NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe in moral superiority? When you see someone whom you think is a "bad person", how do you know you wouldnt act in the same way or worse, if you were in similar or exact circumstances?

Those circumstances can be anything. Genetic and environmental influences. Eg for genetic infs: see violence genes: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392771&cat=1_7

Eg for environmental influences can be lots of things like bad parents, non normative events, etc...

Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes? If some people think they are good people, better than most, would that make them scrutinize their actions more, hence yielding to better results as apposed to being humble and saying they are just like most other people and hence having less incentives to do the right things, whatever they may be?

I think you need to define what exactly what you mean by moral superiority more. Are you talking about people who are just inherently less likely to perform bad acts?

Do you believe in moral superiority?
Yes.

Do you believe in moral superiority? When you see someone whom you think is a "bad person", how do you know you wouldnt act in the same way or worse, if you were in similar or exact circumstances?

Those circumstances can be anything. Genetic and environmental influences. Eg for genetic infs: see violence genes: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392771&cat=1_7

Eg for environmental influences can be lots of things like bad parents, non normative events, etc...

Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes? If some people think they are good people, better than most, would that make them scrutinize their actions more, hence yielding to better results as apposed to being humble and saying they are just like most other people and hence having less incentives to do the right things, whatever they may be?
Sure, in the sense that I believe that there are good people and evil people, yes, I believe in the idea of moral superiority.

How do I know I wouldn't do some evil thing that somebody else chose to do if I were placed in the same circumstances? Simple; my conscience would demand me not to.

Does it have practical application? Yes, sometimes it tells us when we are wasting time trying to redeem people.

Do you believe in moral superiority? When you see someone whom you think is a "bad person", how do you know you wouldnt act in the same way or worse, if you were in similar or exact circumstances?

I don't. But that doesn't mean all that much except I can understand where most people are coming from, bad or no. I mean yeah, if I was in their shoes, I might do the same... but I'm not.


Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes?

The image of moral superiority, the belief in moral superiority has far more practical, and usually dark and kinda disturbing, purposes.

Just being morally superior conveys no inherent advantage IMO.

If some people think they are good people, better than most, would that make them scrutinize their actions more, hence yielding to better results as apposed to being humble and saying they are just like most other people and hence having less incentives to do the right things, whatever they may be?

No, I don't think so. I would say the vast majority of people consider themselves to be basically good people. Yet the vast majority of people don't scrutinize their actions as a result. Quite the contrary, I think if you already believe in your own "superiority," whether it be ethical or otherwise, you are far more likely to be complacent, content with your 'superiority' and basically scrutinizing one's actions even less than otherwise.

Sure, in the sense that I believe that there are good people and evil people, yes, I believe in the idea of moral superiority.

How do I know I wouldn't do some evil thing that somebody else chose to do if I were placed in the same circumstances? Simple; my conscience would demand me not to.

Does it have practical application? Yes, sometimes it tells us when we are wasting time trying to redeem people.

How do you know if you will have the same conscience?

I don't. But that doesn't mean all that much except I can understand where most people are coming from, bad or no. I mean yeah, if I was in their shoes, I might do the same... but I'm not.



The image of moral superiority, the belief in moral superiority has far more practical, and usually dark and kinda disturbing, purposes.

Just being morally superior conveys no inherent advantage IMO.



No, I don't think so. I would say the vast majority of people consider themselves to be basically good people. Yet the vast majority of people don't scrutinize their actions as a result. Quite the contrary, I think if you already believe in your own "superiority," whether it be ethical or otherwise, you are far more likely to be complacent, content with your 'superiority' and basically scrutinizing one's actions even less than otherwise.

Thats a good point. But also, people's expectations effect the outcomes. If you believe in your moral superiority, arent you gonna set yourself higher standarts?

Maybe "moral confidence" is the way to go. Not superioty but not avarageness either?

Do you believe in moral superiority? When you see someone whom you think is a "bad person", how do you know you wouldnt act in the same way or worse, if you were in similar or exact circumstances?

Those circumstances can be anything. Genetic and environmental influences. Eg for genetic infs: see violence genes: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392771&cat=1_7

Eg for environmental influences can be lots of things like bad parents, non normative events, etc...

Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes? If some people think they are good people, better than most, would that make them scrutinize their actions more, hence yielding to better results as apposed to being humble and saying they are just like most other people and hence having less incentives to do the right things, whatever they may be?

There's no such thing as moral superiority. If you think you're better than the next person for whatever reason, you're wrong. After all, we're all big bags of atoms.

Thats a good point. But also, people's expectations effect the outcomes. If you believe in your moral superiority, arent you gonna set yourself higher standarts?


Why? Obviously my standards, in that case, have been sufficient enough to earn me a position of moral superiority, so why change things?

Maybe "moral confidence" is the way to go. Not superioty but not avarageness either?

How about just "moral?" ;)

Why? Obviously my standards, in that case, have been sufficient enough to earn me a position of moral superiority, so why change things?



How about just "moral?" ;)

Well if you think you are moral, do you also think most people are?

I don't need to be morally superior, I just am Superior

I'm perfect and everyone else sucks.

How do you know if you will have the same conscience?
Wait a minute here. You want me to prove that if I had the conscience of this person, I wouldn't make the same decision as the person with that conscience made? That doesn't make any sense. If I were that person, I'd make the same decision. Clearly.

Wait a minute here. You want me to prove that if I had the conscience of this person, I wouldn't make the same decision as the person with that conscience made? That doesn't make any sense. If I were that person, I'd make the same decision. Clearly.

Umm, you are still thinking that conscience is inherent.

No the questions is, u dont think that YOUR conscience will be affected by circumstances?

Umm, you are still thinking that conscience is inherent.

No the questions is, u dont think that YOUR conscience will be affected by circumstances?
No, I don't. When I supply moral condemnation of X in Y circumstances, I am saying that I would not do X in Y.

Well if you think you are moral, do you also think most people are?

Most people, even the bad ones, can't help but see things that way, because everyone is the protagonist in the story of their own life.

But I would say most people are, in fact, basically good. But only basically.

Besides, most people being moral or immoral is an empirical question we're not in a position to do much more than speculate about.

No, I don't. When I supply moral condemnation of X in Y circumstances, I am saying that I would not do X in Y.

But you just did?


How do I know I wouldn't do some evil thing that somebody else chose to do if I were placed in the same circumstances? Simple; my conscience would demand me not to.

But you just did?
Please untangle this for me. What you're trying to argue using my posts is not obvious to me.

Please untangle this for me. What you're trying to argue using my posts is not obvious to me.

Oh never mind, it's my mistake. I thought "no I dont" was to the first part. The question I asked how you know that you wouldnt be like X in Y circumstances. Or maybe if X was in your circumstances, he'd have better conscience?

And I dont think this is an empirical question since we cant gather empirical data since we cant replicate the combination of genetic and environmental influences and manipulate them to see the degree of change in conscience of a "bad person", relative to a "good person".

Well, I'm just saying that it's an empirical question we aren't in a position to answer.

Yes, I do. Specifically, the rest of us are morally superior to religious extremists.

I am morally superior to all who disagree with me.

I believe in being instantly suspicious of anyone who claims to have moral superiority. They're usually corrupt as hell.

I believe moral superiority is destructive and selfish.

In Buddhism, the four "boundless states" or friends to enlightenment are loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), sympathetic joy (mudita) and equanimity (upekkha).

Each of these states has a "near enemy" and "far enemy"--that is, states of being which are destructive or enemies of enlightenment. The far enemy is the exact opposite of the boundless state--cruelty is the far enemy of compassion. This is obvious. However, the near enemy of compassion is pity: this, I think, embodies some of the "superiority" you're talking about.

And a quote: "To study Buddhism and then use it as a weapon in order to criticize others' theories or ideologies is wrong. The very purpose of religion is to control yourself, not to criticize others. Rather, we must criticize ourselves. How much am I doing about my anger? About my attachment, about my hatred, about my pride, my jealousy? These are the things which we must check in daily life with the knowledge of the Buddhist teachings."

For example, the USA is morally superior to Europe because we elected a half-black man named Barack Hussein Obama as president, and they only support politicians of their own race and background.

I am morally superior to all who disagree with me.

^ This is how I am morally superior.

Absolutely. I think it's easy to assess moral superiority on the basis of whether or not you act in a way that is honorable, reasonably respects the personal rights of other people and attempts to avoid doing undue harm to others. That's a pretty broad and surefire test of ethical behavior that's quite consistent across cultures.

i don't believe in 'good' and 'bad' people, but i do believe the avoidance of causing suffering morally superior to the failure to make any attempt to do so. that the avoidance of causing sufering, knowingly causing avoidable suffering, is the moral high road and the only moral high road and the only real morality.

good and bad aren't things people can BE, they are what all people DO. and being imperfect we all, however unintentionally, do some of each. what we CAN do, is be as vigilent as we can, to make harmlessness the overwhelming majority of our behavior.

Do you believe in moral superiority? When you see someone whom you think is a "bad person", how do you know you wouldnt act in the same way or worse, if you were in similar or exact circumstances?

Those circumstances can be anything. Genetic and environmental influences. Eg for genetic infs: see violence genes: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218392771&cat=1_7

Eg for environmental influences can be lots of things like bad parents, non normative events, etc...

Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes? If some people think they are good people, better than most, would that make them scrutinize their actions more, hence yielding to better results as apposed to being humble and saying they are just like most other people and hence having less incentives to do the right things, whatever they may be?

Well, Gandhi's tactics would not have worked against the Nazis or the Soviets, they only worked because of the moralistic views of the British.

Humans are social animals. Inevitably, humans develop ideas about what is "Right" and what is not. These ideas shape how your culture develops-which can be seen in that certain types of morality don't tend to generate success in terms of technology without outside help. The Islamic World preserved a LOT of the Roman and Greek learning, developed Algebra and had a very strong grasp of the other 'hard sciences' during the European Dark Ages-and has stagnated at about the Twelfth Century, relying on their enemies in the West and Technological East to provide them with the knowledge to desalinate seawater, produce electrical power, design and produce weapons, and utilize their resources in a way that enables them to have some sort of autonomy.

These are NOT stupid people, and they aren't (largely) poor peoples-it's how their Morality and Philosophies impact their cultures that puts them at a disadvantage.

Does Morality play a part in this? Morals are like an invisible hand that limits how much corruption any given official can tolerate in himself-or others. THis is because there are no "Loopholes" in ones concepts of right-and-wrong. Morality therefore plays a critical part in checking the urge to Hypocrisy-everyone IS a Hypocrite, and a liar, but depending on Morality, they can be severe, or they can be relatively minor and undamaging.

Do you think moral superiority has any practical purposes?Oh yes, certainly. Believing you are moral makes it easier to make other people think you are moral. Which in turn makes it easier to take advantage of them. Which then increases your overall fitness; this is equivalent to saying your genes have a higher chance of propagating in the genepool. The result of which is that there will be relatively more people with a sense of moral superiority in the next generation, and that closes the loop.

I believe in being instantly suspicious of anyone who claims to have moral superiority. They're usually corrupt as hell.This. A thousand times, this!

For example, the USA is morally superior to Europe because we elected a half-black man named Barack Hussein Obama as president, and they only support politicians of their own race and background.

...you're joking, right? Okay, just making sure.