What Morals/Values Are Important to You?

[Mrs. Lyfing]

What morals/values are important to you personally?

[Lyfing]

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

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]

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 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]

So,nobody else has any morals/values ...?

[-jmw-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.