Everyday I'm baffled at just how insane some people's ethics and morality are.

A guy I know wanted to try taking Adderall and commented, "It's not unethical, I don't think". I was at a party a few weeks ago and some guys I know were doing coke. Everyone at the party was drunk and/or high on weed, yet these guys were essentially "shunned" because they were seen doing coke. It's really crazy how people have been manipulated into making extremely negative judgements on relatively insignificant things. A cocaine high for instance isn't much different than drinking a lot of coffee. The only difference is that it's short-lived and you don't feel ill like you do with caffeine. Marijuana has a much stronger, more dehabilitating effect, yet cocaine is viewed as downright "bad". Indeed, people are strangely discriminant of chemicals. They'll guzzle down synthetic food, candy, pop, and juices, but a "drug"? "Better not try that!"

I also find it distressing how people view others' character in terms of black and white (not racially). In general, one bad act is enough to permanently condemn a man (either literally or figuratively), yet 100 good acts are hardly given any consideration. If a person kills another in cold blood, but saves other people's lives, many still would view the person as an unquestionable scumbag. People also have an easy time accepting that a person can "go bad", but the idea of the person becoming "good" again seems far-fetched.

In general, I think "good and bad" are ridiculous terms for describing a person, namely because every single one of us is capable of being a vicious animal or a saint. I think the Stanford Prison experiments, Milgram's experiments, and Abu-Graihb provide pretty good support for that.

Anyways...what do you guys think? What are your morals and ethics like? How do you make judgements of things and people?

In a word: I think every single human being is both "good" and "evil" (I'm aware that these are completely arbitrary qualities outside of human society), and the real measure of a person's character is not just what they do, but whether they keep doing it. If Joe Blo kills an innocent person, feels remorse, and then never does it again, I would likely not let that "evil act" taint my image of him permanently. If Joe Schmoe kills someone, feels bad (or feels nothing), and then does it again...that's when I'd start solidifying my judgement of him being a bad person.

EDIT: In practical terms, I understand that if someone has already committed a given act, then you know their personality would allow them to do it again. So, I certainly wouldn't want to hang out with a convicted murderer, but in principle, I wouldn't judge their moral character soley on isolated behavior.

you are thinking of things in terms of aristotelian ethics, and as such you have to accept that there are natural born slaves, or people who will never lead an ethically moral life - these are the people at the party whom you view down upon, and the same people who can view one act as "good" and another as "bad" in whatever context they come through.

as for my own ethics - i try to be like kant, and simply use reason to dictate what the "right" thing to do. however, i am also very skeptical of every action and it's consequence, and the notion that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to do something is not anything i readily accept - how can you say that one action is better than another, ever?

as for my own ethics - i try to be like kant, and simply use reason to dictate what the "right" thing to do. however, i am also very skeptical of every action and it's consequence, and the notion that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to do something is not anything i readily accept - how can you say that one action is better than another, ever?

I like that.

How would that apply to situations involving murder (ie. something that's pretty much always viewed as "wrong")? If a person had a reason to get rid of another person, and opted to kill them (even though there were other options), what would be your judgement of them?

I like that.

How would that apply to situations involving murder (ie. something that's pretty much always viewed as "wrong")? If a person had a reason to get rid of another person, and opted to kill them (even though there were other options), what would be your judgement of them?
it depends on which vantage point you have - and as an outsider to the murder itself, we are inclined to say that murder is wrong based upon society deeming it so.

let's say that "joe" murders "sam". under just this sentence, the outsider would say that joe is "bad" and "sam" is the victim.

but let's look at it from joe's perspective. sam turns out to be a drug dealer, and his drugs lead to joe's daughter's death. under this new vantage point, we now know that joe didn't just senselessly kill "sam" - instead he was out for revenge, or out on a vigilante spree. his viewpoint and his logic lead to the conclusion that killing another man was the right thing to do, so that there wouldn't be more victims such as his daughter, or so he could have peace of mind to move on. joe turns out to be a victim as well, in another context.

but now let's look at sam's point of view. he only has to sell drugs because of a huge loan he has to pay - and being a two-time convicted felon means that he cannot hold a stable job, but does have good connections for drugs. so without anything else to do to let himself survive in america, he must sell drugs. the loss of people's daughters in this case, was overcome by his own living actions, and deemed the right choice. the consequences then, he sees as wrong - he was just making a living. sam also turns out to be a victim in some sense as well, not only in the fact that he got shot.

this is only three of several vantage points we can take into such a situation, and in every murder situation, there are reasons, pros and cons, and consequences that make up things. but everyone only has their own vantage point from which to get information. as an outsider to the problem, i cannot say whether someone is right or wrong, because i don't know enough to say so; it could turn out that both persons are "right" or that both are "wrong".

I actually raised an issue similar to this during a discussion with my consciousness. (At the time I was on the gym bike and listening to meditative trances to help me establish a connection with my foreign spiritual side). Anyway at some point in the meeting I, or my consciousness made an astute remark about human behavior. The response was "Everyone has different ways of showing their lack of common sense" in regard to alcoholics being judgmental of stoners. Hope that helps.

I actually raised an issue similar to up during a discussion with my consciousness. (At the time I was on the gym bike and listening to meditative trances to help me establish a connection with my foreign spiritual side). Anyway at some point in the meeting I, or my consciousness made an astute remark about human behavior. The response was "Everyone has different ways of showing their lack of common sense" in regard to alcoholics being judgmental of stoners. Hope that helps.

That's pretty good.

Eww, Kantian Deontology. Barf. Though I do agree with his "treat others as an end, rather than as a means" and that the scope for this should be expanded to all sentient beings. In fact, I tend to enjoy Reagan over Singer when it comes to animal ethics. Anyhow, universalizing maxims is a big no no in my book. It would destroy those S&Mers for good :) I don't know what my ethics are, other than they are very contextual, with a wide scope, and try to entail the concepts of pain, pleasure, and Utilitarianism.

As for looking down at someone for doing x drug, I don't make any moral judgment based on such, though if I see someone that is clearly addicted, to anything, I do feel quite bad for them and think they should probably give it a serious look over. I think people have such negative feelings toward coke users because they often view them, tautologically, as being addicts to a very debilitating drug. Even if it isn't always true, it is just the stereotype. Weed smokers are just the coke heads of the 80's, though I agree it's a much better drug of choice.

you should stop posting here derdache

My ethics are based on an approximation of the structure of my relevant emotions. Specifically, they have a lot to do with individual freedom, but that's because of how I feel about it.

I get the sense that deep down that's true for most people. Some systems of morality are more complicated than others, but whether you're just relying on a blacklist of 'bad things' or determining whether something contributes to the greater social good, whether something is right or wrong is intimately connected to how you feel about it or things associated with it. Even if it didn't come from you, if it's based on religion or something, if someone really believes in a system of ethics it's because they feel strongly about its implications and consequences.

To all above: how do you trust your own ethics? In the sense that, to be espousing such grand and eloquent statements as there are above, is to place supreme faith in your own perceptions of those you judge. Do none of you admit to any prejudices or presupposition?

I have come to the conclusion that one's hatred or contempt is usually just their ignorance shining through.

I see this all the time in myself and in others.

My ethics can't be entirely based on logic as logic is not even close to being everything. When in doubt, always fall on the Golden Rule.

When in doubt, always fall on the Golden Rule.

Never tell that to a masochist.

I have genius ethics because they are relativistic.

meh, i try to use logic when applicable. if the situation calls for deeper thinking, i either avoid it or try to work logic back into my decision making.

A cocaine high for instance isn't much different than drinking a lot of coffee.

This is where I stopped reading.

This is where I stopped reading.

shanin has a lot of experience when it comes to cocain

shanin has a lot of experience when it comes to cocain

I haven't done cocaine, but I have done the research into drugs far, far more than the typical drug user, and real cocaine does NOT feel like coffee.

Never tell that to a masochist.

I said when in doubt. If a masochist tries to share his love of pain with you I don't see how you'd have a doubt of what to do to them.

it depends on which vantage point you have - and as an outsider to the murder itself, we are inclined to say that murder is wrong based upon society deeming it so.

let's say that "joe" murders "sam". under just this sentence, the outsider would say that joe is "bad" and "sam" is the victim.

but let's look at it from joe's perspective. sam turns out to be a drug dealer, and his drugs lead to joe's daughter's death. under this new vantage point, we now know that joe didn't just senselessly kill "sam" - instead he was out for revenge, or out on a vigilante spree. his viewpoint and his logic lead to the conclusion that killing another man was the right thing to do, so that there wouldn't be more victims such as his daughter, or so he could have peace of mind to move on. joe turns out to be a victim as well, in another context.

but now let's look at sam's point of view. he only has to sell drugs because of a huge loan he has to pay - and being a two-time convicted felon means that he cannot hold a stable job, but does have good connections for drugs. so without anything else to do to let himself survive in america, he must sell drugs. the loss of people's daughters in this case, was overcome by his own living actions, and deemed the right choice. the consequences then, he sees as wrong - he was just making a living. sam also turns out to be a victim in some sense as well, not only in the fact that he got shot.

this is only three of several vantage points we can take into such a situation, and in every murder situation, there are reasons, pros and cons, and consequences that make up things. but everyone only has their own vantage point from which to get information. as an outsider to the problem, i cannot say whether someone is right or wrong, because i don't know enough to say so; it could turn out that both persons are "right" or that both are "wrong".I much prefer the way this guy (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html) puts it.

I don't have a code of ethics or morals. I do pretty much what I feel like now, and don't try to live to some silly ideal, cause that would just make me unhappy. Sure I play within the rules of what the herd thinks is OK, but morality is for people who believe they'll achieve something greater in themselves through it. I just take a dynamic approach to everything in life, cause a static code of ethics is ridiculous. Pretty much everything I do in life is based around similar concepts to chess. It's all about putting myself in the best position to attack, defend, maintain the status quo, or conquer.

When it comes to judging others, I don't even bother, cause who am I to judge another person's actions. Even murder, half the time I could give a fuck, and justice is a joke. Justice doesn't exist. When we pass judgment on another persons judgments, we become the same thing as them. People who kill, make the judgment to kill, despite reasons. When we judge their judgment, we are making the same judgment, so are we then not just as stupid? I'm pretty sure that there isn't such a thing as a person killing without reason. Unless we are in their exact same position as them, how can we pass judgment on them. Really, criminals need to be rehabilitated, not punished. I think people need to understand that given the right stresses, we're all criminals, so we shouldn't be so hasty in how we establish our laws, and enforce them.

To me, my goal is to bring this world better function, not change the fact that it's messed up, cause I don't feel we can change that. We'll always have murder, rape, drug use, violence, theft, adultery, pedophilia, etc... We can create a good order and function, but trying to press against these things doesn't work at all. There are better alternatives to a lot of things really, but people are too stuck in their moralistic and ethical ways to realize that the big picture is adapting society around our own nature, and not changing our nature to fit our ideal of society. We can change society, but we can't change our nature.

i shall now paraphrase you thoughts with 3 words.. "people are dumbasses"

your welcome

Cocaine.. Is Like Coffee? Have you been snorting that happy brown powder agian buddy?
I read that, and stopped reading.

You Fail.

Rational self interest ftw.
It's trying figure the basis by which you determine what actually is in your best interest(beyond the obvious) that can be difficult.

I haven't done cocaine, but I have done the research into drugs far, far more than the typical drug user, and real cocaine does NOT feel like coffee.

Do you realize how much of a retard you are, nshanin? Have you EVER made a post that wasn't fucking retarded?

You admit that you haven't done cocaine, thus how can you so confidently say "omg it's not like caffeine". My point was that the main sensation was feeling energized. It's obviously different and much better than caffeine, but the general sensations are fairly close. The main difference is that if you drink a lot of caffeine and get hyper, you also will feel ill and uncomfortable. Coke makes you feel good, and it doesn't take much to feel hyper.

Also, my BIGGEST point, the one that your stupid ass completely missed, was that cocaine simply isn't worth all the hype. It makes you feel hyper and good for a half hour...people's aversion to it is absurd when you consider that the effects are much less dehabilitating than alcohol and weed.

It makes you feel hyper and good for a half hour...people's aversion to it is absurd when you consider that the effects are much less dehabilitating than alcohol and weed.

so you've clearly never done coke either. Maybe you've done it once but you clearly know nothing about it.

you should take my advice and never post here again

so you've clearly never done coke either. Maybe you've done it once but you clearly know nothing about it.

you should take my advice and never post here again

I know my way around coke, from personal experience, which is more than you morons can say. The fact that you kidiots are caught up on that (an insignificant part of my original post) is pretty much proving part of my point. You apparently are convinced it's a big deal when it's just some chemicals that give you a relatively mild high.

And indeed, it's much better than weed and alcohol. If I smoke, I become a full-fledged retard for several hours. If I drink and smoke, I become twice as retarded and black out. Weed effects different people differently, of course, but anyone who knows what they're talking about would agree that coke doesn't not make you into a bumbling retard.

I've done coke several times. The fact that you kidiots are caught up on that (an insignificant part of my original post) is pretty much proving part of my point. You apparently are convinced it's a big deal when it's just some chemicals that give you a relatively mild high.

And indeed, it's much better than weed and alcohol. If I smoke, I become a full-fledged retard for several hours. If I drink and smoke, I become twice as retarded and black out. Weed effects different people differently, of course, but anyone who knows what they're talking about would agree that coke doesn't not make you into a bumbling retard.

I started reading your OP then realized you didn't know what you were talking about so I told you to never post here again which is good fuckin advice. You know nothing about coke. For one thing its not the added chemicals that get you high, retard and if smoking a joint makes you retarded you were retarded to begin with. I smoke a joint and become lazier and usually slightly happier and thats about it. When I used to do coke I'd rob people and lie which are more the actions of a retard than someone who smokes a joint after work or whatever.

basically weed and liquor make you retarded because you are in fact retarded and they highlight it. Coke is much stronger than weed and being drunk is much different than being high on coke. I dunno wtf this has to do with any argument you have other than proving whatever you say holds no weight because you're a self described retard.

also, never post here again

I started reading your OP then realized you didn't know what you were talking about so I told you to never post here again which is good fuckin advice. You know nothing about coke. For one thing its not the added chemicals that get you high, retard and if smoking a joint makes you retarded you were retarded to begin with. I smoke a joint and become lazier and usually slightly happier and thats about it. When I used to do coke I'd rob people and lie which are more the actions of a retard than someone who smokes a joint after work or whatever.

basically weed and liquor make you retarded because you are in fact retarded and they highlight it. Coke is much stronger than weed and being drunk is much different than being high on coke. I dunno wtf this has to do with any argument you have other than proving whatever you say holds no weight because you're a self described retard.

also, never post here again

I knew I had on you my ignore-list for a reason. I really hope you're trolling...it'd be a shame for someone to be so stupid.

I knew I had on you my ignore-list for a reason. I really hope you're trolling...it'd be a shame for someone to be so stupid.

I have reason to believe you're hooked up to a THC IV that makes you a "full fledged retard" for all hours of the day.

never come here again. "here" meaning anywhere where I could be aware of a presence as pathetic as yours.