Moral compass

So, I've been wondering for a time now, about most people, because for me there's no such thing as moral or immoral. What other people called immoral I merely saw as inconvenient, and then only because of the consequences, not for the act itself.

So, I was wondering...

Are you guys & gals driven my morality, or by consequences?

Perhaps thats not the best way to word the question, but I think its understandable at least. In case it is not here's an example.

Killing -- For most people is highly immoral. But not only that, the consequences are great in most cases. You could end in the hands of the police, or in worse hands yet...

Well, I think everyone is driven at least a little bit by their own morality. Example: you see a family member being attacked by a group, would you help that person or just sit back and watch? Chances are you'd help the person even though the consequence would probably be you getting injured as well.

However, most actions are driven by consequences rather than morals. For myself, there are far more decisions that I've made based on the consequences that would occur depending on my choice.

Everyone has their own sense of moral and immoral, and everyone decides how closely to follow those morals or to avoid those immoralities. So there may be some people who do make most of their decisions based on their own morals, but in today's age there are way more reasons to make a decision based on the consequences rather than your own morals. Due to punishments and rewards there are far more instances where someone abandoned their morals rather than following them.

So consequences are bound to be the majority deciding factor.

Definitely by consequence. I'm a Nihilist, so the very definition of morals means nothing to me. Although I have my own view of what I find to be acceptable and what isn't. A lot of people argue that is morals, but it is different. I don't think that way because others do, I don't care what anyone else thinks is moral or not, I only care what I think of the situation.

I also don't worry about those decisions based on religious morals, since I'm Atheist. I don't care if it is a sin, and I would go to Hell for killing someone. I would care because I would get in trouble for killing someone. *shrugs*

I think I kind of went off on my own there, but oh well.

At this point in my life there's very little I leave up to morality. Mostly it's pre existing circumstances that lead me to decide a certain way.

I just follow the laws of the country i live in (so consequence), lol tell you the truth i don't really believe in morality at all.

In philosophy, there is Morally Good, Immoral, and Amoral.

Morally Good is, you know, good. And the obvious is the same with Immoral.

Its the Amoral thing that complicates things. Amoral are actions done viewed without counting the factors that will give it morality. Example, driving is amoral, and so is eating, thinking, and heck, almost everything under the sun if not all.

Factor in quantity, the means, the ends, etc factors that will change your view on the action and it changes everything.

Driving to work = good; Driving to strip club with your wife waiting for you = bad.

Wait, it gets deeper.

Driving to work (where work is as an assassin or child trafficker) = bad;
Driving to strip club while wife is waiting for you (where you had a massive fight that morning, so you're avoiding to fight her and you need to cool your head off, and its just that one time you went to the strip club) = means is not that good, but the end is for the best.

As for OP's (original poster for you non-4chaners) example, which is murder, the same process of factoring must be applied.

Who was killed? Why? What for? Was it for the better? Was it to save a life? Was it just for fun? Who did it? Was he on his proper mind on the time he did the act?

This is a huge, complicated topic, guys...

Not as much as you make it. Basically my question is whether you stick to the 'Morally good' end of the spectrum, simply because that's what accepted as good socially (without expecting anything in return) or because, regardless or it being perceived as 'morally good' or 'morally bad', you simply rather not face the consequences the act would bring.

So for the sake of the thread we are assuming the driving was to fulfill a hit as a hit-man, that the killing would be for selfish reasons and that you are going to the strip club not to cool off, but in fact to take some steam.

Morality moves me. It might be the way I was raised or just because I'm a great believer of empathy but it just makes more sense to me.
Sure the consequences are also part of what makes me stop to think about what I'm doing, but more of it probably comes from from my perception of good and evil. Whether or not my perception is correct is a different matter entirely.

How is it that nothing is moral or immoral to u? You must have something to say about immoral. Surly you cant think the slaughtering of innocents is not good or bad. Or the extermination of your familly, genocide, abuse, or even threats on your life. There is good and bad in everyones life, i find it impossible for one to be gray, nither light nor dark, to have a mind of his/her own. Enlighten me.

Of course everyone has their own morals, my good morality could be someone else's bad moral. For instance, i think rape is immoral. However, Frank the rapist thinks rape is moral. I have not met any1 in my life without morals (whether they know it or not) every 1 has an oppinion.

Once you understand that morality is merely a product of the times and our perception of the world, you will be free of the lies and restrictions society places upon you. We shall see the truth, and the truth shall set us free.

Once guilt truly leaves a person, usually they end up as Nihilists.

For me, it's kinda both. Sometimes it's consequence and sometimes I believe it's morally wrong.

Killing is usually bad but if motives justify it then it is morally accepted correct?

Socrates asked Euthyphro to mentor him, as a student Socrates asked; "What is Piety?"
This argument holds very similar if not the same ideas as your thread question. In all honesty I cannot answer you question, because I do not know if I believe/understand morals. Were Robin Hoods actions just, its immoral to steal I suppose, but it is also moral to help the weak. Killing a man is it immoral? Would it be immoral then if the man tried to kill you, but was slain by you. I suppose it's a matter of opinion.

I have built my own set of morals, based upon sympathy for other humans over social acceptability.
My consequence equator is broken.

I know this answer works on a "third option" (excluding cake, which is always an option), but I believe the core of humanity is the ability to make it up as you go along, and that chaining yourself to somebody else's ideals leads to ruin.

I believe morals or what ever you guys call it, is made when you acquire knowledge and reasoning, and not something you are "gifted" with when born. "Morality" in my perception perceives to be a system made for every human to be able to live together with ease. Or in other words the weak and the strong living together rather then the whole law of nature fittest survive kind stuff.

If there is something called Moral, the closest thing to it is Law by mankind. Obey the law and you are moral, disobey and you are immoral therefore you will suffer the consequences. This is already thought as early as a child to not steal cookies from the drawer without permission to as late as not going around killing people. Feeling of guilt is presence because of the fear of consequences, you do NOT think "I killed someone, I am immoral.." but "I killed someone, i dont wanna go to jail", heck even a religious person would think "I killed someone, God would not forgive me, im going to hell" in his mind because in his perception of god as a higher living being can be similar based with law enforcers just that they are Level 99 with max stats.

There is nothing called truly moral and immoral. Everything is based on consequences, one guy doing something moral often conflicts with another guy who sees him as immoral.

Everything is a give and take, in the modern science society, you act to be a moral person for the only purpose of either getting care, friendship, love or avoiding hate, despise, and other negativities. I believe even if we do not think so, it happens in our sub-concious mind.

I don't really have a set or morals, but I do pay attention to possible consequences. If killing weren't illegal, I would have killed half of the US by now. Some possible consequences I just ignore, though. Like the consequences of stealing. I used to be a pick pocket and a thief. I didn't do it because I was poor or I wanted money, I did it because I could. I never got caught, so never care or really though about the consequences.

But I believe it's good to have a set of morals. It keeps you inline, and helps keep society in line.

Why would you have killed half of the US by now? I'm not being a jerk, but what right do you have to decide who lives and who dies? I guess I could be called a hypocrite because I believe in capital punishment, but half the US by now is not and should not be sentenced to capital punishment. Anyway, I still don't believe half the US deserves to die.

Why would you steal, pick pocket, etc. just because you could? Didn't you feel bad? You didn't need the money and you're stealing it from people who probably earned that money. I don't understand it and it makes me feel conflicted that there are people who would do immoral things just because they could. :(

I believe after the first time he picked pockets, and every time after, he realised the rate of getting caught is low, thus gaining confidence of regarding himself the consequences of it being nill.

i believe people avoid doing crime because of the percentage rate of getting caught, if you are not caught this time does not mean you wont be caught next time.

I actually like your theory yeah321, but you fail to account that many people do feel bad after stealing. Not so much because of the probability of getting caught (which depending on where you are and how you go about it) is close to nonexistent.

They will simply fret about having stole, and feel "bad" for the person.

Of course, everyone's different, and thats why I set-up this thread :>

It's been a long time since I have stolen anything. Did I feel bad? Eventually yes. At the time I didn't really gauge how my thievery could people, so I didn't feel bad and I keep doing it.

And the reason I would have killed have of the US is because when people piss me off, I generally have that "I'm gonna kill you" thought and reason I dismiss that thought is because it's illegal to do so. It's an automatic subconscious type deal. But if that rule/law weren't there, not only me, but society in general would have a much less respect for human life and it would become how you see it in the middle ages or in west in animes and tv show and movies: if someone piss someone else off, they'd immediately reach for their gun or their sword to solve the problem.

I folow rules...morals are something i was raised with andif i chose to follow them i will but most of the morals i wa raised with ended up being incorporated with the law so in a sense i can never break these so called morals. However there are certain exceptions to the rules like lying and raping :lol: cause the urge is there, strong it is in my body, rules broken can they not.