How Flexible are Your Morals?

[Nakosis]

The research Everett and his colleague report suggest a different way of thinking about moral reasoning. Flexible morality may be a better guide to making difficult decisions in a complex world. But if you want other people to trust and cooperate with you, it’s better to let them know your moral values are absolute.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201611/where-does-our-moral-sense-come

I'm more of a morally flexible guy, still generally people see me as trustworthy. Usually I don't discuss my morals with most people so I imagine they assume a lot.

But when it comes to moral judgments like these, most of us aren’t swayed by argumentation. Our innate moral sense is absolute. It allows no exceptions, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Yet why should this be? Throughout history, humans have repeatedly faced situations in which they had to violate their innate moral code. They kill attackers to save themselves or family members. They lie so as not to hurt the feelings of loved ones. It seems that a flexible moral sense would be more adaptive.

In a recent paper, University of Oxford psychologist Jim Everett and his colleagues laid out a theory to explain the rigidity of our innate moral sense. They propose that our intuitive morality has been shaped not by the day-to-day dilemmas we face but rather by the opinions of other people. More specifically, Everett and his colleagues hypothesize that statements and behaviors consistent with an absolute moral code are signals of trustworthiness.

This is what I've generally assumed, that there is a genetic factor, but not an absolute genetic factor. IOW, not all morals are genetically transferred. Maybe it's these non-genetic moral ideals that people feel more flexible about.

However, I don't like bullies. It offends my sense of justice. Don't see myself as being able to change that.

Where do our morals, or sense of right and wrong come from. Seems a very complicated question. Some seem innate as stated. Others seem to be brought about by the opinions of others and personal experience.

Does most everyone have an "absolute" innate moral they are stuck with like bullies? As young as I can remember, bullying always violated my sense of right and wrong. Other things ideas of right and wrong I feel a lot more flexible about. Like self survival may put you in a situation where you find it necessary to steal, kill etc...

Another absolute for me is taking credit that's not due. Don't think I would find an exception for that.

Is there a list of absolute moral values that you'd see wrong without exception?

 

[Axe Elf]

Is there a list of absolute moral values that you'd see wrong without exception?

Yes. The list reads as follows:

1) Failure to love.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The research Everett and his colleague report suggest a different way of thinking about moral reasoning. Flexible morality may be a better guide to making difficult decisions in a complex world. But if you want other people to trust and cooperate with you, it’s better to let them know your moral values are absolute.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201611/where-does-our-moral-sense-come

I'm more of a morally flexible guy, still generally people see me as trustworthy. Usually I don't discuss my morals with most people so I imagine they assume a lot.

But when it comes to moral judgments like these, most of us aren’t swayed by argumentation. Our innate moral sense is absolute. It allows no exceptions, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Yet why should this be? Throughout history, humans have repeatedly faced situations in which they had to violate their innate moral code. They kill attackers to save themselves or family members. They lie so as not to hurt the feelings of loved ones. It seems that a flexible moral sense would be more adaptive.

In a recent paper, University of Oxford psychologist Jim Everett and his colleagues laid out a theory to explain the rigidity of our innate moral sense. They propose that our intuitive morality has been shaped not by the day-to-day dilemmas we face but rather by the opinions of other people. More specifically, Everett and his colleagues hypothesize that statements and behaviors consistent with an absolute moral code are signals of trustworthiness.

This is what I've generally assumed, that there is a genetic factor, but not an absolute genetic factor. IOW, not all morals are genetically transferred. Maybe it's these non-genetic moral ideals that people feel more flexible about.

However, I don't like bullies. It offends my sense of justice. Don't see myself as being able to change that.

Where do our morals, or sense of right and wrong come from. Seems a very complicated question. Some seem innate as stated. Others seem to be brought about by the opinions of others and personal experience.

Does most everyone have an "absolute" innate moral they are stuck with like bullies? As young as I can remember, bullying always violated my sense of right and wrong. Other things ideas of right and wrong I feel a lot more flexible about. Like self survival may put you in a situation where you find it necessary to steal, kill etc...

Another absolute for me is taking credit that's not due. Don't think I would find an exception for that.

Is there a list of absolute moral values that you'd see wrong without exception?

A few ones aligned with taking a life is limiting a persons freedom of expression.

There is a saying that sometimes verbal and emotional abuse can be worse if not side by side in intensity as physical abuse. But then when you have people who cant speak for themselves, who they are, and what they believe its already sufficating them without the pillow being over their faces. I could never do anything that would limit my freedom; so, when I see that with others, it's like Im experiencing it too.

Things that "copyright others" such as using someone elses property, ideas, beliefs etc without their permission, speaking for others without them saying so, stealing, cheating, lying, anything that impunes on someone else is/are morals I cant budge.

I dont think I have morals Im flexible on. I know my morals can be strengthened by personal experiences. It can challenged so that I see it in a different light to releave bias on whose at fault, but completely change, no.

 

[lukethethird]

How flexible are your morals?

How much money are we talking?

 

[sun rise]

Our innate moral sense is absolute. It allows no exceptions, regardless of extenuating circumstances.

My morals are absolute but there are times when two moral imperatives clash. For example, if a person steals a loaf of bread to give to a starving child, to me the higher moral absolute is to save the life of the child.

 

[Thief]

Yes. The list reads as follows:

1) Failure to love.

if I may....

morality is a line drawn

Love must be disciplined to be firm and applicable.....therefore....

Do unto others as you would have it done unto you

 

[Axe Elf]

Love must be disciplined to be firm and applicable...

I think we're talking about different kinds of love...

 

[Thief]

I think we're talking about different kinds of love...

post it

I will be here tomorrow

 

[Axe Elf]

post it

I will be here tomorrow

 

[Nakosis]

A few ones aligned with taking a life is limiting a persons freedom of expression.

There is a saying that sometimes verbal and emotional abuse can be worse if not side by side in intensity as physical abuse. But then when you have people who cant speak for themselves, who they are, and what they believe its already sufficating them without the pillow being over their faces. I could never do anything that would limit my freedom; so, when I see that with others, it's like Im experiencing it too.

Things that "copyright others" such as using someone elses property, ideas, beliefs etc without their permission, speaking for others without them saying so, stealing, cheating, lying, anything that impunes on someone else is/are morals I cant budge.

I dont think I have morals Im flexible on. I know my morals can be strengthened by personal experiences. It can challenged so that I see it in a different light to releave bias on whose at fault, but completely change, no.

What about lying? Is lying always wrong or might there be times that lying is the right way to go?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What about lying? Is lying always wrong or might there be times that lying is the right way to go?

Lying is always wrong. Yet, I know it can be justified. Think of murder. Murder is always wrong. But it can be justified full consequences if done in self defense. I think there is still a legal consequences, I think, but not charged as a premeditated crime.

A lot of things are immoral and justification doesn't make it right but in some cases necessary when someones life is at stake or a few other reasons I can't think of at the moment.

 

[oldbadger]

Lying is always wrong.

Oh dear....... is it? That indites every human who ever lived, I expect.

Yet, I know it can be justified.

Are you saying that wrongness can be Righteous?

Think of murder. Murder is always wrong.

True

But it can be justified full consequences if done in self defense.

No...... murder cannot be justified. But then killing during self defense is nothing to do with murder.

I think there is still a legal consequences, I think, but not charged as a premeditated crime.

What legal consequences are there in connection with causing a death of an attacker during self defense?

A lot of things are immoral and justification doesn't make it right but in some cases necessary when someones life is at stake or a few other reasons I can't think of at the moment.

I think the whole concept of 'moral', 'amoral' and 'immoral' is bunkum. We are either honest or dishonest, decent or indecent, violent or peaceful...... these words mean something, whereas all manner of hypocrisies hide behind the word 'Moral'.

 

[oldbadger]

This is what I've generally assumed, that there is a genetic factor, but not an absolute genetic factor. IOW, not all morals are genetically transferred. Maybe it's these non-genetic moral ideals that people feel more flexible about.

That is absolutely dreadful......... to go anywhere near the concept that 'morals' might be genetically transferred. Horrible!

You're straying into territories so prejudiced as to be utterly........ 'Immoral'!

Each person is their own self, as individual as their fingerprints, and to even try to gauge a person's character because their Mum or Dad once did a bad thing is ... frightening.

 

[Altfish]

Lying is always wrong. Yet, I know it can be justified.

I don't agree. For example...

Wife, "Does my bum look big in this?"
Husband "Yes"

Outcome = divorce.

Wife, "Does my bum look big in this?"
Husband "No darling it suits you fine"

Outcome = happy marriage

A less flippant example might be telling someone that they only have weeks to live. Would they be better off not knowing?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh dear....... is it? That indites every human who ever lived, I expect.

It is. People do it anyways.

Are you saying that wrongness can be Righteous?

If you murder, it is wrong. If you killed in self defense (please out aside definitions. I mean take a life) it's still wrong but the American legal system justifies it as righteous given the circumstances aren't premeditated. Jesus Christ is another example. Saints another.

No...... murder cannot be justified. But then killing during self defense is nothing to do with murder.

Legally it can. Morally it cannot. I understand the justifications for some people's situations that prompt them to take a life. Doesn't mean it's right but I understand it.

What legal consequences are there in connection with causing a death of an attacker during self defense?

I think.

I assume there is a charge or something for taking a life but legal consequences would be dropped or less consequences given the nature of the crime. Take A Few Good Men, movie. Two officers killed their peer because their sargent told them. They weren't charged with murder but they still suffered minor consequences by being let go even though they did nothing wrong. I don't think the movie made the whole thing from scratch, but I think...

I think the whole concept of 'moral', 'amoral' and 'immoral' is bunkum. We are either honest or dishonest, decent or indecent, violent or peaceful...... these words mean something, whereas all manner of hypocrisies hide behind the word 'Moral'.

Shrugs. We use so many perspectives to justify our actions. I feel we are consequences by our actions regardless the legal circumstances. Every action has an effect.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't agree. For example...

Wife, "Does my bum look big in this?"
Husband "Yes"

Outcome = divorce.

Wife, "Does my bum look big in this?"
Husband "No darling it suits you fine"

Outcome = happy marriage

A less flippant example might be telling someone that they only have weeks to live. Would they be better off not knowing?

I understand the justification in your white lies. I don't see the justification changes lying to be moral. The consequence depends on the culture but in general people overlook it.

 

[wellwisher]

Moral law was not designed for the individual. Rather immoral law was designed with the group in mind. If you look at the ten commandments these are all about optimizing the group. Morality was not designed to optimize the individual, except though the team affect, where the optimized team can become more that the sum of its parts.

For example if you look at the commandment, thou shall not steal, this does not benefit individuals who have criminal tendencies or who want nice things without having to work for it. It is designed to help maintain group cohesion by maintaining trust and encouraging the work ethic. The team by becoming more than the sum of its parts makes the individuals more than before, so gestures like sharing evolve.

The first Commandment about being only one God, was a way to help the group since religious arguments over Gods or not Gods, can divide the group, making it weaker. Arguments about God may help the ambitious form its own subgroup, but this divides the larger group.

As far as being flexible with morals, since the goal of morality is based on optimizing the group, so the team is more than the sum of the parts, sometimes white lies can be moral in the short term, if the person one is dealing with is not being rational and this can hurt the group via their irrationality. If a truth or facts divides the group that can be immoral under some circumstances. If Joe is ugly and that is a fact, why create hard feelings with his family and friends. It may be best not to say anything or find a way to maintain group needs.

However, in the long term, the group would need to make the irrational, more rational. The group does not need the rational people regressing to constant illusions to appease insecurities, since a group full of insecure and irrational people will divide the group.

If the wife asks if she looks fat in her new dress and the truth is yes, one might say, "no" to keep peace. This is OK in the short term, but not in the long term. She will need to eventually sober up, since her vain insecurity is immoral by being detrimental to the group, since it encourages lying. Lying not a good habit to start. It is not in the best interest of the group to have the neurotic leading the rational to lie. However, therapy takes time.

 

[Thief]

I think we're talking about different kinds of love...

post it

I will be here tomorrow

well.....yeah.....

we are not on the same page

 

[Nakosis]

That is absolutely dreadful......... to go anywhere near the concept that 'morals' might be genetically transferred. Horrible!

You're straying into territories so prejudiced as to be utterly........ 'Immoral'!

Each person is their own self, as individual as their fingerprints, and to even try to gauge a person's character because their Mum or Dad once did a bad thing is ... frightening.

Well, this seems an absolute for you.

It's fine to disagree with the OP, but then where do you feel your morals originate from?

 

[Nakosis]

Lying is always wrong. Yet, I know it can be justified. Think of murder. Murder is always wrong. But it can be justified full consequences if done in self defense. I think there is still a legal consequences, I think, but not charged as a premeditated crime.

A lot of things are immoral and justification doesn't make it right but in some cases necessary when someones life is at stake or a few other reasons I can't think of at the moment.

I see it in more simple terms. People choose to act because they feel that action is right in that moment. Justification usually come after the fact. Someone did what they felt was right at the moment of action but because of culture, opinion, maybe religious values they seek to justify what they did. IMO if the action was really wrong, immoral, in their view, they would have never done it in the first place.

It's peer pressure, consequence, cultural upbringing which causes folks to justify their actions. People always act IMO according to their true morals. IOW, a person lies, whatever, because they felt it was the right thing to do. Justification is a result of social constructs.

There's personal morals, which a person always acts by and there's group morals which is not the true nature of the person but the way the person has to behave to remain a part of the group.

So while the group view is that lying is always wrong, obviously detrimental to the whole of the group, individually a person lies because they felt it was the "right" thing to do.