Autism and Morality

[Gerald Wilgus]

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.

Ethics has principles, not rules. Because of this ethics is not easy, especially for those who crave certainty. As I have begun reading modern stoicism it is clear that one must train in thinking about some fundamental principles of ethics; beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. Yes, all human thought suffers from bias and emotions, but I would rather trust ethics as a guide than the morals promoted by the religious authoritarians who can't seem to keep themselves out of the lives of people who dispute their self-professed authority.

 

[Varzar]

Ethics has principles, not rules. Because of this ethics is not easy, especially for those who crave certainty. As I have begun reading modern stoicism it is clear that one must train in thinking about some fundamental principles of ethics; beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice. Yes, all human thought suffers from bias and emotions, but I would rather trust ethics as a guide than the morals promoted by the religious authoritarians who can't seem to keep themselves out of the lives of people who dispute their self-professed authority.

In case it sounds like I'm defending religions.. I'll preface this with: I'm not even remotely religious..

I guess what I was getting at is that it seems to me the morals promoted by the religious authoritarians are just their idea of ethics. They believe they have a rational backing for their ideas. Such that they could then claim those ideas as being ethical values. And then they are just trying to push their ethical values on others through whatever position they hold.
We are looking at those ethical values, and saying they are irrelevant morals, cause they (in our opinion) hold no rational backing.

So the distinction that @Kalinychta is describing between ethics and morals seems very "eye of the beholder" to me, as pretty much everyone believes themselves to be rational, and therefore their personal ethical viewpoints have a rational backing.

At this point, I went here: What's The Difference Between Morals And Ethics?
To read the difference between the two.. Even reading through that, the difference seems very "eye of the beholder" to me. It's all based on whose perspective you are looking at it from.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

In case it sounds like I'm defending religions.. I'll preface this with: I'm not even remotely religious..

I guess what I was getting at is that it seems to me the morals promoted by the religious authoritarians are just their idea of ethics. They believe they have a rational backing for their ideas. Such that they could then claim those ideas as being ethical values. And then they are just trying to push their ethical values on others through whatever position they hold.
We are looking at those ethical values, and saying they are irrelevant morals, cause they (in our opinion) hold no rational backing.

So the distinction that @Kalinychta is describing between ethics and morals seems very "eye of the beholder" to me, as pretty much everyone believes themselves to be rational, and therefore their personal ethical viewpoints have a rational backing.

At this point, I went here: What's The Difference Between Morals And Ethics?
To read the difference between the two.. Even reading through that, the difference seems very "eye of the beholder" to me. It's all based on whose perspective you are looking at it from.

I probably see a brighter line than you do, as most of the people promoting religious morality say that they believe that the bible, their foundation for morals, is the inerrant word of god. Authoritarian thinking, which has no place in the practice of ethics, And this is reinforced by those who parse every vague wording to support hate-filled interpretations of moral behavior to marginalize anybody who doesn't think like them.

 

[Crossbreed]

Before I became a Christian, my moral baseline was the Golden Rule.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

Before I became a Christian, my moral baseline was the Golden Rule.

I hope it is not the "they that has the gold makes the rules," Golden Rule.

 

[Suzette]

Before I became a Christian, my moral baseline was the Golden Rule.

Why "before" and not after? Or do you mean after too?

This subject brings up the question of "honesty". I have often seen autistics make the claim that autistics "don't lie" and yet at least one member has admitted that they have lied often.

When discussing morality, can it not be that our sense of duty (ethics)to the moral of truth telling can be adversely affected by our life experiences?

There was a time in my life when I was regularly accused of lieing and being deceitful even when I was completely honest and innocent. After a while I found I was punished less when I lied. So I lied to keep the peace. This was entirely against my moral compass. It was a form of self defense and I have no guilt about it.

Does this make me amoral or untrustworthy? Was my morality too conveniently fluid or flexible? Or was my need to protect myself from unnessisary conflict and punishment justified?

 

[Crossbreed]

I hope it is not the "they that has the gold makes the rules," Golden Rule.

I never had enough "gold" for that version to be actionable...

Why "before" and not after? Or do you mean after too?

I still hold it to be generally true, but with some caveats.

For example, I think that lying can be used as a weapon (where weapons are appropriate)
but such weapons are appropriate in extremely rare situations.
One does not owe an assailant such general respect.
But we do owe such respect to non-combatants, otherwise.

 

[Suzette]

One does not owe an assailant such general respect.
But we do owe such respect to non-combatants, otherwise

I am not sure I can agree about weapons. I don't feel guilty about my early life experience that led to lieing as a form of self defense, but as an adult I can see how that was unnessisary. I now know that I could have just ssid nothing. I can not see that there is any appropriate use of "weapons" as weapons are offensive, not defensive tools.

 

[Crossbreed]

I don't feel guilty about my early life experience that led to lieing as a form of self defense,...

Consider physical self-defense, like boxing.
Randomly punching a stranger is not observant of the Golden Rule.
Punching a wanton attacker to end their attack (on yourself or a family member), seems to be a reasonable exception.

I now know that I could have just said nothing.

That is usually better. Even justified lies are leaky.

 

[Suzette]

Consider physical self-defense, like boxing.
Randomly punching a stranger is not observant of the Golden Rule.
Punching a wanton attacker to end their attack (on yourself or a family member), seems to be a reasonable exception.

That is usually better. Even justified lies are leaky.

My lying days were when I was young and in direct response to abuse. I regret nothing.

 

[Luca]

My lying days were when I was young and in direct response to abuse. I regret nothing.

I know how that feels
I lied to evade my abusers. Sorry you had this experience too.

 

[Crossbreed]

Even justified lies are leaky.

My lying days were when I was young and in direct response to abuse. I regret nothing.

I am not judging your past lies.
I am saying that it is hard for lies to stand up to scrutiny, even if they are appropriate.