Other How should we act ethically?

[Hallow]

I'm wondering what people's opinions are about how people should ideally act in a social evironment. Keep in mind that I'm concerned with ideal patterns of behavior, so don't unnecessarily bring your personal ideology to the discussion, as ideology pertains to patterns of thoughts and I'm concerned with acts. Let's have an engaging discussion!!

 

[Hall Kervean]

Well, personally, I-

In a social situation, I usually stand away from everyone else. I can't start a conversation, but I can continue it. All you have to do is figure out who would be able to and want to carry on a long, possibly random conversation and try to start one with them. If you get past step one, step two is just to tiptoe over mines like politics, religion, and anything personally offensive. Anything else is good. Off the bat, go for cool or funny as your appearance, but if they get into it, you can be relaxed and show them... yourself, I guess. But never lie about something just to be "cooler." That's a terrible idea. Just be prepared to defend why you like No Man's Sky, you heretic.
I probably made that unintelligible, didn't I. Oh well.

Also, don't encourage genocide. that's frowned upon in aaaaall circles.

 

[Zombocalypse]

How we should act depends on the situation. I would act in a certain way in a nightclub, and I wouldn't act in such a way in a church.

 

[Windsock]

Angry.

 

[Hallow]

How we should act depends on the situation. I would act in a certain way in a nightclub, and I wouldn't act in such a way in a church.

I would argue that one shouldn't act in accordance to a situation, because it is in this we risk becoming an extension of the crowd. I don't accept that position.What I'm asking is how do people behave ethically not how to behave in social settings. I'm sure most of you know the golden rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you. Personally, I find this rule falls short when thinking about the darker complexities of humanity, as someone can both be preoccupied with murder and at the same time wish for death, but be incapable of suicide for whatever reason. This is, of course, an unnecessarily extreme example but it does illustrate the weakness of one the most over used sayings.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

Isn't the point of discussing ethics to bring one's personal viewpoint to the table, though?

 

[Hallow]

I consider myself a moral nihilist because I don't consider the concept of universally preferable behavior valid. What I'm more interested in though is analyzing other people's viewpoints rather than explaining my own because I already know I'm on the fringe.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I consider myself a moral nihilist because I don't consider the concept of universally preferable behavior valid. What I'm more interested in though is analyzing other people's viewpoints rather than explaining my own because I already know I'm on the fringe.

Everything is grey except genocide because that's in the black and completely unjustifiable.

 

[Hallow]

Everything is grey except genocide because that's in the black and completely unjustifiable.

When I say that I'm a moral nihilist I am not saying that "good" or "wrong" don't exist, just that in an ethical framework such terms have no use. Moreover, thinking in the long term it may actually be ethical to commit genocide if indeed the result produced a net benefit. Granted this is a hypothetical but please take care when using a word like justice; justice can mean many things.

 

[Windsock]

When I say that I'm a moral nihilist I am not saying that "good" or "wrong" don't exist, just that in an ethical framework such terms have no use. Moreover, thinking in the long term it may actually be ethical to commit genocide if indeed the result produced a net benefit. Granted this is a hypothetical but please take care when using a word like justice; justice can mean many things.

So are you intentionally just shitting out memes or are those your actual opinions? I'm an honest-to-god authoritarian fascist but wanton genocide is just a fucking meme. The idea that 'good' and 'bad' don't mean shit is also a fucking meme, 'moral nihilist' my ass. Have you actually read nietzche or do you just believe in the theme park version? He didn't 'just' advocate 'lol there is no definitive morality', he said something closer to 'there is no definitive morality, so you should make one you believe in.', which is what everybody is already fucking doing.

 

[Hallow]

So are you intentionally just shitting out memes or are those your actual opinions? I'm an honest-to-god authoritarian fascist but wanton genocide is just a fucking meme. The idea that 'good' and 'bad' don't mean shit is also a fucking meme, 'moral nihilist' my ass. Have you actually read nietzche or do you just believe in the theme park version? He didn't 'just' advocate 'lol there is no definitive morality', he said something closer to 'there is no definitive morality, so you should make one you believe in.', which is what everybody is already fucking doing.

Most people don't actually make something to believe in, they pick something to believe in. That's why for at least some, it can be a challenge to ask, "what is good?" Further definition is needed to address complexities that a typical, tight binary can't hope to solve. When I spoke about UPB I was merely implying that a universal ethics might not hold up against my objections, not that people aren't able to decide things for themselves. If anyone wants to actually further this discussion, we could then contemplate hypotheticals instead of competing to see who can shove the biggest dagger into themselves.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

I'm not sure if I can really take the thread seriously when opinions are being filtered here (i.e. no room for someone saying there is an objective moral code).

 

[Hallow]

I'm not filtering anything, it just looks that way because no one arguing that way is present here. I really do want to speak with people who can both disagree with me on this, and be able to talk about their position like an adult.I wouldn't ask a question if I wasn't seeking more answers than my own; moreover, it is because I am somewhat confident in my position that I want to consider the alternatives.

 

[PanOtterPus]

I think the confusion here is stemming from the fact you said you don't want a personal opinion from replies, so the given answers reflect what the majority aim to believe. Then you're saying well ok I am asking for your viewpoint which would technically mean bringing in personal opinions...
Really, I think you need to rephrase what it is you're asking for here.

 

[Hallow]

I think the confusion here is stemming from the fact you said you don't want a personal opinion from replies, so the given answers reflect what the majority aim to believe. Then you're saying well ok I am asking for your viewpoint which would technically mean bringing in personal opinions...
Really, I think you need to rephrase what it is you're asking for here.

What I meant was I don't want ideology being represented here when I want to talk about ethics. For example, when determining the right thing to do it is not necessary to be a follower of any particular religion because the two things are not the same thing. As I said before I'm concerned with what the right way to act is, and not how people think I should be thinking.

 

[EredtOgon]

I would argue that one shouldn't act in accordance to a situation, because it is in this we risk becoming an extension of the crowd. I don't accept that position.What I'm asking is how do people behave ethically not how to behave in social settings. I'm sure most of you know the golden rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you. Personally, I find this rule falls short when thinking about the darker complexities of humanity, as someone can both be preoccupied with murder and at the same time wish for death, but be incapable of suicide for whatever reason. This is, of course, an unnecessarily extreme example but it does illustrate the weakness of one the most over used sayings.

There are a great many assumptions that are implicit in your response, Nihilego. (Interesting name, by the way... it reminds me of a very similar username I once met... ) If possible, I would like to inquire further. First, please define "ideality". Much of the problems that come with philosophical discourse is that very little rigour is applied to defining fundamental objects of the conversation. I would like to point out, for example, that ideal behavior can not exist without some criteria by which to verify it. An example: An ideal play in a chess match is the move that produces the absolute best result for the player at that point in the game.

You will have to establish what the purpose of the "game of life" then, is, before you can establish what constitutes "perfect play". Moving on, let's look at your other points. You say that the golden rule "falls short" of the darker complexities of humanity, but that isn't an issue, since you say that you are interested in how people "should" act, yes? Why should the manner in which people "actually" act have any relevance here? If you want to talk about idealities, then actualities are not really of any importance, yes?

 

[Miracleist]

I think the ideal is to act as they desire so long as they do not severely inconvenience anyone - this part's a rather ambiguous and subjective portion that really varies according to situation (which might involve some negotiation).

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Ideally people should act passive in a social environment but not everyone is ideal so...

I act aloof and let my "RBF" do the work for me.

 

[ApfelSeine]

I think ideally people should act in line with whatever the society they are a part of dictates. Whatever society has dictates is ethical is the safest and best, socially speaking. There are many instances where society will not be aligned with one's own personal moral code though. In this case, a judgement call has to be made as to what one is willing to sacrifice in order to keep the society running the way it's intended. If there is a law or expectation that is morally reprehensible, it is ethical to try to change it. If enough people attending to change the law, then a new law can be created to match what the majority of a society really wants.

In cases where one is a visitor in society, the global expectation appears to be that one should be respectful of that society's customs, barring any crimes against human rights as determined by the global society which most of us are a part of. Reasonable efforts should be made to adhere to the society which one is visiting, with some exceptions arising from major conflicts between one's home society and the one they are visiting. It's important to always bear in mind that one isn't policing other cultures while visiting them.

I think the only universal rule to how to behave is to become aware of what the smaller society one is involved in expects, and attempt to adhere to it as best one can. Morality is subjective and we make it up, so what is ethical is also subjective, but determined by what a society accepts.

 

[Zombocalypse]

My basic belief about morality is that subjectivity is a recipe for great evil.

One of the reasons why I love the Judeo-Christian religion is because there are no negotiations as to what is good or bad. It's final and definitive. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, worshipping other gods is wrong. There are no ifs and/or buts. It's absolute and very clear.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have subjective morality, which basically goes like this...

I killed someone. But it's okay because blah blah blah.

Wrong. Killing is wrong. In the court of law, in order for the judge to label a murder to be justifiable due to self defense, the defendant must admit to murdering the aggressor. He must admit that he committed murder, which however you look at it, is wrong.

Even if you are starving to death, stealing food is wrong. This doesn't mean that your actions can't be forgiven, but it won't change the fact that you committed a crime.

Matthew 5:18 - For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

[kibou]

I mean I can't personally say that I'd believe killing in self defense is wrong when the only alternative is being killed yourself. I can't believe anyone except extreme cases would just lie around and let themselves be killed by someone, either.

I'm inclined to agree with ApfelSeine. It's good to be self-aware of the culture and society's norms, and to be respectful when visiting other places. To do anything else would be... genuinely obnoxious and typically self-defeating.

I'm a moral relativist and believe it's subjective and all that etc etc. I think whether a behavior is ethical is relevant to a situation, and changing how you act in different environments doesn't make you a sheep or anything. Thoughts or personal moral stances don't necessarily reflect people's behaviors either. Sometimes you have to do stuff you disagree with for your own sake and safety, so it's really hard to judge people in black and white terms.

I think when it comes down to it I'd put myself first always. Whether that means being nice and polite to everyone, going out of my way to help people, or occasionally saying something I find morally disagreeable, or sometimes having to act like an outright asshole.

I believe staunchly black and white morality isn't healthy and can potentially lead to a lot of guilt and self-esteem problems. I've seen it a lot being raised in a primarily fundamentalist and conservative Christian environment.

Anyways the point is, I don't think there is one specific way or route to take to behave ethically, although I'd encourage taking time to seriously re-evaluate your personal values/behavior every once and awhile.

 

[Idea]

ok, ok, ok... hum.... I think there is a big misconception here.

How one should act is not separable from their personal "view of the universe", as Chestterton put it and for lack of a better term. And neither is how they actually act. My beliefs always affect how I act, whether I realize it or not and that goes for everyone. There is no way of saying "you should act like this" without talking about the why and talking about what principles are in the origin and sustain that pattern.

 

[iloverplolxxx]

I say act however the fuck you want, FUCK THE SYSTEM AND FUCK THE NORMIES.

 

[Sibelle Grey]

I'm inclined to go with the Discourse on this one. Act according to the laws and customs of wherever you happen to be, and when in doubt, follow the most moderate opinions-- and/or those of the brightest in your society, who might best know what the hell they're doing.
I honestly don't think "ethics" are set in stone, but hey, more power to those who do. What's wrong, what's right, and what wrongs can technically be right in certain circumstances will usually depend on who you ask, and when you ask them. So follow what you feel is right, and doesn't violate the firmest of established rules or make a pariah out of you.
Like Apfel and kibou said, humans have to live in society, so humans have to adapt. It's wearing a sundress on the flight over and covering up as you touch down in Riyadh. You're allowed to think what you like. But unless you're living on your own as a hermit in the mountains, you can't act as you'd like in all situations. You pretty much have to play by the majority's rules (or at least meet them halfway) and avoid being harmful or obnoxious.