Extreme right and wrong

[4gottenLoreKali]

I think with regard to Cilantro it's tongue-in-cheek for the most part... but I've been wrong before. I find arguments like those often pop up in discussions about music taste. Somehow you're the next school shooter if you're a fan of Linkin Park.

In that case, the person would be (at best) petty and probably amoral for bashing on someone just 'cause of their listening habits.

It raises an interesting point though, of who decides the ethics of right and wrong for societies and does society as a whole care about ethics?

Society's elite, its founders, or both. As for the second question, it generally does, and a lot (supporting its own and (often) attacking ones that conflict with it), So it's twice as dangerous. Therefore, in any society, a foundation (and maintenance) of a good morality, one that values human worth and contributions, and listens to its peoples' voices, and respects them - is essential.

 

[Miker]

Most people that I've known in my interactions in the world are decent and ethical. Yet I've known some who did things that were not exactly ethical, that didn't become people I wanted to know for very long. If you pay attention to popular media you will see a lack of ethics at times, but I don't think that for everyday normal people this is usual.

I think that I may be getting too Aspie now but here goes, did you make those judgements subjectively based on your own ethical view or objectively against a set of defined criteria? If so what was that criteria, I.e laws or rules?

 

[Miker]

I think that I may be getting too Aspie now but here goes, did you make those judgements subjectively based on your own ethical view or objectively against a set of defined criteria? If so what was that criteria, I.e laws or rules?

Sorry, wrong choice of words, being too anal. Since working out that I am an Aspie I no longer seem sure of the validity of my own views! Can anyone relate?

 

[Ste11aeres]

Sorry, wrong choice of words, being too anal. Since working out that I am an Aspie I no longer seem sure of the validity of my own views! Can anyone relate?

Your Aspieness doesn't affect the likelihood of your views being correct/false.

 

[Miker]

Your Aspieness doesn't affect the likelihood of your views being correct/false.

This is where I can return to the original point, if society lives in the grey between the black and white world of some aspies, then those aspies views might not fit with the perception of the non aspies. I read that in England, 1% of the population has Aspergers! That would mean that the ethics of the 99% may be less black and white and therefore the 1%'s view of right and wrong as different! Ethical standards are then different between the 1% and the 99% and the ethics of the 99% win out!

If I am one of the 1% then my views are worthless in the world of the 99%

Does that make any sense?

 

[Ste11aeres]

This is where I can return to the original point, if society lives in the grey between the black and white world of some aspies, then those aspies views might not fit with the perception of the non aspies. I read that in England, 1% of the population has Aspergers! That would mean that the ethics of the 99% may be less black and white and therefore the 1%'s view of right and wrong as different! Ethical standards are then different between the 1% and the 99% and the ethics of the 99% win out!

If I am one of the 1% then my views are worthless in the world of the 99%

Does that make any sense?

I don't think that it's always true that things are necessarily 100% "black and white" for all Aspies, nor is it always the case that things are always "grey" for all non-Aspies.

 

[Miker]

I don't think that it's always true that things are necessarily 100% "black and white" for all Aspies, nor is it always the case that things are always "grey" for all non-Aspies.

I recognise that there is a spectrum to most things and that aspies have varying traits, I however struggle with the subjective and long for an absolute reference point. Virtually everyone I know personally live in the grey-anything goes world where right and wrong reflect motive and opportunity.

 

[Ste11aeres]

I recognise that there is a spectrum to most things and that aspies have varying traits, I however struggle with the subjective and long for an absolute reference point. Virtually everyone I know personally live in the grey-anything goes world where right and wrong reflect motive and opportunity.

I guess we have different experiences. Most, or at least many of the NTs whom I know believe in objective morality, in objective right and wrong. Perhaps we are familiar with different subcultures, or something.

 

[4gottenLoreKali]

My morals are based on my experiences, empirical observation and reason for the most part. I do not have the exact ruleset my parents had; in fact a lot of my ethics are at odds with theirs. I guess I'm a critical thinker who is forging his own identity, when other people have tried to tell me what I am when I might have different ideas.

Some of the basic principles of my morality may or may not have been inspired by religious or legal codes in some way, but any overlap is coincidental.

Laws (of the judge / court / government / official variety) and my ethics or principles dictating what actions are most beneficial for a person's situation are not necessarily synonymous. Ideally, they should be, or at least attempt to be as much as possible.

 

[Miker]

My morals are based on my experiences, empirical observation and reason for the most part. I do not have the exact ruleset my parents had; in fact a lot of my ethics are at odds with theirs. I guess I'm a critical thinker who is forging his own identity, when other people have tried to tell me what I am when I might have different ideas.

Some of the basic principles of my morality may or may not have been inspired by religious or legal codes in some way, but any overlap is coincidental.

Laws (of the judge / court / government / official variety) and my ethics or principles dictating what actions are most beneficial for a person's situation are not necessarily synonymous. Ideally, they should be, or at least attempt to be as much as possible.

Just as victors write history, does the rule of law only reflect a biased morality? If so is society's morality defined for it?

 

[zurb]

Just as victors write history, does the rule of law only reflect a biased morality? If so is society's morality defined for it?

Law reflects the society, or at least the law maker. When society drifts, laws eventually change to catch up, but there is always a lag. But to some degree law reinforces the status quo.
As society drifts away from religion, it also drifts away from any objective definition of morality outside of itself. So morality becomes 'relative' or subjective. "Every man does what is right in his own eyes."
Within any culture there will be subcultures that do not fully subscribe (for better or worse) to the same values of society in general.
As much as we may love (or hate) democracy, its not perfect. The majority is not always right.

 

[Warmheart]

I also tend toward black & white thinking, as well as weak central coherence (the ASD tendency to see only as narrow view of things, rather than the big picture). I do my very best and don't stress too much about these things.

However, I make it a practice of sound mental health... to not believe everything I think.

 

[4gottenLoreKali]

Just as victors write history, does the rule of law only reflect a biased morality? If so is society's morality defined for it?

I want to say more often than not, yes. In most societies that is the case. But bias is inevitable, so if you're gonna be biased toward those who prey on the weak then that's the worst kind of bias. And (by my perception) that's the way a lot of so-called 'civilized' societies have their laws set up. Far too few societies actually have laws that (gasp!) value human life and dignity - or do anything to see them fulfilled.

Law reflects the society, or at least the law maker. When society drifts, laws eventually change to catch up, but there is always a lag. But to some degree law reinforces the status quo.
As much as we may love (or hate) democracy, its not perfect. The majority is not always right.

It can (or should), but it can also reinforce an archaic morality. It can be a "relic" (I use that term loosely) of a bygone era.

The majority I've come to know is "always right" as they would have it, or, in other words, always wrong with when it comes to fulfilling human compassion and reason. Maybe it's cause I don't get out much and grew up with sociopaths.

If we wanted a democracy in the truest sense of the word, then those who are intent on denying access of it to the innocent, weak, or under-represented would be (at very least) scorned against. But now it seems as if those who have such tendencies have established an oligarchy, and hypocritically insist that those who want their say are threatening democracy overall - which never was there in the first place. Talk about a persecution complex.

The democratic system's flaws today can be attributed to, in essence, it not being fulfilled to its original, logical, ideal extent. This ideal takes into account a broad range of identities and values the say of each - excluding the identity of the oppressors. That is the only one not to be valued, as their lives have been sworn to the 'cause' of denying democracy overall. Surpressing others' identities become their identity.

Before I get off topic too much, caring about others is moral, and looking out for yourself when others aren't is moral too.

 

[Judge]

The majority is not always right.

A French political theorist named Alexis de Tocqueville had a great deal to say about the tyranny of a majority.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm

 

[Miker]

Law reflects the society, or at least the law maker. When society drifts, laws eventually change to catch up, but there is always a lag. But to some degree law reinforces the status quo.
As society drifts away from religion, it also drifts away from any objective definition of morality outside of itself. So morality becomes 'relative' or subjective.
Within any culture there will be subcultures that do not fully subscribe (for better or worse) to the same values of society in general.
As much as we may love (or hate) democracy, its not perfect. The majority is not always right.

Thanks Zurb, nice answer although in England the church has effectively been part of the state since Henry 8th took control of it therefore our morality has always been subjective!

 

[4gottenLoreKali]

I know this is a bit off-topic and contributes nothing to answering the original post, but I just made a thread a couple days back touching on how ignorant and hateful online discourse can give the internet a bad name. If this discussion so far says anything, it's that our forum is an exception to that. And of all the topics that could prove to be incendiary, we aspies are discussing this one peacefully.

...life is full of beautiful contradictions.

 

[Miker]

I want to say more often than not, yes. In most societies that is the case. But bias is inevitable, so if you're gonna be biased toward those who prey on the weak then that's the worst kind of bias. And (by my perception) that's the way a lot of so-called 'civilized' societies have their laws set up. Far too few societies actually have laws that (gasp!) value human life and dignity - or do anything to see them fulfilled.



It can (or should), but it can also reinforce an archaic morality. It can be a "relic" (I use that term loosely) of a bygone era.

The majority I've come to know is "always right" as they would have it, or, in other words, always wrong with when it comes to fulfilling human compassion and reason. Maybe it's cause I don't get out much and grew up with sociopaths.

If we wanted a democracy in the truest sense of the word, then those who are intent on denying access of it to the innocent, weak, or under-represented would be (at very least) scorned against. But now it seems as if those who have such tendencies have established an oligarchy, and hypocritically insist that those who want their say are threatening democracy overall - which never was there in the first place. Talk about a persecution complex.

The democratic system's flaws today can be attributed to, in essence, it not being fulfilled to its original, logical, ideal extent. This ideal takes into account a broad range of identities and values the say of each - excluding the identity of the oppressors. That is the only one not to be valued, as their lives have been sworn to the 'cause' of denying democracy overall. Surpressing others' identities become their identity.

Before I get off topic too much, caring about others is moral, and looking out for yourself when others aren't is moral too.

So let me see if I can summarise this so far,

The legal system is part of the state and gives definition to the morality of the state for the state.
If that state is democratic but of a flavour of democracy that is defined by an establishment or elite then the legal system may reflect the morality of the ruling group rather than the society as a whole.
Public pressure may be enough to modify the morality of the state if the moral codes of society do not align with those of the state.
Tyranny of the masses is a potential issue of democracy, hopefully guided by human rights laws.
Philosophy can be used to make a judgement on the validity of the moral codes that guide democracy.
The world has 256 shades of grey and everyone is within that spectrum.
Just as some aspies have a tendency towards extreme right and wrong, as long as its basis is objective based on ethics rather than subjective and personal experience then its viewpoint should be wide enough for debate.

What do you think?

 

[Abe1]

Sorry, wrong choice of words, being too anal. Since working out that I am an Aspie I no longer seem sure of the validity of my own views! Can anyone relate?

Absolutely 100%. Just because we see things differently doesn't mean that we should not entitled to our views.

However there are 2 further points I would like to make, and in a way they are contradictory. (apologies for language)

1. It may be that we see things more clearly than NTs , as we manage to avoid the BS that sometimes happens.
2. We must also though take on board other peoples opinions, they also have a right to have their voices hears.

 

[Abe1]

So let me see if I can summarise this so far,

The legal system is part of the state and gives definition to the morality of the state for the state.
If that state is democratic but of a flavour of democracy that is defined by an establishment or elite then the legal system may reflect the morality of the ruling group rather than the society as a whole.
Public pressure may be enough to modify the morality of the state if the moral codes of society do not align with those of the state.
Tyranny of the masses is a potential issue of democracy, hopefully guided by human rights laws.
Philosophy can be used to make a judgement on the validity of the moral codes that guide democracy.
The world has 256 shades of grey and everyone is within that spectrum.
Just as some aspies have a tendency towards extreme right and wrong, as long as its basis is objective based on ethics rather than subjective and personal experience then its viewpoint should be wide enough for debate.

What do you think?

I disagree there are only 50 shades of gray.

 

[4gottenLoreKali]

So let me see if I can summarise this so far,

The legal system is part of the state and gives definition to the morality of the state for the state.
If that state is democratic but of a flavour of democracy that is defined by an establishment or elite then the legal system may reflect the morality of the ruling group rather than the society as a whole.
Public pressure may be enough to modify the morality of the state if the moral codes of society do not align with those of the state.
Tyranny of the masses is a potential issue of democracy, hopefully guided by human rights laws.
Philosophy can be used to make a judgement on the validity of the moral codes that guide democracy.
The world has 256 shades of grey and everyone is within that spectrum.
Just as some aspies have a tendency towards extreme right and wrong, as long as its basis is objective based on ethics rather than subjective and personal experience then its viewpoint should be wide enough for debate.

What do you think?

More or less, you've got the right idea. Tyranny has a bad connotation though, so perhaps a well-intentioned majority (in an 'ideal' society) wouldn't be tyrannnical so much as benevolent.

I remember my grandma yelling at me about some petty molehill issue that she made a mountain out of (the music I listened to was 'antichristian filth' or something like that and I told her to stop seeing things in black-and-white, yet I too have a tendency to do that.

In my own life I find it ironic how I had to grow up with such dogmatism and denounce it with that of the polar opposite position. I guess it sure beats being jerked around any more though.