.

My answer to OP: I think few people can understand other moral codes because they cannot see/accept their underlying sense of good as being the greatest or most important good.

Personally, I hold virtue ethics, which holds the greatest good to be the perfection (as a verb, or process) of individuals. Anything which retards, or causes a person to regress is seen as something bad. The virtue system I hold is in the Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition, which holds a "hierarcy of goods view": from greatest to lower: Spiritual/intellectual perfection; moral perfection; social pefection; physical perfection.

 

[894tt3h9]

I think it's pretty simple. For myself, my morals and ethics make so much sense to me and correlate so heavily with my lifestyle, my history and what I want for myself that it's hard for me to understand other people's morals and ethics. They don't match up with the life that I life, they don't match up with my personality and what I want for myself and therefore do not resonate with me and don't add up in my mind.

I feel that morals and ethics are so completely individual and varied it's almost impossible to have a thorough understanding of someone else's unless you've been in their shoes.

I try not to be judgemental about it. Sometimes I feel that everyone should live the way I live and think the way I think, but I know it's not realistic.

 

[IndigoSensor]

That's kind of what I am getting at. Once we are set and locked into our own morals/ethics, it instantly becomes impossible to feel alignment with another different set. We can observe it and intellectually get it, but not actually feel it. This is strange to me because we might know with intense logical power that there is more then one correct way to view and work with the world, but no matter how much force is put under it, we can't shift our own paradigm about it. It's just very odd to see such a limitation the world over, and no one is immune to it.

 

[894tt3h9]

Oh for sure. Though I do think it is possible for our morals and ethics to change should we gain new perspective or experience, but I don't think that it's possible to adapt someone else's moral/ethics code at all. It has to come from within ourselves.

 

[Trifoilum]

why?

perhaps...because...morals and ethics are something important for us?

I mean... It has each of ourselves, our pain, experience, hope and ideals all around those. Even those with relativist beliefs are shaped by those. To deny themselves as THE greater sense of goodness would probably deny themselves of their worth, for one thing.

Could we understand other moral codes? Yes, I believe with enough practice, acceptance, and tolerance, one -can- get other people's moral codes and ethics and understand that; but even that, in a sense, is like bringing 'up' other's moral codes to the same level as ours *CMIIW*. I don't think people can easily, if at all, said that other moral codes were better than their own.

My answer to OP: I think few people can understand other moral codes because they cannot see/accept their underlying sense of good as being the greatest or most important good.

In a sense, it's also this. It's not necessarily always 'good', but it's simply their way of living. Or what works for them.

 

[Kgal]

why?

perhaps...because...morals and ethics are something important for us?

I mean... It has each of ourselves, our pain, experience, hope and ideals all around those. Even those with relativist beliefs are shaped by those. To deny themselves as THE greater sense of goodness would probably deny themselves of their worth, for one thing.

Could we understand other moral codes? Yes, I believe with enough practice, acceptance, and tolerance, one -can- get other people's moral codes and ethics and understand that; but even that, in a sense, is like bringing 'up' other's moral codes to the same level as ours *CMIIW*. I don't think people can easily, if at all, said that other moral codes were better than their own.

In a sense, it's also this. It's not necessarily always 'good', but it's simply their way of living. Or what works for them.

All of these are great answers and make sense. In looking at what Trifoilum said I thought of something else.

I believe I was taught that children form their core values by age 8 (+-). I'm not sure if this is limited to the Western cultures or not. But let's say it's true for the majority of who is encountered on any given day.
I should think those core values are learned along with intense emotions as Trifoilum suggests above.
And we know that intense emotions and high sensory input enhance learning anything tremendously.

I bet Core Value learning = intensity of emotions.

Now in my book that would be very hard for an individual to over - ride in their minds - so they could picture themselves in the others shoes to achieve an understanding.