PDA

View Full Version : What Morals/Values Are Important to You?



Mrs. Lyfing
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, 01:33 AM
What morals/values are important to you personally?

Lyfing
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, 02:10 AM
This should be in the philosophy section..:)

When it comes to morals I go with Nietzsche..This is a quote from something that sums up stuff..



III

The Genealogy of Morals

1. Master and Slave

Will to power and eternal return are the philosophical concepts which lie behind Nietzsche's view that the logic of Western philosophy is nihilism and his answer to this nihilism.

One of Nietzsche's prime analogies is the master-slave dichotomy which he constructs in terms of his philological analysis of the concepts good and bad.

Nietzsche argues that in what he calls the "pre-moral" stage of history, i.e., the historical period in which an order of rank was established based on power, the Greek words kakos and delios denote a plebian type of man in contrast to agathos which denotes the noble type.11 This situation is mirrored, Nietzsche contends, by the German word schlecht (bad) which in the pre-moral stage is identical to the word schlicht (plain or simple).12 The point which Nietzsche wishes to establish is that these terms are used with no "inculpatory implication."13

According to Nietzsche, agathos is used to denote the master who affirms life, i.e., will to power. The master calls himself good and only as an afterthought labels all those unlike him bad. This master may be compared to the Homeric nobleman whom W.H. Adkins argues is "brave and skilful in war and peace."14 A. MacIntyre asserts, in his Short History of Ethics, that to call a man agathos reveals the type of behaviour one will expect from a nobleman.15 The corollary to this, for Nietzsche, is that this initial judgment is in no way intemalized, self-conscious, or reactive but rather is based on action. People are not seen to be good in and of themselves, he argues, rather their actions are judged as successful or unsuccessful.

Nietzsche contends that the concepts "good and bad" are replaced as a sign of caste by the concepts "pure and impure." This revaluation is actualized, according to Nietzsche, by a "priestly caste" whose concepts may be seen as "coarse and unsymbolical." He states that initially the concepts pure and impure refer to the social and political superiority of one who is clean and healthy, who doesn't sleep with women of the lower strata, and who is averse to blood. 16

Nietzsche asserts that this priestly system of values develops in opposition to that of the masters.17 Nietzsche maintains that the Jewish religion overthrows the master morality. For Nietzsche, this "slavish revolt" represents the beginning of the "moral stage" of history. He asserts that the slave replaces the aristocratic value equation that "good-noble-powerful-beautiful-beloved of the gods" with the belief that only the poor and lowly are good; that the weak and sick alone are pious.18

This priestly and slavish revaluation, Nietzsche argues, is based on , i.e., hatred and the desire for revenge. He sees the creative act of the slave to be a "no-saying," a denial.19 In the pre-moral stage, according to Nietzsche, bad is a negative concept, i.e., one that describes a lack and arises from the Pathos of distance."20 The master can enforce his valuation of himself because he is powerful. The slave on the other hand, fails to do so because of weakness. The slave is viewed as bad only insofar as he is weak, only insofar as his actions are life-denying. Nietzsche claims that the master first Finns himself and only subsequently sees the slave as bad. He contends that with the "slave revolt" and the evolution into the moral stage of history the concepts "good-bad" have been transformed into "good-evil." He contends that with this evolution one may now have evil intentions, i.e., one may be evil in and of oneself prior to any action.21 This morality of intentions is closely related to the metaphysic of original sin.

http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol2/v2doc4.html

Other than that as a "key" to figuring out how morals and whatnot come about..I go with The Nine Noble Virtues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Noble_Virtues)



1. Courage
2. Truth
3. Honour
4. Fidelity
5. Discipline
6. Hospitality
7. Self Reliance
8. Industriousness
9. Perseverance


I think they make me who I am..?? .. ;)

Later,
-Lyfing

ladybright
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, 03:21 AM
Family first!Personal honor, honesty, hospitality/kindness, courage, self-discipline, mercy, self-reliance, industriousness, preserverence, balance, humor, fidelity, aesthetics, paitence.

Basicly the Nine noble virtues (http://heathenblog.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-nine-noble-virtues/) with a few additions. The ability to be merciful makes someone stronger. Mercy is not always called for but it is sometimes nessesary.

I cannot imagine my life without seeing the beauty in things(both light &dark) and being able to laugh at myself and life. It would get pretty dour.

Patience and balence are more important to me now than a few years ago. Especially after I get asked why for the 30th time. (Once I counted and my daughter got to 38 why questions in a row.)

Mrs. Lyfing
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, 07:05 PM
So,nobody else has any morals/values ...;)?

-jmw-
Tuesday, January 29th, 2008, 07:19 PM
What morals/values are important to you personally?
I don't know.
I do not follow a special personal code of morals or virtues:*
Just trying to be myself and do what I like. :)



* Not to be confused with ethics.

Beornulf
Friday, February 1st, 2008, 11:22 PM
I follow principles and my own "values". Most morals tend to be dogmatic and are far too inclusive to have any real impact over peoples attitudes and actions.

A murderer will still murder even if he is told it is bad.

Moody
Friday, October 3rd, 2008, 07:33 AM
Philosophy recognises broadly three different moral theories:

1) Virtue Ethics [as in Aristotle and Nietzsche], where being is about the quality of one's character ['virtue' shouldn't be understood in the Christian sense, but rather in the sense of 'virtu', or excellence].

2) Deontology [as in Kant]; this is duty ethics where one must do the moral thing, even if it may have bad consequences on ourselves or others because 'it is the right thing to do'.

3) Utilitarianism [Bentham, JS Mill]. Here consequences matter most. A form of altruism where the 'happiness of the greatest number' is aimed at - even if it may mean our own individual unhappiness.

So what theory do you go with?

I go with 1)

MockTurtle
Friday, October 3rd, 2008, 08:10 AM
What morals/values are important to you personally?

For me, it is loyalty and selflessness.

With loyalty, I think the most significant way in which it is expressed is through a commitment towards an impersonal ideal or goal that transcends the life of the individual. For myself, this takes the form of maintaining a spiritual dedication to preserving and enhancing the foundation of my civilization, by whatever means possible.

As for selflessness, I am speaking specifically about the overall purpose and end result of one's behavior, not necessarily the sort of means that are embraced along the way. On the one hand, the desire to improve and better oneself is not necessarily a bad thing at all; in fact, this is actually a precondition for getting oneself in a proper position to serve a higher, impersonal ideal altogether. Plus, I think it is part of a larger evolutionary function. But, when this desire isn't connected to an impersonal, selfless end that involves a broader community, it is useless at best and very destructive at worst.

Psychonaut
Friday, October 3rd, 2008, 08:16 AM
I'd have to say that I fall under the Utilitarian grouping, but in a much less universal way. When being faced with any moral decision, I'll attempt to judge in what way the results would effect

1). My Family
2). Myself
3). My Ethnic Group
4). My Nation
etc.

in a descending order of precedence. This has generally been my ethical method since my move to Heathenry and the birth of my son (which happened about the same time).

BTW those deontological machinations of Christian apologists creep me the Hel out!

Moody
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 03:46 PM
For me, it is loyalty and selflessness.

'Loyalty' could be included as Deontology [depending on whether the loyalty is unquestionsing. Both Deontology and Utilitarian advocate selflessness as I described above.


With loyalty, I think the most significant way in which it is expressed is through a commitment towards an impersonal ideal or goal that transcends the life of the individual. For myself, this takes the form of maintaining a spiritual dedication to preserving and enhancing the foundation of my civilization, by whatever means possible.

The question is, does that goal provide you with a set of commands and duties which must be obeyed? If so, are they and their consequences all in accord with the goals?


As for selflessness, I am speaking specifically about the overall purpose and end result of one's behavior, not necessarily the sort of means that are embraced along the way. On the one hand, the desire to improve and better oneself is not necessarily a bad thing at all; in fact, this is actually a precondition for getting oneself in a proper position to serve a higher, impersonal ideal altogether. Plus, I think it is part of a larger evolutionary function. But, when this desire isn't connected to an impersonal, selfless end that involves a broader community, it is useless at best and very destructive at worst.

What demonstrates the "impersonal" nature of your goals and sense of purpose?
Wouldn't it be easy to provide a set of goals for oneself as they suit oneself at the time, and yet claim they were an "impersonal ideal"?
What do you serve that is not personal?


I'd have to say that I fall under the Utilitarian grouping, but in a much less universal way. When being faced with any moral decision, I'll attempt to judge in what way the results would effect
1). My Family
2). Myself
3). My Ethnic Group
4). My Nation
etc. in a descending order of precedence. This has generally been my ethical method since my move to Heathenry and the birth of my son (which happened about the same time).

That is a strange order of precedence as it doesn't go from the individual, then up by ever expanding steps to the larger group; nor does it do the opposite and decline from the largest group down to the individual. Instead it 'bounces' from a group, to an individual, then up to a larger group and so on.
Essentially you say that you would put yourself before your ethnic group.


BTW those deontological machinations of Christian apologists creep me the Hel out!

But there is a clarity about Deontology.
We hear much in Heathenism about telling the Truth and Loyalty.
A Deontologist like Kant says that it is always wrong to tell a lie, for example. Therefore, if an innocent friend of yours is fleeing a mob intent on killing him and he hides in your house, and the mob knock at your door and ask you "is your friend in there?", you must answer truthfully and say "yes".
On the other hand, if loyalty to your friend is paramount, you must lie and say "no".

Positions like Deontology and Utilitarianism both lead to contradictions. If a Utilitarian finds himself in the position of having to kill one person to save the lives of five other persons, he will happily kill the one to promote the happiness of five over the pain of one. Whereas a Deontologist who believes that killing is always wrong will refuse to kill the one and watch the five be killed.

Psychonaut
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 07:31 PM
That is a strange order of precedence as it doesn't go from the individual, then up by ever expanding steps to the larger group; nor does it do the opposite and decline from the largest group down to the individual. Instead it 'bounces' from a group, to an individual, then up to a larger group and so on.
Essentially you say that you would put yourself before your ethnic group.


It is a strange order of precedence, but it's an honest one. I don't really think that placing my immediate family in the first order is really debatable at all. As the head of household, I must subordinate many of my wants for the benefit of my family. I guess. to avoid confusion, I could place myself within my family, in the first order of precidence:

1). Family

a). My Children
b). My Wife
c). My Self
2). My Ethnic Group
3). My Nation

Treating the family as one unit makes the order of expansion much more natural. After all, it's only natural that you'd care more about your family than your ethnic group as a whole. Now, those who are in leadership positions, either of their Ethnic groups or their States, should follow the familial example and, while treating themselves as a member of the group, place the interests of the group, as a whole, before their own.

Patrioten
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 11:37 PM
If I am not mistaken, ethics is about how one should act, morals about how one acts. Ethics is the ideal, morals how you in reality act. For the most part, the two can correlate with one another if no real conflict inbetween them exist, but then there are times when your ethics model is put aside, either by choice or necessity, in order for you to respond in a way which is appropriate, given the conditions or the situation of the moment. Some are more zealous than others in how strictly they adher to their ideal and how much they are willing to compromise with it and instead adapt to a situation where the conditions have changed, or when an atypical situation presents itself.

It becomes a matter of "what if....", of different scenarios and situations. The situation where to save 5 you must kill one is a situation which most of us are unlikely to ever find ourselves in. It's also a bit simplistic, who are these 5 individuals and who is the one I have to kill to save them? Random people? Then I would have no reason to save the one and lose the others. After that one's own personal ladder of value sets in and decides whom to save and whom to let die.

But it has no bearing in reality, so it's pretty pointless in my opinion. We need better examples that are more realistic.

rainman
Saturday, October 4th, 2008, 11:59 PM
It would take too long to really go in depth explaining it all.

In essence: that which advances you and/or your group is good. That which doesn't is bad. The environment is part of you, therefore this implies stewardship of the land. To have a folkish ideal that we are one drop in the blood of a folk; part of a higher organism would imply that self sacrifice for the greater good is also morally superior.

From there we build a short list of basic suggestions to help guide us in our decision making. The ten commandments for some, the Code of 9 is what I like to follow. Morality and ethics has a great deal to do with the community. Any healthy community must have a common culture, comon morals and ways of doing things in order to function cohesivley. Today we live in a such an age of chaos and individualism that we often don't see this. We think of morals or ethics as a personal choice or something to be worn like a cloak or a pair of socks.

An example it doesn't matter if you drive on the left side or right side of the road. You just have to pick one and everyone must obey it. It isn't about individual choice, it is about the group (which effects the individual). Otherwise chaos follows. We all have morals that are common to our society. These are laws of the land. Though they are rather broad and vague so we supplement them with our own personal religious codes etc. Within any group of people there is acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior this is the basis of morals. We have been stripped of this today as we have been taught "blind tolerance" and to accept everything and any deviance no matter how personally offensive. This has stripped us down to the lowest common denominator giving the advantage to our enemies or to those with less healthy morals or none at all. For example say I morally don't believe in being a drug addict. In the past or in any healthy society I would refuse to work with a drug addict. I would not let him in my home or be neighbors with him (as the whole community would act as one). He would not be accepted into my "church" unless he cleaned up his act etc. Today we can say "I personally don't believe in being a drug addict for myself" yet we tolerate it in everyone else. So the drug addict next store breaks in and steals all your belongings. Your morals are only partially strong. Morals involve a community.

Less successful people have weaker morals, more successful people have stronger morals.

I think it is only a retard or simple minded plebian that thinks lying, cheating and stealing is really beneficial to the individual or makes him stronger. It doesn't. It weakens the community which you depend on. It causes necessary retribution (from any healthy people) and so on. Where can you find the most theives, liars, lazy people etc.? In the poverty stricken ghetto. Does lying, cheating and stealing get them ahead? Is it a sign of intelligence? Not really. You may have exeptions today- very clever people who are dishonest. But they are only strong because of the relative weakness of their prey. Any healthy morals would involve being strong and fighting back. In being educated and not easily decieved. Most of society knows only slave morals which make them could cattle or sheep to feed on.

Where do you find the most polite people (maybe not always trustworthy because our society is inferior)- in successful positions. Most of these people even if they lie to the public or whatever they usually have a small group that they function from in which they are completley moral. Otherwise they, too are weak. They are only strong in comparison to the even weaker less moral people in society.

Morality at its core I guess is about doing what is best for the society (or group) rather than the individual and thus the individual benefits. Putting aside momentary pleasure for future gain which in the long term is also more successful. The whole sum of morals is logic in my opinion. Though today people seem to associate them with being illogical or blind faith or belief in God or whatever. Those are just tools used to control people who are otherwise too stupid to act moral on their own. There is a different moral ideal for morons and for smart people. Morons are just the slaves of smart people so they are taught a slave's moral system.

Moody
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 03:29 PM
It is a strange order of precedence, but it's an honest one. I don't really think that placing my immediate family in the first order is really debatable at all. As the head of household, I must subordinate many of my wants for the benefit of my family. I guess. to avoid confusion, I could place myself within my family, in the first order of precidence:

1). Family

a). My Children
b). My Wife
c). My Self
2). My Ethnic Group
3). My Nation

Treating the family as one unit makes the order of expansion much more natural. After all, it's only natural that you'd care more about your family than your ethnic group as a whole. Now, those who are in leadership positions, either of their Ethnic groups or their States, should follow the familial example and, while treating themselves as a member of the group, place the interests of the group, as a whole, before their own.

I would like to take the question away from a discussion of you own personal circumstances to a more abstract philosophical position.
Clearly, the position becomes this: are your family of your ethnic group?
Is one's ethnic group not part of one's family? [whether one has children or not].
This raises the difficulty of the distinction you made. Why should only certain members of your ethnic group [those you call your family] be worth more to you than any other menbers of your ethnic group?
This may be the reason why Plato thought the Guardians should have children only in common with other Guardians .


If I am not mistaken, ethics is about how one should act, morals about how one acts. Ethics is the ideal, morals how you in reality act.

The distinction is not hard and fast - [I]ethics is from the Greek and morals from the Latin [Cicero's translation, I believe]. The most useful distinction to make is that 'ethics' refers to character [as the word 'ethos' means 'character' - hence 'virtue ethics']; while 'moral' relates to behaviour [mores are customs] - so we tend to refer to 'Utilitarian morality'.
Ethos is character while morals is behaviour.



It becomes a matter of "what if....", of different scenarios and situations. The situation where to save 5 you must kill one is a situation which most of us are unlikely to ever find ourselves in. It's also a bit simplistic, who are these 5 individuals and who is the one I have to kill to save them? Random people? Then I would have no reason to save the one and lose the others. After that one's own personal ladder of value sets in and decides whom to save and whom to let die.

What-Ifs are useful ways of testing moral positions. I gave them in abbreviated form for space. The one on the mob chasing a friend clearly shows the clash between lying and loyalty. True, these are extreme examples - but it is often only in extreme situations that our moral and ethical calibre is challenged [just as it is easy to win a war in one's armchair].

The 5 individuals scenario can be expanded thus. You are a visitor to the wilds of South America on an adventure holiday. You visit a village where the local chieftain has sentenced six people to die and is about to have them executed. Your presence in the village excites some interest and the chieftain is fascinated to welcome a doughty European, seeing the visit as propitious [the scriptures had spoken of a 'gifted white stranger' to come at a 'time of blood'].
He embraces you and says [in broken English], 'friend, I give great honour you: you kill just one of the six and I let other five go free - the gods love it'!
If you turn him down he will have all six killed anyway and decide that you were not the gifted stranger he had expected to visit him.

In philosophy we have something called 'thought experiments' where ideas are tested using hypotheticals, whether in morals, epistemology etc.,




Less successful people have weaker morals, more successful people have stronger morals.
I think it is only a retard or simple minded plebian that thinks lying, cheating and stealing is really beneficial to the individual or makes him stronger. It doesn't. It weakens the community which you depend on. It causes necessary retribution (from any healthy people) and so on. Where can you find the most theives, liars, lazy people etc.? In the poverty stricken ghetto.

Actually, I would say that you will find the biggest liars and cheats in the upper echelons of society, either in power or in the richest elites.
Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic says that 'injustice is profitable' - or 'crime pays', as we hear today.

Of course, all societies need to have a secret service of some kind which spies, srpeads propaganda [lies] and attempts to undermine the enemy covertly [cheating].

But as you infer, the question is one of community. Even the biggest gangsters have a sense of loyaty and truth among themselves ['honour amongst thieves']. The question is, while we must be moral and ethical amongst our own kin - must we be so to others who are outside that category?
More importantly, must we always be truthful to our enemies?
Wouldn't it be more moronic to truthfully reveal your vulnerabilities and defences to your enemy when asked to tell the truth?

Psychonaut
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 06:54 PM
Clearly, the position becomes this: are your family of your ethnic group?
Is one's ethnic group not part of one's family? [whether one has children or not].
This raises the difficulty of the distinction you made. Why should only certain members of your ethnic group [those you call your family] be worth more to you than any other menbers of your ethnic group?
This may be the reason why Plato thought the Guardians should have children only in common with other Guardians [i.e., rejecting the nuclear family unit].


Naturally we are all of the same ethnic group. They are the number one priority because they are my personal sub-set of our ethnic group. I'd imagine that couples who miscegenate would not place their respective ethnic groups in their hierarchy.

Patrioten
Sunday, October 5th, 2008, 10:30 PM
The distinction is not hard and fast - ethics is from the Greek and morals from the Latin [Cicero's translation, I believe]. The most useful distinction to make is that 'ethics' refers to character [as the word 'ethos' means 'character' - hence 'virtue ethics']; while 'moral' relates to behaviour [mores are customs] - so we tend to refer to 'Utilitarian morality'.
Ethos is character while morals is behaviour.My philosophical education was very limited in scope and depth so I will trust you on that.



What-Ifs are useful ways of testing moral positions. I gave them in abbreviated form for space. The one on the mob chasing a friend clearly shows the clash between lying and loyalty. True, these are extreme examples - but it is often only in extreme situations that our moral and ethical calibre is challenged [just as it is easy to win a war in one's armchair].Yes but it becomes more interesting if the examples are made to be as realistic as is possible, since reality is more complex than examples that are less detailed, that was all I meant by it.


The 5 individuals scenario can be expanded thus. You are a visitor to the wilds of South America on an adventure holiday. You visit a village where the local chieftain has sentenced six people to die and is about to have them executed. Your presence in the village excites some interest and the chieftain is fascinated to welcome a doughty European, seeing the visit as propitious [the scriptures had spoken of a 'gifted white stranger' to come at a 'time of blood'].
He embraces you and says [in broken English], 'friend, I give great honour you: you kill just one of the six and I let other five go free - the gods love it'!
If you turn him down he will have all six killed anyway and decide that you were not the gifted stranger he had expected to visit him.I would have to turn him down. Killing a person out in the jungle where the legality is in doubt, and where I could not count on being immune from prosecution, does not appear to be worth the risk to save 6 strangers.

The example I could think of would be in a combat situation where some cannot make themselves kill the enemy even when it puts their own squad members in danger, they refuse to fire their weapons and thus deem the life of their comrades (and their own) are not worth killing the enemy soldier over.


In philosophy we have something called 'thought experiments' where ideas are tested using hypotheticals, whether in morals, epistemology etc.,I am quite familiar with the concept :P.


But as you infer, the question is one of community. Even the biggest gangsters have a sense of loyaty and truth among themselves ['honour amongst thieves']. The question is, while we must be moral and ethical amongst our own kin - must we be so to others who are outside that category?
More importantly, must we always be truthful to our enemies?
Wouldn't it be more moronic to truthfully reveal your vulnerabilities and defences to your enemy when asked to tell the truth?When dealing with an enemy, your morality needs to be flexible, obviously. In wars we act in ways which would be immoral and unethical in civilian life. Loyalty becomes limited to the nation or the military you are fighting for, truth does not apply either to the other side.

trojanerikson
Sunday, June 27th, 2010, 01:14 PM
Assertiveness- Not always agressive or Passive
Beauty
Caring
Cleanliness
Commitment
Manners
Loyalty
Compassion/empathy
Confidence
Faithfulness
Consideration
Friendliness
Patience
Honesty
Gentleness
Responsibility
Courage/Bravery/Valor
Creativity
Curiosity
Reliability
Imagination
Happiness
Humor
Lovingness
Strength
Wisdom
Romantic
Supportive
Goal oriented
Gratitude
Respectful
Humble
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean

Caledonian
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 02:45 AM
None.

I'm a moral and ethical skeptic along with being a moral nihilist.

There is no such thing as good, evil, right, and wrong as those are only fabricated concepts.

There is only consequence and reaction.

There is only what you can do and what you can't do.

There is only what others allow you to do and what others refuse to allow you to do.

Moral and ethical philosophies have weakened western civilization with all their giant deceptions. It's no wonder why those who seek to destroy our race and culture are so fond of using them against us because many of our people are so deluded to still believe in them especially the religious.


I believe in honor, integrity, conviction, dedication, and community but not at the expense of becoming another mindless social slave of today's so called egalitarian collective socialism that is the very anti thesis of independent individuality to the point of being perverse.

SaxonCeorl
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010, 02:50 AM
None.

I'm a moral and ethical skeptic along with being a moral nihilist.

There is no such thing as good, evil, right, and wrong as those are only fabricated concepts.

There is only consequence and reaction.

There is only what you can do and what you can't do.

There is only what others allow you to do and what others refuse to allow you to do.

That.