Dunning-Kruger as Applied to Morality

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A partially formed and oddly misshapen thought has been whirling around my mind today, which seems to need the assistance of the more philosophically minded thinkers of the group in order to come to a more explicable state.  To summarize: the Dunning-Kruger effect holds that the more expertise an individual has in a particular subject, the more likely that person is to be modest and demure concerning the subject; whereas, conversely, the less competent are more often boastful and haughty, seemingly unaware of their own ignorance.  We tend to think of this in terms of academics or of profession; but what if the same principle applies to morality? 

 

What if those who are truly moral are more likely to focus on their own faults and failures, while those who would stab you in the back in a heartbeat are blissfully ignorant of their own depravity?  I'm sure religion, and, in America certainly, conservatism, also plays into this.  It's open for discussion; and I will try to add more clarification as it comes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The question, I suppose, runs along two fronts; or maybe there are simply two questions. 

 

Is it intrinsic, instinctive even, human nature to be so ignorant of the true state of ourselves, be it the state of our intelligence, our professional competence, our true, rather than perceived, ethics (as in, "I don't know what I'd do until I'm in that situation; but I'd like to think I'd do X or maybe Y but certainly not Z)?  Or is it simply that our modern conveniences have us so distracted, so disconnected from our selves that we genuinely have no clue (and does Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs come into play)?  It seems to me that if Ogga the caveman got trampled by the wooly mammoth on the last hunt, he'd be the least likely to swagger onto the killing field with any sense of derring-do this time around.  Yet, let a guy fail advanced trigonometry twice in a row and he'll still try to explain cosines to the underclassmen. 

 

Secondly, is it possible that I am not, in reality, as moral as I believe myself to be (and, if so, how do I fix it tout fucking suite)?  As an example, I am deeply concerned with my own personal integrity.  I've spoken of it many times over the years on this website.  It stems from growing up in a family of deceit, dark whisperings, secrecy, and distrust.  It also stems from having lived for many years as a dishonest and untrustworthy person myself.  But, is it possible that my concern for personal integrity has blinded me to the fact that I might, in reality, still be a liar in more ways than I realize?  What is truth, then?  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Of course, I am speaking of my own sense of integrity here.  It is easy to understand that a man who feels the need to constantly reassure you that he's an honest fellow will most likely lie to you within the first two sentences following each reassurance.  But lying isn't the only form of dishonesty, nor is deceit the only presentation of a lack of integrity.  If I only speak part of my mind, but not the whole, have I truly been honest?

 

But, let's not get hung up only on the example of integrity.  What of theft?  I would never!  But when I am too focused on my phone to properly answer my son's question, have I not robbed him of understanding?  And of time?  And of a sense of his own self-worth and importance?

 

So, perhaps my own semi-obsession with achieving a higher personal morality is robbing me of the practice of achieving a higher personal morality.  Or am I over-thinking this?

[♦ Fuego ♦]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

while those who would stab you in the back in a heartbeat are blissfully ignorant of their own depravity

 

In some cases, they aren't ignorant of it, they see it as winning. Winning is ALL that matters ("Winning isn't everything; it is the only thing"), and lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are all part of the perceived game. The goal can be wealth, fame, political power, or just control over a spouse or children. Nevertheless, this very confidence does often lead to them staying in charge. In their view, the rules and introspection are for other idiots who don't know how to win. The televangelist years showed an endless parade of confident hucksters peddling religion to people that eagerly gobbled it up, and joined in the feeling of being part of a national movement of evangelical political action. 

 

Others (often the followers of the above leaders) who do tout their views as truth may well be ignorant of their stupidity and the havoc it creates. 

 

For personal integrity, the descriptions above are what others are choosing to be and do. Purposefully becoming what we want to embody involves choosing, succeeding, choosing, failing, choosing again. Failure isn't a matter of punishment or labeling as much as it is what we next choose to do. Observing our own emotions and behaviors is a good practice. I think that is called mindfulness, or at least is an aspect of that. 

 

I have to do this every hour with my remaining house cat, who is aging and a bit senile. I never wanted cats at all, the wife did, so my challenge is to be kind and good to these creatures that I wish were not in my house. Even when they vomit on the floor repeatedly. Even when one pissed all over a leather hide-a-bed and destroyed it for seemingly no reason. Even when he treats me as his cult object of affection when I don't want to ever hear him again. I failed repeatedly. But I also caught myself repeatedly and chose to act kindly to this relatively tiny being that depends on me. I still wish the remaining one would find her way to the "other side", but she hangs on. So I settle into a semi-routine of feeding her and giving her treats to make her last days as comfortable as I can, letting her sit on my lap and petting her for a while every morning. It really doesn't cost me much, and to her is very important. You can tell that I've thought about my behavior towards her a lot, and I often think of her as a lesson of sorts. What if the roles were reversed, and I had a single sound to communicate my every desire? "Mowr". What if there is a next life, and I'm her cat? How would I want to be treated and spoken to? 

 

Introspection is useful, but don't expect others to give a damn about what they have already concluded is truth or lies. Most people really don't introspect much. Some recent stories about politicians or influencers who were anti-vax until they caught the virus and died from it, regretting and recanting only on their death beds. Does that even change their families or followers? Not usually. They are used to belief being all important and unquestioned. 

 

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To summarize: the Dunning-Kruger effect holds that the more expertise an individual has in a particular subject, the more likely that person is to be modest and demure concerning the subject; whereas, conversely, the less competent are more often boastful and haughty, seemingly unaware of their own ignorance.  We tend to think of this in terms of academics or of profession; but what if the same principle applies to morality? 

 

That's a good point. There are countless examples of christians, in particular, taking moral superiority stances only to be uncovered later as quite immoral, even completely over the top immoral by their own standards of immorality. Because of this I generally see red flags where over the top moral preaching is found. And my own rule of thumb having grown up in a christian school and church system is 'the more pious, the more likely to be devious.' Just do to experience witnessing this to the be the case so many times. 

 

But it's hard to say if this is a type of Dunning-Kruger because they usually aren't ignorant of their own immorality, they just excuse or justify it to themselves. Then put on what must be a facade to everyone else. Such as railing against homosexuals and then getting caught with a tranny hooker. Or getting caught stealing money from the church. Or here's a recent example, a guy that I used to work with in sales who was a very loud so called christian conservative on facebook tried calling me from prison. I didn't accept the calls. But looked into it. Apparently he's been arrested because his wife tuned into the security cams at home and found him under the covers with their 

under age granddaughter in the living room. Then they went into the master bedroom and she saw him having sexual relations with the granddaughter. He's gonna die in prison one way or another from the looks of it.

 

7 hours ago, Fuego said:

In some cases, they aren't ignorant of it, they see it as winning. Winning is ALL that matters ("Winning isn't everything; it is the only thing"), and lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are all part of the perceived game. The goal can be wealth, fame, political power, or just control over a spouse or children. Nevertheless, this very confidence does often lead to them staying in charge. In their view, the rules and introspection are for other idiots who don't know how to win. The televangelist years showed an endless parade of confident hucksters peddling religion to people that eagerly gobbled it up, and joined in the feeling of being part of a national movement of evangelical political action. 

 

Liars for the lord.....

 

7 hours ago, Fuego said:

Introspection is useful, but don't expect others to give a damn about what they have already concluded is truth or lies. Most people really don't introspect much. Some recent stories about politicians or influencers who were anti-vax until they caught the virus and died from it, regretting and recanting only on their death beds. Does that even change their families or followers? Not usually. They are used to belief being all important and unquestioned. 

 

Yes, people tend not to get into introspection much. But we tend to. Do to the act of leaving christianity or religion in general introspection often follows. And that does set people in a community like this one aside from the general public in that way. 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Secondly, is it possible that I am not, in reality, as moral as I believe myself to be (and, if so, how do I fix it tout fucking suite)?  As an example, I am deeply concerned with my own personal integrity.  I've spoken of it many times over the years on this website.  It stems from growing up in a family of deceit, dark whisperings, secrecy, and distrust.  It also stems from having lived for many years as a dishonest and untrustworthy person myself.  But, is it possible that my concern for personal integrity has blinded me to the fact that I might, in reality, still be a liar in more ways than I realize?  What is truth, then?  

 

Let's explore this. 

 

What do you think that you're still a liar about? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Let's explore this. 

 

What do you think that you're still a liar about? 

As an off-the-cuff example: Ms. Professor and I are planning to move in the very near future.  I will tell my dad that there is a job opportunity that I would like to take, which is "the truth."  But The Truth is that there has been so much drama with my mother over the past few years that I would rather move my family away from my ancestral homeland than have to continue living in such close proximity to her.  For me, this is saying one thing while thinking another, which runs counter to the principle that thought, words, and actions should always be in harmony.  I justify it by telling myself I am only trying to avoid more drama, hurt feelings, and further damage to the family situation; but the yang side of my yin tells me I should just give it to mom with both barrels and be done with her; because that is the "honest" thing to do.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Fuego said:

 

In some cases, they aren't ignorant of it, they see it as winning. Winning is ALL that matters

I spent 13 years married to a win-at-all-costs type.  Ms. Ex-neck  doesn’t care who gets hurt, who gets screwed, or who has to pay, so long as she gets her way.  She would say or do whatever she needed to yesterday to get what she thought she wanted; and then say and do the exact opposite today because she wanted something new.

 

Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, she has effectively taken Redneck Jr. away from me, both legally and emotionally.  She has convinced the Superior Court of Coweta County, Georgia that I am an abusive manipulator, that I have severe Aspberger syndrome, and even that I persecuted her and forced her not to be able to express her true “christian" faith because I was such an intolerant atheist.  I’m not even an atheist; I’m agnostic and I’m certainly not all that militant about it.  But a courthouse in the Deep South, slap full of Good Ol' Boy judges, they ate that up like hounds at their kibble.

 

Worse still, she has convinced the boy that he doesn’t want anything more to do with me.  Nevermind that he is getting to an age where he’ll need more fatherly advice and wisdom.  Nevermind that he is suffering now, and will suffer even more in the future from the absence of his dad.  She only cares that she gets total control over his life and she can blame me for the outcome later.

 

It’s easy for me, having been so close to the situation, to see the reality of who she is.  Not so much for other people, though.  Obviously.  The courts can’t see through her.  The boy can’t either.  Hell, my own parents have taken her side in all of this; and betrayed my trust more times than I can count.

 

But does she see herself as she really is; or has she convinced herself as much as anybody else?

 

For her, morality is like a Dewalt battery pack.  It is a very useful tool that can take on any number of forms and functions depending on the current need.  It can be a saw, or a drill, or even a light.

 

But isn’t that true for all of us?

[florduh]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Or am I over-thinking this?

I would say yes. The fact that you are even cognizant of your own behavior and express a desire to not emulate the bad behaviors you've witnessed puts you in the camp of the good guys.

 

Also, I have always wondered about those "less competent are more often boastful and haughty, seemingly unaware of their own ignorance" folks. Are they truly unaware of their bad behavior or have they actually fooled themselves? I suppose on the individual level there is a bit of each, but I have my doubts about the organized groups (political parties, religious sects, pineapple pizza makers).

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, florduh said:

pineapple pizza makers.

Fuck those guys.  They know exactly what they're doing and it just sickens me that they don't care.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In my own case, I was raised with neither emotion nor empathy.  Without emotion, because my father and his German blood abhorred it.  “Everything should be done decently and in order,” was one of his many mantras on the subject.  It was confusing, because my mother has always been given to unnecessarily disproportionate hysterics.  Empathy was simply unnecessary because I had religion.  I didn’t need to understand what someone else was going through, or feel what they felt, to know that jesus was the answer.  It would have been a waste of time to walk a mile in another’s shoes, only to discover that they wouldn’t be having problems to begin with if they just trusted the lord as I did.

 

Since it could not be driven by emotion and empathy, my morality was therefore dictated by the commandments.  Thou shalt motherfucking not, bitches!  This left me both indifferent and completely ignorant of the reasoning behind morality.  Blind obedience leaves little room for the whys and wherefores.

 

I had a moment in my late 20s when, after consuming a copious amount of brown liquor,  I awoke alone in an empty field, still clothed as good fortune would have it.  As the haze of ethanol dallied about in my mind, I noticed a thin reddish ribbon of sky hanging low on the horizon.  It became necessary for me to orient myself North to South before I could determine whether the sky-ribbon represented dusk or dawn.  But, in order to do so, I first had to find familiar landmarks or other directional clues.  In a similar manner, awaking from the torrid stupor of religious moral ambiguity required understanding basic concepts first, upon which more grandiose principles could be built.  For me, this has been an arduous journey, fraught with mishap, and often necessitating the  relearning of concepts hitherto thought firmly understood.

 

I first came to understand that I do not like being lied to.  But I still did not know why.  It may seem strange; but, at that point in my life, I was still very out-of-touch with myself, with my own thought processes, even with my own emotions.  In those days, I would often suddenly realize, and be quite surprised to boot, that I was livid as hell about something someone said or did 3 weeks ago.  It didn’t occur to me to get pissed right when it happened, which would have been the appropriate response.  So, for me to realize that I didn’t like being lied to, but still didn’t know why, was not such a foreign concept for me.

 

I have learned, from my own experience, that experience is the best way for me to learn.  As such, I had to wait until I had been lied to too many times for it to finally click.  “I deserve better…”  This is such a simple concept, intellectually; but in practical terms…

 

I finally understood that it sucks to be lied to, abused, manipulated, mistreated.  Because I deserve better.  I used to think that in order to be a good person, I had to do good things; and, thus, the commandments. But, like the oozing of oil, a new idea began smearing its way around the inside of my brain-pan.  Perhaps, in order to do good things, I had to be a good person.  Perhaps I had been a good person all along and that is what made me capable of doing good things.

 

Something weird happened.  I came to understand the golden rule and its inverse corollary (do not do unto others as you would not have done to you) in terms of how good people should treat other good people, without considering myself into the equation.  Certainly, I could see as far as doing unto others because I was a good person; but the doing unto me part still depended on whether they were a good person or not.  As a result, despite having a better attitude about my self and my actions, I still got lied to, cheated, abused… all of it.

 

It has only been in recent years that I have begun to explore what a friend of mine jokingly referred to as “The Platinum Rule.”  Do not allow others to do unto you what you would not do unto them.  Because how I am treated should not depend on anyone else.  How others are treated by me is my responsibility; but how I allow others to treat me is equally my responsibility.

 

Nonetheless, after more than 20 years of struggle, I have finally come to a point at which I can honestly say that my morality is truly my own.  Yet, there is a nagging question in my mind: have I only gotten to the point at which I falsely assume I understand it based simply on my ability to define, and even explain, it? 

[florduh]

RNP, have you been skipping meditation lately? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, florduh said:

RNP, have you been skipping meditation lately? 

No; but the voices in my head have switched to sending text messages all night and I haven't gotten much sleep lately.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It has only been in recent years that I have begun to explore what a friend of mine jokingly referred to as “The Platinum Rule.”  Do not allow others to do unto you what you would not do unto them.  Because how I am treated should not depend on anyone else.  How others are treated by me is my responsibility; but how I allow others to treat me is equally my responsibility.

 

I Like It!

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Worse still, she has convinced the boy that he doesn’t want anything more to do with me.  Nevermind that he is getting to an age where he’ll need more fatherly advice and wisdom.  Nevermind that he is suffering now, and will suffer even more in the future from the absence of his dad.  She only cares that she gets total control over his life and she can blame me for the outcome later.

 

This is probably the ultimate gut punch for any parent. I'm actually surprised the courts are still like that down there. When I had my first divorce with my boys mom it was like that up here in north Georgia specifically Gordon County at the time. I got the short end of the stick.... or maybe it was the long thick end of a rod either way, it didn't pan out well for me. This last divorce was very fair but she was also very amicable and fair herself. We agreed on everything. Maybe that was the difference. 

 

It's horrible what she is doing to you. Obviously she didn't pay attention to the mandatory divorcing parents classes. As you know, in them they specifically say not to do what she is doing. 

 

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But does she see herself as she really is; or has she convinced herself as much as anybody else?

 

Good question. And there is really no way to know for sure. Maybe she has herself convinced that since she is a Christian and you've denied the faith, she is doing her son a godly service, trying to keep you from influencing him. To say the least you should keep fighting. It's not right to keep a child away from either parent unless there is proof of abuse or neglect. And neglecting to teach someone fairytales doesn't count. 

 

Like you have already said, it's time for you not to allow others to do unto you how you wouldn't do unto them. You need a good lawyer. Not a good Ole Christian country boy either. 

 

Obviously we don't know every reason you and Ms. Exneck split. There are usually hard feelings on both sides for (X) reasons that are no one else's business. And it doesn't have to be anything recent.

 

Apparently there is a book about men being waffles and women being spaghetti that is being used for marital counseling etc. Basically men categorize everything in boxes. There's a box for financial issues, a box for this argument, another for that argument, a box for work, etc etc. But with women everything is connected. You may get in an argument about a bill that wasn't paid and end up arguing about that time you looked at the waitress to long at hooters 10 years ago. Ms. Exbishop is notorious for bringing up past events I don't even remember. It took me a week to recall something one time. And it happened the first year we were married. 12 years ago. Lmao You moving on and finding love after her, may have been enough to flip the switch on her and trigger a multitude of emotions that caused her to become the Bible beating monster she is today.

 

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Hell, my own parents have taken her side in all of this; and betrayed my trust more times than I can count

 

I was wondering if there was some reasons for the divide between you and your mother based on your deconversion. I take it she is of the religious beat your children over the head with the Bible camp huh? That's gotta be hard. 

 

18 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I will tell my dad that there is a job opportunity that I would like to take, which is "the truth."  But The Truth is that there has been so much drama with my mother over the past few years that I would rather move my family away from my ancestral homeland than have to continue living in such close proximity to her. 

 

Can't blame ya for wanting to get away from that type of toxic situation. I'm sure it causes unnecessary stress on you and your family. How will this move affect any future battles to gain more rights to redneck JR? 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@DarkBishop, I'd be happy to discuss further via PM.  Beyond what I've already shared, I'd prefer not to get into any more personal details in the thread.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@DarkBishop, I'd be happy to discuss further via PM.  Beyond what I've already shared, I'd prefer not to get into any more personal details in the thread.

 

Understood.

 

Wasn't trying to come off as nosey or anything. Your situation hits home with me. My first threatened to take away my rights. She succeeded in limiting my time with them. Moved off 2 states away and I only got to see them when they were out of school until she passed away and I got custody. 

 

I hope things eventually work out more in your favor in the future. 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 8/10/2021 at 12:25 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Nonetheless, after more than 20 years of struggle, I have finally come to a point at which I can honestly say that my morality is truly my own.  Yet, there is a nagging question in my mind: have I only gotten to the point at which I falsely assume I understand it based simply on my ability to define, and even explain, it? 

 

Morality IMO doesn't have a set definition. What is good and moral for you may not be for me. I think we can all agree good morals include not hurting, stealing, murdering, or maiming others emotionally or physically. But for instance. You may completely agree with abortion until birth. I may think the third trimester is abhorrent unless in extreme circumstances. I'll have my basis for my moral standpoint and you'll have yours. And both opinions will have good points and bad points. 

 

Like you said. Your morality is truly your own and for your life that is well and good. From a Christians perspective your morality is probably shit. 

 

So I guess its hard for me to say that morality can be likened to instances like Dunning-Kruger bc I don't know that anyone's morality can be held to a professional level as there will be many different opinions on what morality should look like. Morality to an extent is an individual journey. 

 

And I think those that are the boastful ones that act morally superior while being morally degenerate know good and damn well what they are doing and that its wrong. That's where we start to see narcissists do their best work. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

51 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Wasn't trying to come off as nosey or anything. Your situation hits home with me.

Oh, I know you weren't trying to pry.  And I knew much of what I said would resonate with you.  It does good to talk about these things.  I just don't want the thread to become me bitching about shit I can't control when others have it much worse than me.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

And I think those that are the boastful ones that act morally superior while being morally degenerate know good and damn well what they are doing and that its wrong. 

I'm not sure I agree.   I think people's sense of morality often clouds their perception of their morality, which leads them to believe themselves to be more moral than they actually are.  There are those, true, who know they're dead wrong, as in the examples of purity culture youth pastors getting caught molesting girls and such like.  But, I question whether the majority of people are genuinely aware of their true morality.

 

Here's an example of Dunning-Kruger as it applies to expertise.  A guy takes up woodworking and watches a few videos.  He gets out his old saw and planer and puts together a butcher block.  Then he goes to the Woodcraft shop to buy some finish for his project.  Based on his "knowledge and experience" he carries on with the old salts in the shop as though he's one of them.  But the old salts know just how much our young man does not know; even if our young man does not know how much he does not know.

 

Now, another guy takes up religion.  He listens to a couple of sermons and makes a daily practice of praying and studying scripture.  He then goes out into the market place to share his newfound faith.  Because much of his "knowledge and experience" deals in commandments and other moral principles, he carries on with others as though he is an expert on morality.  But what he can't see, blinded by his own understanding and lack thereof, is that he is, himself, a narcissist, or a liar, or a lust-bucket.  Sadly, even if the day does come that he realizes the true state of himself, he'll just trust in the blud o' th' layum to warsh him kleen and continue carrying on blissfully unaware. 

[florduh]

Everybody does what they think is right, just, moral - or at least totally justified/excusable. "Morality" is for others anyway.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Now, another guy takes up religion.  He listens to a couple of sermons and makes a daily practice of praying and studying scripture.  He then goes out into the market place to share his newfound faith.  Because much of his "knowledge and experience" deals in commandments and other moral principles, he carries on with others as though he is an expert on morality.  But what he can't see, blinded by his own understanding and lack thereof, is that he is, himself, a narcissist, or a liar, or a lust-bucket.  Sadly, even if the day does come that he realizes the true state of himself, he'll just trust in the blud o' th' layum to warsh him kleen and continue carrying on blissfully unaware. 

 

Ok. I guess I can agree with that then. This is probably the majority of self-proclaimed Christians honestly, now that I think about it. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that never grace the doors of the church but still have an opinion on what is and is not moral in the eyes of the Goot lort. My boss on nights is one of em. First night on the job was talking about how God is real, Jesus is lord, but cusses like a sailor with the rest of us. When I was a Christian that just wouldn't fly with me but I was also under a very strict doctrin of what a Christian can and cannot do and still be right with God. 

 

There was always one thing that I failed in. And that was the lust of the flesh. After 2 1/2 years of abstinence between marriages. Once I was in a relationship I couldn't deny my needs anymore. This riddled me with guilt at the time and forced me to get into two very brief marriages that did not end well. I dont normally talk about that. Most people assume I've only been married twice. But as a Christian and preacher I couldn't allow myself to "live in sin" so my only other option was to believe the Lort in all his wisdom had us together for a reason and we were ment to be. 9 months with an unmedicated Bipolar seventh day Adventist and then later a year and a half with a lying cheating winch of a woman put me in chapter 7 bankruptcy. I can't really complain about the latest Mrs. Exbishop as she was fair in the divorce, we were together 12 years, and our relationship is still somewhat complicated...... 

 

Now I look back on that 2 1/2 years I was abstinate as a lot of wasted time I could have been getting my MOJO on. I'll never deny that part of my humanity again if I can help it.  It's not surprising to me that priests and pastors end up becoming sexually immoral. They are denying a very basic human need that is perfectly normal to partake in. Eventually it ends up being to much and next thing ya know the decons piano playing wife starts to catch the eye.

 

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

An interesting hypothesis.  I would say that most, if not all, people are contradictory in their moral/ethical compass.  As such, we blunder through as best we can and seek to justify our behavior.  In time, we may even come to believe our own justifications and convince others of the rightness of our actions.  We may see ourselves as becoming wiser, but even that may be illusory.

 

Philosophy has at least identified three main approaches to the moral worth of a particular action:  internal (virtue ethics), duty (deontological), and consequences (utilitarianism).  The method one uses has direct consequences on how they proceed in a given situation.

 

as @Fuego pointed out, the goal can decide the mission.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 8/11/2021 at 7:52 PM, florduh said:

Everybody does what they think is right, just, moral - or at least totally justified/excusable.

I agree with this.  But I also think that people have a higher sense of what is right, just, or justifiable than they would actually be willing to commit to action.  As an example, a white guy rails against the evils of systemic racism; but then gets confronted by a black man in handcuffs being beaten senseless by three cops.  Does he commit his morality to action?  Or does he keep walking?  Most of us, myself included, like to think we'd take a stand; but history shows a different picture.  Yet again, a sense of morality that blinds us to the reality of who we truly are.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, Krowb said:

Philosophy has at least identified three main approaches to the moral worth of a particular action:  internal (virtue ethics), duty (deontological), and consequences (utilitarianism).  The method one uses has direct consequences on how they proceed in a given situation.

This gives me pause to reflect on possible correlations between virtue, duty, consequences on one side and thought, word, action on the other.  If my thoughts, words, and actions are all in harmony, as I strive to keep them, then it seems as though my duty will be informed by my virtue, and the consequences will be as they should.  Or maybe I should just keep eating string cheese and try to finish this documentary on the horrors of Mao's Cultural Revolution.