can a person's moral nature change?

[Rival]

the grey organ begins to fire on all cylinders.

Or sometimes appears to stop altogether.

 

[Eddi]

Could you please explain this? My first thought was "people are very good in acting and pretending", but you must mean something differently

By "We humans can never wilfully act contrary to our moral nature" I meant that a person cannot wilfully change their moral alignment but that our socialisation can cover up our true nature, or we can be lead astray from acting out our true nature, into acting contrary to our inherent nature - whilst our inherent nature remains the same

 

[Eddi]

You did not answer my question:
Are you saying that people are what they are and cannot change?

Yes

I believe some people are inherently good and others inherently bad

But that bad people can behave and be seen as being good people, and that good people can behave and be seen as being bad people

So I think that how people are considered can be changed

But that people still have an innate moral core that is either good or bad

 

[Rival]

Given that we are socialised from birth into a certain system, though, does anyone really know what his 'true moral nature' is?

 

[Eddi]

Given that we are socialised from birth into a certain system, though, does anyone really know what his 'true moral nature' is?

God does!

 

[Rival]

God does!

That's all well and good for G-d, but doesn't help us with it, lol.

 

[McBell]

Yes

I believe some people are inherently good and others inherently bad

But that bad people can behave and be seen as being good people, and that good people can behave and be seen as being bad people

So I think that how people are considered can be changed

But that people still have an innate moral core that is either good or bad

What is your basis for comparison?
Do you not allow any neutral?

For example chaotic neutral

 

[Eddi]

What is your basis for comparison?
Do you not allow any neutral?

For example chaotic neutral

I believe some people are more good than others, and that some people are more bad than others so I suppose there is a middle-ground, covered by people who (for instance) aren't at all bad but who do very little good, for other people

So yes, there is a neutral, in the middle of a linear moral spectrum

 

[Mock Turtle]

People can behave either goodly or badly - we can usually tell a good person by the good actions they do and a bad person by the bad actions that they do, as well as by examining their motives…

Claim: if a person starts acting differently that means that they have revealed their true nature, it doesn’t mean they have changed

For instance if a person who has always been considered truly good starts being bad that doesn’t mean they have changed, it means they were always bad but had been mis-classified

But for a definitive judgment, we’d have to examine their motivations as well

Claim: We humans can never wilfully act contrary to our moral nature

Claim: And people’s moral nature can never change

I'm mostly not a believer in the concept of good or bad people, but we can act good or bad at times, or for long periods, depending so often upon our circumstances (being mentally damaged, for example, even if not diagnosed as such), and of course the extent as to such might be influenced to some degree by our basic nature and/or how we are affected by our early childhood experiences. Even some with the best upbringing and most decent of parents seem to do bad deeds or turn out mostly bad, whilst the opposite is also often the case - a decent human being coming from the worst treatment and conditions. How we treat each other will no doubt affect how people behave too - which is why I am not so fond of so many right-wing policies - 'crime and punishment' going hand in hand regardless of the circumstances.

I believe that the morality which guides our lives can be built strongly without the need for a religious belief. Some are lucky to have that as being natural, and coming from some loving parents (I had such), but others too can build this. Unfortunately we all do not respond the same to what life throws at us and which varies enormously too, so trying to understand why one person does a bad deed and another never any can take quite a bit of untangling. Good and bad people is best left for fiction. That of course doesn't mean that some don't do what are considered morally bad deeds much of the time such that they are essentially acting bad all the time. But then such things often become a habit.

So, I think one can change one's moral nature, and on the other hand, one can act immorally even if one thinks oneself to be totally moral, often depending upon the circumstances. And of course morality is open to degree and interpretation - with myself not believing in such a thing as objective morality.

 

[McBell]

I believe some people are more good than others, and that some people are more bad than others so I suppose there is a middle-ground, covered by people who (for instance) aren't at all bad but who do very little good, for other people

So yes, there is a neutral, in the middle of a linear moral spectrum

Cool.


What is your basis for comparison?

 

[Rival]

Cool.


What is your basis for comparison?

Whenever someone says this phrase:

 

[Eddi]

Cool.


What is your basis for comparison?

You mean how can one tell the difference (between good and bad)???

I'd say by common-sense notions

I believe we humans are intuitively equipped to be able to judge other peoples' moral alignment

But of course we are helped with this by scripture, and the prevailing cultural norms of our time and place

 

[stvdv]

By "We humans can never wilfully act contrary to our moral nature" I meant that a person cannot wilfully change their moral alignment but that our socialisation can cover up our true nature, or we can be lead astray from acting out our true nature, into acting contrary to our inherent nature - whilst our inherent nature remains the same

Moral alignment and our true nature
Not all people have the same moral values, some people are called "heartless" or feel no guilt
So, if I understand your reply correctly you think that people can not improve to a higher level with higher moral values, correct?
Meaning, when you are born you have a given and fixed moral compass, which can not be improved in this life?

 

[McBell]

You mean how can one tell the difference (between good and bad)???

I'd say by common-sense notions

I believe we humans are intuitively equipped to be able to judge other peoples' moral alignment

But of course we are helped with this by scripture, and the prevailing cultural norms of our time and place

Not tell the difference between.

The basis for comparison.
You use terms like all, more, little when speaking of good and bad.
In order to use those words, you have to have a basis for comparison.

 

[Eddi]

Meaning, when you are born you have a given and fixed moral compass, which can not be improved?

Yes

But good people can be tempted or brought up to do bad things and think bad thoughts, and bad people can be inspired or brought up to do good things and think good thoughts - but that in such cases the surface behaviour is inauthentic, for either better or for worse

I believe that many people don't act and think according to their true inner self

I know that for many years this happened to me, I let myself down big time

 

[Eddi]

Not tell the difference between.

The basis for comparison.
You use terms like all, more, little when speaking of good and bad.
In order to use those words, you have to have a basis for comparison.

I'd construct a continuum of evil and virtue - with Adolf Hitler at one end (evil) and Jesus Christ at the other (virtue) and then place everyone between those two extremes accordingly with their moral alignment defined by their distance from the two polar opposites (but obviously such a thing would be based around my own personal beliefs and values)

So "more good" means "more like Jesus Christ and less like Adolf Hitler'

And "more bad" means "more like Adolf Hitler and less like Jesus Christ"

People could then be rated on the continuum according to how they compare, and the more people who are placed on the continuum the more precise it will become

Is that what you meant by a "basis for comparison"?

 

[McBell]

I'd construct a continuum of evil and virtue - with Adolf Hitler at one end (evil) and Jesus Christ at the other (virtue) and then place everyone between those two extremes accordingly with their moral alignment defined by their distance from the two polar opposites (but obviously such a thing would be based around my own personal beliefs and values)

So "more good" means "more like Jesus Christ and less like Adolf Hitler'

And "more bad" means "more like Adolf Hitler and less like Jesus Christ"

People could then be rated on the continuum according to how they compare, and the more people who are placed on the continuum the more precise it will become

Is that what you meant by a "basis for comparison"?

Yes.

What is your method of measure?

 

[Heyo]

Or sometimes appears to stop altogether.

Yep.

 

[sun rise]

My moral nature has changed. My Master had to hit me hard though

A true master who is jalali will reflect a student's tendencies back to the student to awaken.

Such masters are not easy to find - too many have lower motivations that to find a jewel among glass is a real blessing.

 

[sun rise]

Given that we are socialised from birth into a certain system, though, does anyone really know what his 'true moral nature' is?

In my belief system our true moral nature stems from love. How it manifests, temporary values, will be different. But the deepest motivation is rooted in love