Do you have strong views on morality?

Post Reply New Topic

I do not. I don't like to hurt other people, but otherwise, I have a very fluid sense of right and wrong primarily dependent on external factors (chances of getting caught). I don't believe in hurting others. But if the wrong is diffuse or abstract, no problemo.

I follow most of society's rules just because having people like me is very important to me. But that's the only reason.

However, I've met many aspies who have very strongly developed conceptions of morality and moral reasoning. I think mine is very simplistic, practical, and primitive by contrast. Psychopaths, who include some people with mild ASD, at the other end of the spectrum, do not care about hurting other people if it serves their self-interest. I guess I'm in the middle of the spectrum. Wondering what the distribution is.

I'm a bit complex on this. I have very strong ideas about right and wrong, but many of my actions don't necessarily conform to those, or my misdeeds have led to the formation of them. For example, I am firmly against drugs and alcohol, but that's a moral opinion formed by extensive experience with them, especially alcohol. I also know that there's a good chance that despite my moral opposition to them, there is a strong chance, having run the scenarios, that I'm probably going to toke up or drink again in my life.

But yes, despite my shortcomings, I do have a very strong moral core, without being religious. Don't kill, don't lie, don't stick my nose into other people's business that doesn't hurt anyone, even stuff as petty as "if I bum a cigarette and it's their last one, even if they're willing to part with it, don't take it." I have rules for nearly everything.

That said, my adherence to those rules is entirely situational. For example, if I'm about to flip out, I will take that cigarette, because breaking that rule will prevent me from breaking another, more important rule... don't hurt anyone. I'm not saying I go psycho without smokes, but I have a talent for zeroing in on what will emotionally hurt the people around me the most, and if I flip out, all bets are off.

Does that make any sense?

This may be relevant to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situational_ethics

I have an extremely strong sense of morals, almost to a fault at times. I try my best to behave honorably at all times, but of course like anyone I have my occasional slip-ups. But that said, one thing I've learned about morality is that very little in this world is truly black and white, good or bad. Typically there's far more gray area than most people want to admit.

i've got a very strong set of morals. in my mind, there are things that are right and things that are wrong, and i try to stay on the 'right' side as much as possible.

for example, i believe most drugs are wrong and i'd never do them myself; i don't have a problem with others doing them for some reason, though. i also feel that way about things like cheating and doing illegal things. i've been called a goody-two-shoes because of this though i don't see why

My morals are kind of utilitarian. I think we're all on this planet and stuck with each other, so it would obviously be beneficial to be respectful and cooperate with each other.

Also, I'm recently watching YouTube videos of Sam Harris discussing how science can weigh in on morality. His talk is intriguing me and I may be tempted to get his book The Moral Landscape.

You might also want to check out Jonathan Glover's "Causing Death and Saving Lives" from the 1970s.

I actually think there's a lot of overlap in our actual world between utilitarian and Kantian approaches.

=====

And yeah, I guess I'm pretty rigid about the whole thing.

I go with causality and utilitarianism. Nice, clean, simple.
I don't expect much of others - be nice, be tolerant, be fair.

I have no problems with others as long as they don't harm the innocent - sure, single people if you must just don't rob little old ladies...oddly I expect a certain moral standard from my criminals.

My attitude is like yours. I had the stereotypical sense of rigid morality that many people on the spectrum have but I grew out of it. My understanding of things changed and so did my sense of morality.


Generally I just want to avoid causing pain to other people. I wouldn't have a problem with breaking certain laws as long as nobody gets hurt and I am willing to accept the consequences. The nobody getting hurt thing usually puts me in agreement with the legal system but there are exceptions. The use of hallucinogenic drugs is one. I don't see the harm in using a hallucinogen with precautions taken. If it can be done in a way that doesn't hurt anyone I don't see a problem.


I'd like to say that there is no situation in which I would violate my general principle of not causing other people pain but there was a situation in which I did. My moral objection to harming other people is based on sympathy. It bothers me when people are hurting and it would also bother me if I actually caused that pain. There was one time when an obsession of mine made me feel like I absolutely had to do something that could've potentially caused my family emotional pain. I felt a strong compulsion to hurt myself and I decided that as much as I don't want to hurt anyone I just need to do this and I'll do everything I can to minimize the collateral damage done to my family but I still have to do this even knowing people could get hurt. I failed to shield my family from it and I felt terrible but I did put my own interests in front of my morals that time. I did exactly what a psychopath would've done.

I'd never hurt anyone unfairly for any material gain whatsoever but my immaterial obsessions have trumped my morality on one occasion. I wouldn't do it for fame, fortune, pride, or even supernatural power if it were possible but I do have a less conventional weak spot in my integrity.


Retribution is a grey area in my sense of morality. Not emotionally driven retribution. I just question whether it is fair for someone who has taken advantage of someone, caused pain, and benefitted from it to get off freely and enjoy his/her ill-gotten gains. Depending on the situation I would be unopposed to a person fighting back whether it is done legally or not. It'd be preferrable to do it legally but unlike a lot of people I think there are some situations where taking things into your own hands is justified if there is no other way and as long as the person doing it is willing to turn him/herself in immediately and accept the consequences. It's still illegal. You still have to pay and it would be against my sense of morality not to take responsibility for it. Even if I consider it morally justified that doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences it just means I wouldn't object to accepting those consequences to make a statement to the other person that would've otherwise gotten away with everything. It would be against my sense of morality to take action without accepting the consequences. If you feel strongly enough about it you should be willing to take full responsibility. If you aren't willing to take full responsibility then don't do it.

You should see the list of stores I won't buy from. I can be extreamly moral and for me its a great source of pride however it can be crippling in daily life and for my social interaction in life, just ask my family who has to put up with me and my moral monolouges. I can't just change that though and why would I? The world would be such a better place if people actually thought about what they were doing and the impact on the world around them instaid of blindly and passively ignoreing their effect others.

Yes. I don't know why. Even from my very earliest memories I had a strong moral code. Even my religion doesn't seem to explain it, because I was drawn to Christianity precisely because God represents absolute good as well as the potential for us to be absolutely good. It was something I wanted long before I understood what it meant.

The funny thing is, it isn't even really a virtue. I don't like to do things that hurt others, even indirectly, because it simply feels wrong--not so much guilt (which I would feel afterwards), but a sense of... I dunno, just wrongness, like parallel lines that intersect or 2+2=5. The antithesis of what ought to be. Something ugly or unnatural, inimical to life and hope.

So I have this idea of a perfect world in my head, and a perfect me, and I'm always trying to reach it because... that's just what I do. It's like the way my cat can't resist chasing a string when I dangle it in front of him, because he is a cat and he's made that way. I can't resist chasing perfection, because that's the way I'm made. I want a world where all the different people can live peacefully and be who they are, where the ugliness of hating and fearing each other can fade away and we can be curious instead.

I want to save the world. Simple as that. I know, it's stupid for one person to try to do anything that big, and I'd look horrible in tights and a cape, but that's where my emotions point even when logic says I'll be lucky just to not mess up big-time and hurt people anyway.

I wonder how many other people are like this. I think maybe it must be most people; only they don't like to talk about it, or they don't think about it too much. Having a conscience seems to be a near-universal human trait, and this is just the way mine works.

Not really, no. My view is that if something isn't harmful in a direct and intentional or highly effective way then it really isn't worth arguing it from a moral perspective. I know that when I argue points I tend to come in from a far more pragmatic perspective: for example, when I argue against piracy I focus on how it's ultimately harmful to the gaming community since it encourages DRM rather than how it's 'stealing'. This also results in me never having moral outrage to anything short of murder, really. Never had any problem with homosexuality, transexuality, religious and philosophical viewpoints, even weirder stuff like zoophilia and necrophilia. None of it really bothers me unless something is actually being hurt.

But isn't that just a more abstract, more well-defined form of moral code than having a list of rules? I.e., actually a more highly developed moral system?

Think of the list of rules like a child's memorizing multiplication tables, knowing that four times four is sixteen, but not being able to generalize to what x times y equals. Whereas by the time you are in high school you know what multiplication means, instead of just how to do it, and so you are able to apply it even to problems you have never met before, like x times y. Having a more abstract set of values, like, "People being hurt is undesirable," is applicable to a much wider range of situations. Just having a rule against stealing is all well and good, but there are some situations where a rule like that isn't sufficient: For example, the classic moral dilemma of whether you would steal medicine for your sick spouse. In order to answer questions like that, you have to know which things are important to you, not just which rules you want to follow; and I think having a hierarchy of values is a much more effective strategy for decision-making than just having a list of rules. Maybe rules are okay when you're a kid and just learning--they're simpler and they help you understand the basic values. But I think we have to move past rules and understand what's important.

Jesus mentioned it at least once--he basically said that loving God and loving others was the whole point of the rules you were supposed to obey; that the rules were made to help people understand. He also very pointedly broke some of the rules, just to show that some are more important than others. It's a lesson I think many people, both Christian and not, need to learn: Following the rules is not the end goal. Worship the rules, and you lose your love for God and each other.

One can do the right thing for the right reasons,
the wrong thing for the right reasons,
the right thing for the wrong reasons
and finally the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.
Personally I try to avoid hurting others, but when it comes to defending myself or those I love and care about all bets are off.

Callista's description is quite like me.

Yeah I think so. Thanks to good guidence by my mother and being born as poor actually helped. But I do what I believe is right because I believe in it. Not to satisfy anyone.

Infact doing the right thing can often get you to look crazy. Some years ago when I had to go to work there was a wallet and money scattered on the stairs outside by apaermwnr. Was probably like 1000$ or so. Not much for normal people but many when you're poor . I didn consider to keep the money and turned it in at police station. They have apparently never in the time the old guy had worked there gotten a wallet returned with money.

Then other people called me weird for not keeping the money. I don't get it. But I care about my own moral code. Than people's misguided beliefs. If I had lost it. I would have liked to have everything returned.