Morality Thread

>>1506438
Not, not everyone is suited to every job. A good person could still wind up a bad politician and wind up making things worse.

Is it immoral to feign religiousness in order to justify your views on a political issue?

>>1506438
Not, if you can cause more of an effect doing something else like Bill Gates.

My question
How do you separate mortality from the human condition.

>>1506438
No it may be a social contract as a citizen to be involved in politics but it is not part of our moral code to do so.

>>1506464
Yes it is immoral

>>1506465
Can you elaborate further? Sorry I'm lacking sleep right now so I don't really understand.

It might be a type of imperfect duty where in a good person is not expected or obliged to get involved in politics but is celebrated for doing so.

To say a good person is obliged to get involved in politics I think you would have to establish a clear and distinct connection between politics and being a good person or the good. If the good is doing the most good for the most people then this maybe accomplished via politics and thus a good person should become involved in politics because it would bring about the greatest good. If one is a good person because they adhere to perfect duties or values then the need to go into politics is not as obvious since there is not a call to promote others to be good and is a more individual pursuit.

File: 1447731507884.png (319KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 803x688px

>>1506438
>>>>Morals
>""""good""" and """""""""""""""""""""evil"""""""""""""""""""""

>>1506588
>it may be a social contract as a citizen to be involved in politics

But is it?

>>1506976
Yes as a citizen you're held to certain expectations by society and that includes having a participation in politics whether it be as large as running for office or as small as simply having a discussion about it. Is it as significant as say the expectations of treating other people with respect or not drinking and driving? No but it still part of the social contract.

>>1506438

Yes, part of morality is promulgating good moral principles within society at large.

>>1506464

Yes, deception may sometimes be necessary but it is always immoral.

>>1506465
>How do you separate mortality from the human condition.

Animals have some moral instincts, for example they understand authority, fairness and group affiliation. As with everything, humans simply take these things to a much greater extreme, but the difference between human morality and animal morality is of degree not of kind.

My question: How do you reconcile the demonstrable fact that people as intelligent and well-informed as you yourself are can reach completely different positions in politics and moral reasoning?

>>1507089
>Yes, part of morality is promulgating good moral principles within society at large.

But what if it comes at the cost of taking away time from your profession?

>>1507089
>How do you reconcile the demonstrable fact that people as intelligent and well-informed as you yourself are can reach completely different positions in politics and moral reasoning?

Different assumptions.

How is it possible to place trust in another individual when it is impossible to know their intentions, thoughts or beliefs. Especially with the knowledge that even if you feel you can trust someone it is likely you have been successfully received?

>>1506438
> If you are a good person, are you obliged to involve yourself in politics, even if it isn't your job?
If you're a smart person you know it's a waste of time.

>>1506464
Yes. Why wouldn't you just state your real justification?

>>1509133
Trust is belief without knowing.

>>1507089
>My question: How do you reconcile the demonstrable fact that people as intelligent and well-informed as you yourself are can reach completely different positions in politics and moral reasoning?
Different starting point and circumstances

My question:

>Means or ends?

>>1509133
It's not completely impossible to read people's intentions unless you're a severe autismo. But more importantly, you can judge people based on their past actions. If they've had a chance to fuck you over to serve their own ends and didn't, you can probably count on them in the future. It's also rational to afford strangers a certain level of trust, but not too much of course, based on past experience of interacting with people in general and in particular milieus.

>>1509182
>Means or ends?
I'll have both, please.

>>1507149
>Different assumptions.
>>1509182
>Different starting point and circumstances
That doesn't seem to reconcile much. You're still left with the problem of your own conclusions seemingly being no more valid than wildly contradictory ones.

>>1509197
>That doesn't seem to reconcile much. You're still left with the problem of your own conclusions seemingly being no more valid than wildly contradictory ones.
Some theories can still be more correct then others- differences in starting position can skew another's (or your own) position badly enough to make it flawed, but a different set of assumptions and experience and pathologies can make them blind to it.

>>1506438
How can you know if you're a good person? Does it matter being good? The goodness of a person is irrelevant to politics imo

Good people do politics, bad people do politics, although it really depends how you define good and evil.