Open question: What do you think a normal person’s moral responsibilities are and why?

Some angles you can (but don’t have to) consider:

To themselves, family, friends and strangers?

Do you have thoughts about what it takes to make a good person or at what point someone is a bad person? (Is there a category of people who are neither?)

What do you think the default state of people is? (Generally good, evil or neutral by nature?)

Conversely do you believe morality is a construction and reject it entirely? (Even practically speaking when something bad happens to you?)

  • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    This starts to get into moral relativity vs moral absolution.

    Is it ever moral to kill someone? Is it moral to kill out of a necessity to defend oneself?

    I’m not sure that I really believe there are truly evil people. Don’t get me wrong, I think they exist, but they’re extremely rare (1 in a million type of odds)

    Most people are the hero of their own story, and when you get down to it, they’re just trying to get their needs met. Are they unnecessarily cruel? Maybe, but they’ll have a justification for it. You might not agree with it, but you haven’t walked in their shoes.

    If I have the ability to help friends I consider it my civic duty to do so. That being said, I don’t judge those who don’t help. (Usually) Why don’t I judge them? Because I’m fortunate enough to have the mental fortitude, capacity and ability to help. I wouldn’t judge a friend in a wheelchair for not helping me move into a walk-up apartment, because they mostly can’t. I don’t feel right judging a friend who isn’t in a good headspace to help me right now either.

    I’m not firmly in either camp, morality on some things are relative, but absolute on others.

    • ddrcrono@lemmy.caOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Good reply. I would highlight that the specific example you gave about whether you can be justified in killing someone would be a common example in the rules vs results based ethics debate. (Deontology vs Consequentialism).

      Moral relativism is more the claim that morals are entirely dependent on a culture’s or individual’s idea of right. (Which means they would say yes to both, practically).

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Fair statement, but I think it can be viewed from both pieces there.

        Rules vs results can be individually determined and separated.

        But you’re right, my example wasn’t ideal for my argument.

        I do still think that cultural values will determine whether you value “helping your neighbours” and your moral responsibility there.