3 ms·

> It's harder and harder to know what moral right and wrong are. Morality isn't about what is right or wrong. You need to get past that. There are plenty of

> It's harder and harder to know what moral right and wrong are. Morality isn't about what is right or wrong. You need to get past that. There are plenty of situations where there is no right answer and an individual is forced to choose between two wrongs. Morality is what an individual ascribes to be proper or improper and it is very fluid. An individual's morality is influenced by everything from the situation to the people around them. They may inherit their sense of morality of another person or group but morality is still a personal choice. We tend to think that everyone shares the same morality and so it becomes confusing when we encounter situations where our moral beliefs are at odds with others and we're in the minority. It doesn't help that the moral code ascribed to by a community might be completely different from the one the next town over.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
This viewpoint is part of the problem the person you're replying to was describing. That we are freer than ever to choose our own values, but people are simultaneously finding less meaning in life. That with the erosion of constraints, religion, and social roles people have to create their own substitutes for these things. It's the idea of Nietzsche's Übermensch.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  People have always been free to choose their own values and just as always, when your values are wildly outside or in direct conflict with others you have to deal with the fall out. You may choose to go along with the herd even if you don't agree 100% but that's your choice and always has been. The reality is that most people share a common core set of values and morality because we've all independently concluded that some things are just improper. It's only when we discuss more complicated issues (e.g. abortion) that we start to see divergence. In the past people were able to run away from their problems. Puritans flew England for the new world. People leave the city for the country or leave the country for the city. Hermits live out in the woods along. You can't really do that anymore without completely unplugging yourself from the world. The conflict that we haven't really come to terms with is that modern communication enables us to be constantly aware of the morals and values of other people and communities. In the past we only needed to concern ourselves with that of our immediate community but today we see commentary from everyone on everything at all times and are immediately aware of the morals and values of everyone on the planet.
  - musage 9y ago
    > modern communication enables us to be constantly aware of the morals and values of other people and communities You can see this not working even on HN. Mass surveillance, Chinese autocracy, many other things to do with obedience to sociopaths, regularly are filled to the brim with "arguments" about what "the average" or "most" people in country X or the world want, and they're rarely even followed by "and I agree with them because Y". Some seem to ascribe increased objectivity to that, and dismiss "personal opinions" in favor of their supposed aggregate objective ones. Lots of pointers to supposed persons, preciously few persons.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago

This viewpoint is part of the problem the person you're replying to was describing. That we are freer than ever to choose our own values, but people are simultaneously finding less meaning in life. That with the erosion of constraints, religion, and social roles people have to create their own substitutes for these things. It's the idea of Nietzsche's Übermensch.

cptskippy 9y ago
People have always been free to choose their own values and just as always, when your values are wildly outside or in direct conflict with others you have to deal with the fall out. You may choose to go along with the herd even if you don't agree 100% but that's your choice and always has been. The reality is that most people share a common core set of values and morality because we've all independently concluded that some things are just improper. It's only when we discuss more complicated issues (e.g. abortion) that we start to see divergence. In the past people were able to run away from their problems. Puritans flew England for the new world. People leave the city for the country or leave the country for the city. Hermits live out in the woods along. You can't really do that anymore without completely unplugging yourself from the world. The conflict that we haven't really come to terms with is that modern communication enables us to be constantly aware of the morals and values of other people and communities. In the past we only needed to concern ourselves with that of our immediate community but today we see commentary from everyone on everything at all times and are immediately aware of the morals and values of everyone on the planet.
- musage 9y ago
  > modern communication enables us to be constantly aware of the morals and values of other people and communities You can see this not working even on HN. Mass surveillance, Chinese autocracy, many other things to do with obedience to sociopaths, regularly are filled to the brim with "arguments" about what "the average" or "most" people in country X or the world want, and they're rarely even followed by "and I agree with them because Y". Some seem to ascribe increased objectivity to that, and dismiss "personal opinions" in favor of their supposed aggregate objective ones. Lots of pointers to supposed persons, preciously few persons.