Autism and Morality

[Joshua the Writer]

I am not sure exactly where to put this so I will put it here.

I actually know that I don't have many personal moral rules. Idk if I'm naturally inclined to be amoral at once. Ig it's cuz morals are mostly weird social constructs to me. I do consider myself a (chaotic) good person though because the morals I do have will land me in that category. Maybe it is because I am Autistic that I am more likely to not have strict morals? Morals are mostly just yet another set of social rules made by NTs, and a lot of them can be arbitrary or just down right pointless. Heck, even when I decided to have strict morals for myself (since I used to be Christian), it actually hurt me emotionally because I found that I often could not live up to the moral standards of the environment and constantly found myself thinking that I am an evil, terrible person and that still haunts me to this day.

I kind of just really hate this weird culture we have today that puts morality on a pedestal. There is more than one way to be moral. Just because I am not moral in the way Neurotypicals expect me to be, does not make me immoral. Though I do admit that I have fewer morals than most people. I rarely ever have moral qualms. I think of historically significant moral panics such as the Satanic Panic as very silly, as well.

I find it best not to worry about morals that much. I am able to be a good person while also not having many morals. My moral code is simply summed up as "don't be an a-hole."

 

[Luca]

My moral code is simply summed up as "don't be an a-hole."

I always think of myself as having a very clear moral code, but I guess it could be summed up this way too. I just don’t think it’s right for people to be cruel or treat each other badly. But other than that I’m not a super opinionated person and I don’t get into a lot of conflicts.

 

[risk]

My morality is the product of emulation little more than a program. The standard is does a person or group have the means to help themselves if so little empathy is offered. Otherwise I am more open to the concept of empathy since it is very easy to internalise something like that.

 

[Misery]

Morals are mostly just yet another set of social rules made by NTs, and a lot of them can be arbitrary or just down right pointless.

I'm curious, what sorts of things do you think fall into this category?

 

[Kalinychta]

I think you’re correct about morals per se. They’re really sort of “Wild West” unless they are built on ethics in the philosophical sense. Ethics are backed by rational arguments, whereas morals are whatever (e.g. religious, cultural, etc.), which in my opinion makes them irrelevant.

Especially being a trans person and former Christian, I can totally understand why you’re burnt out on the idea of “morality.” Christian “morality” is anything but, usually. I know some very nice Christians, but it seems like most of them are frustrated and hypocritical.

 

[Luca]

I think you’re correct about morals per se. They’re really sort of “Wild West” unless they are built on ethics in the philosophical sense. Ethics are backed by rational arguments, whereas morals are whatever (e.g. religious, cultural, etc.), which in my opinion makes them irrelevant.

Especially being a trans person and former Christian, I can totally understand why you’re burnt out on the idea of “morality.” Christian “morality” is anything but, usually. I know some very nice Christians, but it seems like most of them are frustrated and hypocritical.

Thanks for explaining this… I think I have an understanding now that I am more ethical than moral. Your clarifications are always helpful and appreciated!

 

[Kalinychta]

Thanks for explaining this… I think I have an understanding now that I am more ethical than moral. Your clarifications are always helpful and appreciated!

You’re welcome! I took a lot of philosophy classes (and still read a lot of philosophy books), and one of the most important things I learned from them was the difference between ethics and morality. Totally, totally different!

 

[Kalinychta]

I want to add that I think this is a fascinating topic, and I hope more people respond. I’ve read about morality/ethics in relation to autism, and I’m curious what others think. A significant number of autistic people tend to be very logical and/or emotionally empathetic, so it then stands to reason that many of us have rather firm moral or ethical opinions.

 

[Progster]

I'm not religious, and I don't believe that one has to be a Christian or follow any kind of religion to have moral values. I have a moral compass, a sense of right and wrong - right being how I or others should behave towards other people, a very strong sense of fairness, ethical principles. Wrong being not to harm people, animals or the environment, to treat them with respect. I'm not unusual in that, although sometimes my views or ideas may be a bit different from those of most people, and what is 'fair' or right or wrong for one person may not be what is fair, right or wrong for another. Where I may be different, where autism may play a role, is the intensity to which I experience some of my beliefs and convictions.

 

[BrokenBoy]

I don't have a moral "code" per se, but I do have a very solid grasp of what I personally see as good or evil. This tends to cause conflicts with people I interact with. People tend to regard my views on good and evil as selfish. I wouldn't disagree with that statement.

 

[watersprite]

My moral code is simply summed up as "don't be an a-hole."

That is a good, succinct way to put it.
When a situation, or a relationship with a person arises that begins to push me toward reacting like an a-hole; it’s like an internal counter is triggered.
Countdown goes unnoticed at first - but it’s definitely happening.

After an indeterminate number of ‘pushes,’ the decision is made to take action to end the situation, or exit the relatiionship.

Best for all concerned.

 

[Joshua the Writer]

I don't have a moral "code" per se, but I do have a very solid grasp of what I personally see as good or evil. This tends to cause conflicts with people I interact with. People tend to regard my views on good and evil as selfish. I wouldn't disagree with that statement.

I'm mostly in the same boat.

 

[ucrenegade]

Yah gives us the moral code it's called Torah and you either follow or don't thier is no third choice.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I have never followed religious morals as ever since I found that the religious god-worriers preached that it was moral to support human slavery or to treat women as chattel. Then I found Russel's Why I am not a Christian. From then on I have been moved by humanistic ethics, especially as I have a strong sense of justice in our society which seems intent on being cruel.

I recognize that half the people I meet have below average IQ, and for those many, unthinkingly accepting an artificial and authoritarian morality is the limit of their cognition.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I recognize that half the people I meet have below average IQ, and for those many, unthinkingly accepting an artificial and authoritarian morality is the limit of their cognition.

Yes. So, understanding this, you generally can't have a logic-based argument with these people. In order to connect with them, you have to present them with other artificial and authoritarian influences. It seems we have a large group of folks that actively seek out the emotional safety and security of being led around and being part of a group,...but ironically, these are same people that get very upset about their personal "freedoms". It's hilarious on one level,...but there are inherent societal dangers,...especially if you live in a democratic society. "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."...George Carlin. As of late, a disturbing amount of political verbal vitriol and physical violence,...of course, the more stupid people see they can capture some media attention with it, the more emboldened they become.

 

[Wulven]

I struggle with it during my "wolf" state. I have according to my therapist a strong sense of Justice. I don't like seeing people get hurt for no reason. The struggle is a conflict between a willingness to do whatever is needed to help or prevent them from being hurt. Versus the values, laws, and statutes laid down in the Bible. These evil people are still people with the potential to be forgiven for the evil they do. That's the fight.

 

[Skittlebisquit]

I think you’re correct about morals per se. They’re really sort of “Wild West” unless they are built on ethics in the philosophical sense. Ethics are backed by rational arguments, whereas morals are whatever (e.g. religious, cultural, etc.), which in my opinion makes them irrelevant.

Especially being a trans person and former Christian, I can totally understand why you’re burnt out on the idea of “morality.” Christian “morality” is anything but, usually. I know some very nice Christians, but it seems like most of them are frustrated and hypocritical.

I tend to over simplify concepts, but to me, morals are the true beliefs and ethics are the rules of behavior one lives by. Does that ring true?

 

[ucrenegade]

I have never followed religious morals as ever since I found that the religious god-worriers preached that it was moral to support human slavery or to treat women as chattel. Then I found Russel's Why I am not a Christian. From then on I have been moved by humanistic ethics, especially as I have a strong sense of justice in our society which seems intent on being cruel.

I recognize that half the people I meet have below average IQ, and for those many, unthinkingly accepting an artificial and authoritarian morality is the limit of their cognition.

That is because all those instances you mention are the result of man not Yah. So unfortunately Yah gets lumped in with doctrines of men who honor with lips but hearts far from him. I am sorry for this.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I tend to over simplify concepts, but to me, morals are the true beliefs and ethics are the rules of behavior one lives by. Does that ring true?

I cannot accept that morals are true, especially when the morals, interpreted by the priest class with biases of their own, come from writings of blatantly ignorant peoples who thought that the cosmos was supernatural and sometimes couldn't keep their stories straight, like with the two different versions of genesis that are included in the old testament.

 

[Varzar]

Ethics are backed by rational arguments, whereas morals are whatever (e.g. religious, cultural, etc.), which in my opinion makes them irrelevant.

I recognize that half the people I meet have below average IQ, and for those many, unthinkingly accepting an artificial and authoritarian morality is the limit of their cognition.

So, putting these two thoughts together.. What happens when the rational arguments someone has behind their ethics is based on a below average intellect?
Then both the ethics of such people and their rational arguments to back them become highly questionable.
How does one decide what constitutes a solid ethical value when likely at least half the population would struggle to make a solid rational argument to back that ethical value?

And then there's things like emotions, which play a huge part in creating cognitive bias in people even when they are of high intellect. I very regularly see people claim something is completely rational, when it clearly isn't, and is entirely based on their emotional viewpoint.
When they then use those arguments as backing for ethical rules, then those "ethics" are the same as the morals. They are whatever. They are irrelevant.