I will give you a better answer when I'm not typing on an iPad...but...
Never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing.
I'm glad to know you found sense in my silly analogyThis sounds like a very sensible moral path, Sandie. I can totally see what you mean by the "double standard" thing. Especially as openness to the experiences of others can sometimes be confused with objective embrace of the principles of those others, which isn't always the case.
On a somewhat tangential note, I think this is more likely to happen to Fe users than Fi users.
I will give you a better answer when I'm not typing on an iPad...but...
Never let your morals get in the way of doing the right thing.
At the center of whatever personal philosophy I hold are the values of justice and egality. If there is mutual justice and egality in every exchange between persons or peoples, there is little left to have conflict about. Minor quibbling excluded, of course.
Interesting. Would you apply your relativism to all acts without distinction or exclude certain acts from it? I'm thinking in particular of acts that perhaps most people (which doesn't mean they are right) would consider inherently evil, like genocide, slavery, etc.
I've a feeling that your stance doesn't say these are not evil acts but rather that it's impossible to have a law that stipulates what they are "by essence".
Would you then say that a Truman Show-like world in which certain people are living a lie, but are not suffering and may in fact be happy, is not immoral from your standpoint? Or would you argue that therein lies the possibility of future suffering (as we see in the case of Truman eventually)?
Skare - don't forget to come back to this as I'd love to hear what you meant. My interest is mega piqued
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.
To have a base set of morals, I believe is entirely premature. Only when we experience a particular situation in real time can we know for sure what we are capable of.If you had to give an outline of your moral philosophy, what would it be?
And do you think you manage (more or less) to apply it in real life?
Looking forward to your answers.
From this perspective, there can be no other conclusion. Either what is good and evil is hard-wired into the world, in which case this is as independent of human thinking as the law of gravity (which is closer to my own view), or, as you say, they are defined relative to what people think, and they can think whatever suits them. Even the first of these has some relativity about it - who is to interpret what a hard-wired moral code actually is and how to respond to it? Look at the countless interpretations of the world's major religions over the centuries....
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.
That said, I still find such things abhorrent. Hell, I go to stupid lengths just so I can avoid hurting insects But that's because I'm human and capable of empathy.
I know that seems like a contradiction. And I suppose it is. My brain is full of contradicting thoughts. It's a real fun place to be
For me, love of God is also a moral imperative – again as much aspiration as fact in practice! But I don’t believe any religious perspective has the right to over-ride individual freedom any more than any other perspective does.
Well, the concept of "good" and "evil" come from human beings. These ideas only really exist because we create them. So I don't believe genocide or slavery are inherently wrong. They're wrong from our current point of view, but right from another point of view.
On top of that, no philosopher has ever managed to prove that morals were transcendental, i.e. that certain propositions of ethics have the truth value of logical axioms. So in a sense morals really are subjective. Nietzsche's morals of the overman would probably celebrate certain forms of genocide. And if that makes us want to shriek, that is only because we are speaking from our own perspective.
I'm a Popperian! I dont think I have to explain my objection