Dunning-Kruger as Applied to Morality

[florduh]

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Does he commit his morality to action?

What action would that be? Taking on three cops?

 

Only a fool would go on that suicide mission, but I have protested in harm's way where I could still reasonably expect to live to fight another day.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

48 minutes ago, florduh said:

What action would that be? Taking on three cops?

I don't think there is a right answer to that question, nor is there meant to be.  It's simply meant to draw a distinction between doing something rather than nothing.  The point being, when it really matters, people often fall short of their moral principles.  

[Joshpantera]

On 8/10/2021 at 8:37 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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.

 

I agree with the other's in that it looks like you're concerned with trying to do the right thing. Some people could give a shit about even aspiring to do anything right. 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 9:10 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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.

 

Case in point! 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 9:10 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Unfortunately, over the past 2 years, she has effectively taken Redneck Jr. away from me, both legally and emotionally. 

 

That sucks. Again, I've gone through something similar. 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 9:10 AM, 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.

 

Female narcissist's! The overt and covert varieties!  

 

She probably has it worked out in her own mind to where she's somehow morally superior and entitled to all of it. Going back to the morality as subjective comments further down the thread. It pretty much is subjective and is always up for change and depends on perspective. Something morally off putting in the west could be no big deal in the east, for instance. Or vise versa. 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It pretty much is subjective and is always up for change and depends on perspective.

I agree that morality is subjective; and would even go so far as to say that there is even further subjectivity within an individual's own subjectivity concerning morality, which is precisely why we can often justify actions that run counter to our professed principles.  That's not the question, though.  The question is not whether or not I can plot a reasonable course through murky waters.  But, rather, could there be murkiness in waters that otherwise appear clear to me?  Could there be gaps, flaws, failures in my own morality of which I remain oblivious?  Therefore presuming myself to be "more" moral than I actually am (for lack of a better term).

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, rather, could there be murkiness in waters that otherwise appear clear to me?  Could there be gaps, flaws, failures in my own morality of which I remain oblivious?  Therefore presuming myself to be "more" moral than I actually am (for lack of a better term).

 

Probably. Some morals, I believe are circumstantial. I like what Joe kenda said at the intro to all his shows. Basically any human put in the right series of circumstances can be capable of doing anything. I can't remember the exact wording. But its true. They taught the same thing in Ms. EXbishops criminal justice course in college. Our basic instincts will take over in the right situation. So if you are put in the right circumstances you'll go against your own morals maybe even as far as to commit murder. Fortunately, most people are never placed in that position. 

 

But I suppose you are talking about under regular circumstances. Life throws all kinds of curve balls and if you've kept your morals through what you have already been through with Ms. Exneck. Your doing a lot better than most people. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

So if you are put in the right circumstances you'll go against your own morals maybe even as far as to commit murder.

 

... if you've kept your morals through what you have already been through with Ms. Exneck. Your doing a lot better than most people. 

This reminded me of an episode I had with Ms. Ex-neck several years ago.  She had spent the entire morning showing her ass: screaming at Redneck Jr., bitching about the mess in the kitchen (which she made), slamming doors...  I had gotten about to the end of my tether when she decided to try coming at me.  I stopped her short and told her I knew of places in the hills of North Georgia where even god himself would never find her body.  She deadpan responded, "There are places in Russia where god wouldn't even know to look for yours."

 

I decided that was a good day to take Redneck Jr. out for ice cream... for several hours.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

30 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I decided that was a good day to take Redneck Jr. out for ice cream... for several hours.

 

Sounds like a good decision lol. 

[Joshpantera]

On 8/14/2021 at 2:24 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I agree that morality is subjective; and would even go so far as to say that there is even further subjectivity within an individual's own subjectivity concerning morality, which is precisely why we can often justify actions that run counter to our professed principles.  That's not the question, though.  The question is not whether or not I can plot a reasonable course through murky waters.  But, rather, could there be murkiness in waters that otherwise appear clear to me?  Could there be gaps, flaws, failures in my own morality of which I remain oblivious?  Therefore presuming myself to be "more" moral than I actually am (for lack of a better term).

 

It all boils down to what you think is moral or immoral at the time. It may be that you see somewhere where you feel like you've let yourself down. None of it being objectively immoral probably. Just something that you don't like about yourself. And to that I would say just make the correction. So that you're no longer bothered by it. It sounds like we all have our own little moral compasses going and I think the eastern way would be to balance out what you think is imbalanced. 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

On 8/14/2021 at 2:24 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

But, rather, could there be murkiness in waters that otherwise appear clear to me?

 

At the int'l farmers' market nearby there is a liquor of some kind that is clear when still, but one is on a rotating arm and as soon the bottle is in motion the entire thing shimmers like those globes of Jupiter or Saturn.  Your description reminds me of that bottle - clear when still, but entirely opaque once in motion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Krowb said:

clear when still, but entirely opaque once in motion.

Thats an argument for meditation if I ever heard one.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I've long believed that the worst punishment one could receive for one's wrongdoings was to have to live with oneself, one's self--a self capable of committing such deeds.  The very idea that he who wronged me would have to spend the rest of his life with himself and his sins.  Knowing my own conscience as I do, I felt that was punishment enough; and the thought kept me from seeking revenge for slights real or imagined. 

 

Sadly, I've since come to realize that such a view is naive and probably gives more credit than is due or deserved to most others.  As I observe it, most people either do not recognize the wrong they do as being wrong, or, recognizing it, simply do not care beyond what absolution can be found in an insincere apology.  Few, in my perception, care enough to set about the nearly impossible task of fixing the behavior and motivation behind it all.  Even self-proclaimed assholes seem to wear the moniker as a badge of honor rather than the shawl of threadbare shame it truly is.  Yet, most people, if asked, would describe themselves as being as moral as they perceive themselves to be.

 

Perhaps I have finally fallen from the heights of Mt. Stupid myself; or maybe that is only my perception.