It's occurring to me that I probably have a very strange moral system.
@OpenComputeDesign I know I do.
@light Too be fair, most "normal" moral systems tend to be rather disturbing, so
🅰️ ®️ ✝️ U
@OpenComputeDesign @light I'm a bit hung up on the meanings of "moral" and "ethics". I know not everyone uses these like i do, but with "moral" i associate things set by people in power (like the church teaching their views) or "we always did it that way". With ethics, i associate a philosophical, truth-seeking approach to "how do we want to live".
Since neither of you are contrary to discussing things, i don't think that you are all too infected by morals.
I guess I always kinda thought the distinction was more like one is more sort of the overarching theory, and the other is more specific and how it's actually applied
@OpenComputeDesign @light Might theoretically be so, but the term "moral" has been ruined by people selfishly claiming it without any consideration for others.
If you have people that have negative ethics (like i wanna get richer, even if people die for that) telling others what is good, the practical application is clearly harmful.
So, what is the unusual you see in yourself? Not having the aforementioned negative ethics or something else?
That's fair. People sure are good at coopting and corrupting words.
In my particular case, my ethical system is very girl-child focused. Every other group of people simply does not matter as much to me.
@OpenComputeDesign @light Special protections would make sense, if the group has special dangers they face, this much checks out.
So far, i can't see anything unusual, lots of people see a need for special protections for female and/or very young people. As long as you don't advertize throwing old men into a meat grinder, you're with the majority of those that actually try to be ethical, i think.
@admitsWrongIfProven @OpenComputeDesign
>As long as you don't advertize throwing old men into a meat grinder
Sadly, many people are in favour of doing that to young men.
I suppose this might be where some of my internal conflict comes from.
Growing up hearing that males are dumb, cruel, clumsy, slow, and generally inferior in every way, it hurt me a lot, and I sort of feel like boys are the ones I should be striving to protect.
The other part of my conflict comes from the fact that I feel so strongly in my protection of girls, that I want to go back in time and abolish Rome, China, and any other civilization that has habitually thrown baby girls in the trash heap.
infanticide
@OpenComputeDesign @admitsWrongIfProven Rome threw babies in general into the trash heap. I remember hearing about archeologists finding baby bones in the gutters of an ancient Roman brothel.
infanticide
@light @admitsWrongIfProven I suppose on my moral compass, while girl children "reign supreme", boy children apparently still rate above adults in general. Or at least, all children sit higher than any adult that would sacrifice a child.
@OpenComputeDesign @admitsWrongIfProven Why do you have a hierarchy of moral worth in the first place (that isn't based on how moral the subject is)?
@light @admitsWrongIfProven To try to simplify an incomprehendably complex universe into something simple enough that I can even attempt to think about it without having to absorb all knowledge and events in the universe.
Downside is, it's way over simplified and therefore isn't really actually helpful. But it's something to pass the time while I sit ineffectually in my chair.
@OpenComputeDesign @admitsWrongIfProven Okay, fair enough. Moral dilemmas are tricky. And I guess I understand children being above adults as they have more life ahead of them (as well as the fact that it just feels more wrong to me to kill a child than to kill an adult)
But why do girls have to be above boys?
Oh, well, that's simple (Read: Selfish, stupid)
I just like girls a whole lot more
@OpenComputeDesign @admitsWrongIfProven In that case I think you are sexist and evil. In fact, I already did. I was just giving you a chance to redeem yourself.
@light @admitsWrongIfProven That's fair.
It's a real sticking point to me, as well. I'm not proud of it
@OpenComputeDesign @light I would not be so sure if this is actually bad.
"Caring for xyz more" is different from "Not wanting xyz to have the same rights and chance at happiness".
Are you sure you mean you want less rights/happiness for some? That would really be bad.
Who you care more for, that's not an ethics problem, however. It's simply personal preferences.
If I was voting for rights, for example, I'd probably vote pretty equally.
But if, for example, there were two children in mortal danger, a boy and a girl, and I could only save one. Then unless there was an overwhelming reason to save the boy, I'd probably save the girl every time. And that's not very fair
@OpenComputeDesign @light I'd say it's inconsequential. If you were in such a rare situation, the important part would be to do what you can, not what genitals the saved person has. Standing around gawking would be bad.
I suppose the most practical real world scenario to demonstrate my bias would be that I really really want to adopt, but only a girl. I'm not interested in adopting a boy.
Of course, it's _still_ moot, because I _absolutely do not think I should be a father_, but...
@OpenComputeDesign
I think the relevant part is "absolutely should not", where you deny yourself things that you suspect might harm others. Just like not punching people that annoy you, that's restraint. Who you like more is not important / preference.
@OpenComputeDesign
That's why it is an accomplishment. If it were easy (like saying pleasant things about hypotheticals) it would not mean much.
That's true.
Let's hope I can keep this accomplishment up for the rest of my life
@admitsWrongIfProven @light
It may be the relevant part, but it's also the _painful_ part :P