This is about Morals...

[Loddfafner]

I prefer morels to morals:

[Psychonaut]

Without trying to be too philosophical, morality, like truth, simply is. Morals are absolute because they exist, like truth, independent of the individual or society. So to answer your question “from where do they derive?” They aren’t derived at, because to be derived means to have a source of origin.

Does this make any sense to you all? It's sort of hard to explain.

Don't worry about being too philosophical, that's what this section is for.

Let me refine my question. Since no two societies, traditional or contemporary, have the exact same views on morals or ethics, what exactly are you purporting is absolute? Are you going the Evolian/Neoplatonic route and viewing morals as earthly manifestations of the Form of the Good? Or are you taking the Kantian or Hegelian route? I'm very curious, since I don't see too many Heathens who are ethical absolutists.

[Euroblood]

Are we going to end up discussing the ding an sich?

Only if you want to.

The fact that I can disagree with some morals means they, unlike truth, cannot be absolute. Your opinion does not change the truth, while morals vary based upon various cultural and social aspects.

You are right; an opinion cannot change the truth. But just because you disagree with a moral does not make it something subjective. A moral is not relative, but the act of choosing to be moral or not is.

I think it is very important to distinguish between values and morals for they are not the same things.

[Ulf]

Here's a loaded question, but meant primarily for you, Euroblood. What does it mean to choose to be moral?

[Euroblood]

Are you going the Evolian/Neoplatonic route and viewing morals as earthly manifestations of the Form of the Good? Or are you taking the Kantian or Hegelian route? I'm very curious, since I don't see too many Heathens who are ethical absolutists.

Of the two of them, I would say I take a more Kantian approach. But I still draw from the Neoplatonic understanding a bit.

For example, Neoplatonists believe human perfection and happiness are attainable in this world, without awaiting an afterlife. I agree with that.

But I disagree with the pantheistic views of the world

As Ulf mentioned "ding an sich” Which is primarily where I draw my ideas from. So it is safe to say that I take a more Kantian approach.

[Psychonaut]

Of the two of them, I would say I take a more Kantian approach.

So, would it be fair to say that your approach to ethics is deontological?

[Euroblood]

So, would it be fair to say that your approach to ethics is deontological?

Yes that would be fair.

[Ulf]

Here's a loaded question, but meant primarily for you, Euroblood. What does it mean to choose to be moral?

Bump and clarification:

Values and morals are mostly synonymous to me. What exactly are your morals, Euroblood? When you choose to be moral, are you choosing to act according to your morals?

Your statement is interpreted by me as moral = good/not evil. So what then are morals? Goods/good actions? Or Values/Virtues?

Choosing to be moral does not necessarily involve any action. Until I choose to do a moral action my morals are values.

[Lyfing]

Good ‘ole morality..??

In our world, morality has come to mean things like the Ten Commandments. A list of things “thou shalt not” do. It is much more than that. It is actually about things “thou will”. My good friend Nietzsche went on about this a lot. He even called the former a slave morality and the latter a noble morality. Now just from those words..which one..??..a slave or a noble..??

In explaining those..an easy way is just to say that the slave likes being told what to do by his master. Like in the bible where we have the Ten Commandments and if we listen to Our Father in Heaven we get to go hang out with him because we are “good” and he‘s proud of us and all that. And, that the noble is really “God”. “God” being the real meaning of “Good”..noble morality is what holds societies together by oath ( one‘s Word ). This is what the slaves resentimentized. In a slave society morality is absolute because it’s what the master said. In a noble society morality is relative and up to whoever to decide and it keeps going because it is seen as fit and folks keep doing it. In both cases, “In the beginning was the Word” it’s just either.. and it “was God’s” or “is Supermen’s”. We get to pick..”Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, They Will be done on earth as it is in heaven”..or, “I’m the Burger King, and I’m having it my way”..

Later,
-Lyfing

[Euroblood]

Values and morals are mostly synonymous to me. What exactly are your morals, Euroblood? When you choose to be moral, are you choosing to act according to your morals?

I don't view them as synonymous. Values are a construct made up of qualities that we hold to be noble/good etc. Because we "value" something, we usually attach a level of importance to it. And values are ranked then depending on society, the individual etc.

Morals deal with what is right and what is wrong.

Obviously people's morals are based on their values, but just because I value or choose not to value something does change that which is right, and that which is wrong.

I'll give you an example of one of my beliefs. (And please let's not debate it here if you disagree, I don't want this thread to go off on a completely different tangent.)

I am unapologetically pro-life. I view abortion as a completely immoral act. The taking of innocent life is objectively and intrinsically wrong. I haven't yet seen good reason for it yet.

I should make note at this point, that I view morals as absolutes, but for me to tell anyone "This is the way you need to live or else..." (Christians often say you'll go to hell) is the height of arrogance. I do not have the authority to tell you what you can and can not do, but I still see morals as what is right and what is wrong and there are clear cut answers.