Moral-Judgement

I think one of the reasons people hate vegans so much is because so long as we aren’t around, they aren’t really making a decision. In a group of meat eaters, no one is having to decide about whether or not to partake in eating flesh, it is the rule and the norm of the groups and involved no moral judgements. But as soon as a vegan arrives, suddenly there are those who eat animals and those who don’t. A distinction must be made and staying in that group becomes a moral decision; suddenly they go from just “eaters,” to “meat eaters” and it is no longer an unnamed norm.

This is why a vegan can be silent and still be accused of showing their beliefs down people’s throats. It’s why a vegan can be a “live and let live” apologist and still be resented. This is why they mock us, revile us and invade our spaces. Consciously or not, we remind them that eating animals is a choice.

10

›Analog Interface → things are evolving (2/?): “i can hear you”

— What’s in this code?
—Memories. They’re its memories. You call it a life, I call it a machine, but the truth is… somewhere in the middle. Even when I was building it, I began to encounter anomalies. As if it had imprinted on me, like a child with a parent. Then it started looking out for me, altered its own code to take care of me. It was behaving like a person. But the world didn’t need a person to protect it. It needed a machine.
You took its memories.
Not just memories.

Getting social feedback without losing your ability to trust your own judgement

xulsigae said to realsocialskills:

Is it common to feel a lack of inner ‘social ground’ to stand on with Aspergers?

I’ve kinda lost a sense of knowing when something I do is actually right or acceptable after years of thinking what I did was right, but then finding out it was inappropriate.

I know I have a strong moral compass, but my social one is wonky. Now I rely on the feedback of others to know when I’m doing okay.

Are there any ideas for how to create an inner knowledge of what is right without using others?

realsocialskills said:

That’s complicated. I’m making a lot of guesses about where you’re coming from which may or may not be correct.

It sounds to me like maybe you’re figuring out that it’s important to get feedback, and having trouble figuring out how to do that without losing yourself.

I think part of what would help is to keep this in perspective:

  • Everybody makes social mistakes.
  • Social learning is a lifelong process for everyone (including people who are not autistic)
  • One of the most important social skills is figuring out how to get good feedback from others, and how to learn from what they tell you
  • This is true of everyone. Needing feedback is not a flaw. Everyone needs feedback.
  • Not everyone knows they need feedback; your awareness that you need feedback is actually an important social skill you’ve learned

Also, people who say that you’ve done something inappropriate probably aren’t always right. It can be hard to keep that in mind when you know that you make a lot of mistakes, but it’s important. The point here is to develop and improve your own judgment, not to abdicate it.

Learning how to manage feedback can be hard. Here’s a basic outline about some ways feedback should work:

  • You realize that you’re not sure about something
  • You figure out whose perspective you’d value about that thing
  • Or someone else tells you what they think about something you did
  • You ask them about the thing
  • They tell you what they think
  • You listen to what they think
  • You think about whether you agree
  • You might decide that you agree, or that you disagree
  • Or that you partially agree
  • Or that you need to process more
  • All of those are fine

Dealing with feedback involves several skills:

Noticing situations in which someone else’s perspective might be helpful, for instance:

  • If people are reacting in ways you don’t understand, it might be worth getting someone else’s perspective on what’s going on
  • If you’re saying things that aren’t being heard, it might be worth getting someone else’s perspective
  • (eg: Is the problem that the people you’re talking to are jerks? Are you saying things to them that are invasive? Are there ways you could be communicating more effectively? Do you need to find different people to interact with?)
  • If you’re really uncomfortable with something that’s happening, it might be worth getting someone else’s feedback on what’s going on (sometimes this is really helpful in realizing that it’s ok to object to something or have boundaries)

A more concrete example of a situation in which it might be helpful to look for feedback:

  • You’re having trouble understanding what you’re supposed to do at work
  • When you ask your boss questions, you don’t get helpful answers.
  • You might ask a friend or coworker who you respect what they think is going on
  • (eg: They might tell you that the boss hates email and that you need to ask questions in person, or vice versa. Or that the boss doesn’t know how to answer that kind of question and you have to find the answers elsewhere. Or any number of other possibilities.)

Figuring out whose feedback is valuable:

  • Not everyone’s feedback is valuable; it’s important to figure out for yourself who you want to listen to and when
  • Some people know what they’re talking about and can tell you valuable things about how you’re interacting with others
  • Some people really, really don’t know what they’re talking about and will give you terrible advice
  • A lot of people have good feedback on some things but not others
  • Some people are really good at sounding right whether they know what they are talking about or not
  • It can be hard to figure out who to listen to, especially if you’re new to realizing that you need feedback

Listening to feedback, and evaluating it seriously:

  • If you value someone’s opinion, it’s important to listen to what they have to say
  • And to figure out why they think it
  • It doesn’t mean you have to agree; no matter how much you respect someone, they will be wrong some of the time.
  • It does mean that it’s important to listen to them, and to make sure that you really understand what they’re saying and why, before you decide what you think

Avoiding some feedback-avoidance defensiveness pitfalls:

  • Some feedback is hard to hear
  • It can be easy to react defensively, as a way to avoid engaging
  • One way to be defensive is to immediately say “no, that’s not true” or “no, I’m not the kind of person who would do that” without first listening to the person
  • Another way of avoiding painful feedback is to panic-apologize out of fear.
  • That can be a way of avoiding the feedback too because you can feel like you’ve dealt with it by apologizing even if all you’ve really heard is that someone is upset with you

An example of not listening:

  • You: So, I was telling Mary how great my awesome dog is, and she looked really angry. What gives?
  • Them: Mary’s dog just died. It was kind of insensitive to go on about yours.
  • You: But I was just trying to be nice!

Another example of not listening:

  • You: So, I was telling Mary how great my awesome dog is, and she looked really angry. What gives?
  • Them: Mary’s dog just died. It was kind of insensitive to go on about yours.
  • You (without really understanding the problem): Oh. I’m a terrible person. I can’t believe I would be so insensitive.
  • (If you just emote about guilt without figuring out what they think the problem is and whether you agree, that’s not listening; it’s a defense mechanism)

An example of listening:

  • You: So, I was telling Mary how great my awesome dog is, and she looked really angry.
  • Them: Mary’s dog just died. It was kind of insensitive to go on about yours.
  • You: Really? I was trying to be nice and connect around a shared interest.
  • Them: When people are mourning the loss of a pet, they don’t usually want to hear about how great things are with someone else’s. It can feel like rubbing it in.

Sometimes it can feel like everyone else has it all together, that everyone else knows how to act, and that only you make major mistakes. That’s not true. Everyone is getting things wrong; everyone has social skills they could improve; that’s not unique to autistic people.

It might help to keep in mind that you don’t have to be socially infallible to be ok. You have a moral compass, and you know a lot about how to interact with people. And you also make mistakes sometimes, and have areas you could improve on. That’s an ok way to be, and feedback can make learning and improving easier.

the signs and female archetypes (requested)

aries:
The Ruler/The Boss // Power is the goal with the Ruler archetype.They are competitive and dynamic. Having a position of authority and leadership is ideal for this archetype. They desire control, prosperity, and command attention/admiration. Famous figures; Queens, Katherine in Taming of the Shrew, Anna Wintour.


taurus:
The Orphan // The Orphan or the “regular girl,” is often the working class, desire to belong and feel seen and loved. They are down to earth with solid morals, empathy and non-judgement. Their main desire is to fit in.

gemini:

The Jester/ The Spunky Kid // The Jester is the one cracking the jokes, finding levity and laughter in heavy situations. Often has a self-deprecating sense of humor, cheerful, loyal and likable. Their life’s strategy is to find playfulness in all things. Famous figures; Mary Tyler Moore, Carol Channing, Dori in Finding Nemo, Jean Stapleton on All in the Family.

cancer:
The Caregiver/The Nurturer // This is the common “mother-figure” archetype. If there’s someone in your life who has a tendency to save, feed, or put everyone else’s needs before their own that is the nurturer archetype. They believe in compassion and generosity, while also making themselves the martyr. They’re altruistic, protective and supportive. Their deepest frustration and disdain is selfishness. Famous Caregiver figures - Mary Poppins, June Clever, Maria from The Sound of Music

leo:
The Hero // The Hero is a common archetype in action tv/film, the lady rising from the ashes. To prove strength through courage and courageous acts. The rescuer, the dragon slayer and the crusader. The hero believes in mastery and competence. They are tenacious and carry an air of confidence. Famous hero archetypes include; Joan of Arc, Mulan, Lara Croft, Katniss Everdeen from Hunger Games.

virgo:
The Creator // Per the name, the Creator is the artist, the imaginative thinker and innovator. They believe in cultivating talent, skill and visualization. The core desire of their lives is to feel their creating has meaning and purpose, make art or die. Believers in daydreaming and following their inner voice. The writer, painter, dancer, sculpture are all creator archetypes. Famous figures; most celebrities, Georgia O’Keefe, Frida Kahlo, Isadora Duncan.

libra:
The Magician/ The Free Spirit //
This could also be called, “The Manic Pixie Dream Girl,” which has been referred to lately with indie films and popular Zooey Deschanel character types. The magician believes in the fanciful, in making things happen, frivolity and impulsiveness. They can also be healers, shamans and fantastic storytellers. They do believe that dreams come true and are charismatic emotion-based influencers. Famous figures; Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City, Emma from Jane Austen’s book Emma, Ariel from The Little Mermaid, Diane Keaton in Annie Hall.

scorpio:

The Lover/The Seductress // The Lover’s main desire is intimacy, passion, partnership and commitment. A Lover puts relationships and physical/emotional intimacy first above all things. They use their power of charm and desirability to attain and satiate all of their needs. This is likely the most common female archetype in current pop culture, tv/film. Famous figures; Scarlet O’hara, Lolita, Eva Peron.

sagittarius:
The Explorer // The explorer believes in seeing the world and taking in as much as the world has to offer. They’re fiercely independent, ambitious and constantly seeking. They value individuality, transformation through change and new experiences. Similar to the Rebel they don’t believe in conforming and would rather be in the world than of the world. Famous figures; Amelia Earhart, Dora the Explorer, Valentina Tereshkova.

capricorn:
The Sage/The Truth Seeker/The Librarian // The Sage is the one who seeks truth, knowledge, and self-reflection above all things. They need to have an understanding of the world and often are academics, religious figures, philosophers or teachers. Values the intellectual world, over the physical world. Their motto is, “The truth will set you free.”

aquarius:
The Rebel // The Rebel Archetype is fairly easy to see and define. They believe in shock value, rule breaking, shaking up the system, and absolute freedom. They would prefer to dance to their own drum and actively destroy the norm. Famous Rebel figures; Molly Brown, Pocahontas, Rosa Parks, Madonna.

pisces:
The Innocent // The Innocent Archetype is often the naive, wide-eyed traditionalist. Eternally optimistic, faith based, saint-like and yearns to do the right thing. This could also be the girl-next-door archetype, the ingenue.

SOURCE

louis deserves friends that stand up for him, respect him, and are genuine. louis deserves friends that give a shit abt fans bc they know that louis really cares about us. louis deserves friends that don’t free load off of him, that are there for him bc have good intentions. he deserves to be friends with people who at the very least some sense of moral judgement and can mind their own business. 

Clara Oswald has always been telling a tale, playing a character within her story. Now she’s breaking her narrative bounds, shedding her the images in which she made herself, to discover what is underneath… the amazing, the reckless, the wonderful, layers that will surprise and scare even herself.

Except, of course, Clara lives in a world of fiction. Within it, she is a person, a human being, shining bright with agency and potential. But beyond that she is a character, a story, and she plays a specific role: the companion. She cannot know the dangers which lie in shattering that, the way we do, cannot know she’s breaking a law larger than her own universe.

Clara is becoming real, beyond written words on a page. And we can only hold our breaths and wait how the story will retaliate.

"Challenging behavior" is not a technical term

In social services culture, “challenging behavior” is used as though it’s a technical term, defined as something like:

“culturally abnormal behaviour(s) of such intensity, frequency or duration that the physical safety of the person or others is placed in serious jeopardy, or behaviour which is likely to seriously limit or deny access to the use of ordinary community facilities”.

This is expressed in a way that sounds like a technical definition, but it isn’t really. It’s a value judgement.

If you take the definition of “challenging behavior” seriously, all of these things literally fall into it:

  • Participating in the Greensboro sit-in or the Montgomory Bus Boycott
  • ADAPT rallies
  • Leaving an abuser when your culture considers it inappropriate to do so and is likely to respond with violence
  • Living in a homophobic culture that actively discriminates against gay people, and having a same-gender partner anyway

Defying cultural norms is usually dangerous. It’s not always wrong. Deciding whether an act of defiance is good or bad isn’t a technical question; it’s a value judgement. “Challenging behavior” isn’t an objective clinical term. It means that you’re judging that particular behavior is wrong and that you have a right to modify it.

I don’t think value judgements are wrong. I think they’re necessary and important. I also think it’s important to be honest about them. It’s easier to think clearly about the value judgements you’re making when you’re willing to admit that you’re making them.

tl;dr “Challenging behavior” is used as though it’s a technical term. It isn’t. It’s a value judgement, and I think it’s important to be honest about that.

3

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, forgive me if I seem distracted. I’ve been preoccupied of late with, uh, questions of morality… of right and wrong, good and evil. Sometimes the delineation between the two is a sharp line. Sometimes it’s a blur, and often it’s like pornography; you just know when you see it. A man is dead. I don’t mean to make light of that, but these questions, these questions… are vital ones, because they tether us to each other, to humanity. Not everyone feels this way. Not everyone sees the sharp line, only the blur. A man is dead… A man is dead. And my client, John Healy… took his life. This is not in dispute. It is a matter of record, of fact, and facts have no moral judgement. They merely state what is. Not what we think of them, not what we feel. They just are. What was in my client’s heart when he took Mr. Prohaszka’s life, whether he is a good man or something else entirely, is irrelevant. These questions of good and evil, as important as they are, have no place in a court of law. Only the facts matter. My client claims he acted in self-defence. Mr. Prohaszka’s associates have refused to make a statement regarding the incident. The only other witness, a frightened young woman, has stated that my client was pleasant and friendly, and that she only saw the struggle with Mr. Prohaszka after it had started. Those are the facts. Based on these, and these alone, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was not acting solely in self-defence. And those, ladies and gentlemen of the jury… are the facts. My client, based purely on the sanctity of the law which we’ve all sworn an oath to uphold… must be acquitted of these charges. Now, beyond that, beyond these walls, he may well face a judgement of his own making. But here, in this courtroom, the judgement is yours… and yours alone.

Nouman Ali Khan

Alot of Muslims are living in ignorance, and if your friends are doing ignorant things the first thing that comes to your mind is “ASTAGHFIRALLAH I can’t believe these people are my friends they do bidah they do shirk they do kufur they do haram they don’t care” .. YOU WERE THAT GUY TWO YEARS AGO. THAT WAS YOU. Who guided you?? You guided yourself??

religionfliesyouintobuildings  asked:

What's with the moral judgement on artistic expression? I don't think Amy believes what she said. It's a joke. Stand up comedy is a art form.

I could not be MORE tired of this “you can’t critique art/comedy” crap

Holy fucking shit get your head out of your ass.

Follow that^ link bc you need the education badly. Feel free & highly encouraged to peruse my blog under comedy as well. 

Also, don’t think I hadn’t noticed that you feel completely comfortable and justified as an anti-theist to oppose theism but questioning art and comedy somehow seems to cross a line. 

DUDE WTF?!?!?!?!

re: x

Thea, baby.

You know what Moira Queen would have to say about you killing Malcolm?

“Good. You did what was necessary. You protected yourself and your family.”

Moira Queen was never one for the moral high ground judgements. And she was always ruthless, cunning, and willing to do whatever was necessary to keep herself and her loved ones safe.

As long as Malcolm Merlyn lives, Thea and those she loves will never be safe from him.

If Moira was alive and knew what Malcolm had done to Thea? She would kill him herself. And if Thea needed to be the one to take him out and right the balance? Moira would hand her the gun or the knife, and arrange to have the body cleaned up and disposed of. And then she would hold Thea and stroke her hair and promise her Malcolm would never hurt her again.

Malcolm gave Thea nothing but technique.

Her strength? She got from her mother. Her lessons? She learned from her mother, her brothers, from a cruel world, from her father, Robert Queen.

Moira Queen would never be disappointed in her daughter for protecting herself in a very final, put-an-end-to-this way from Malcom Merlyn.

Bryan Caplan on the Utility of Moral Blame

Bryan Caplan, after discussing how people allocate blame in the face of poverty, notes:

Critics often ask me, “Who cares who’s to blame for poverty?  How does that help us fix the problem?"  My deep response is to reject their moral monomania.  Questions of moral blame are intrinsically interesting and important even if better answers won’t help us ‘solve problems.’"  

My direct response, though, is two-fold.  At minimum, blame provides a compelling criterion for the rationing of limited charity.  If we can only help 100,000 people, we should prioritize the morally blameless, and put unrepentant libertines at the bottom of the list.  

In addition, though, blame helps us correctly identify "problems."  If your suffering is entirely your own fault, the main "problem” is not your suffering.  The main problem is that the guiltless may feel guilty for failing to help you.  Thus, if a woman catches her husband cheating and resolves to divorce him, the morally relevant danger isn’t that the husband will feel sad, but that the wife will feel sorry for him.  If your habitual drunkenness destroys your family and career, the morally relevant danger isn’t that total strangers fail to help you, but that the fallout of your vices will weigh on the consciences of innocent passersby.

Throughout Bryan’s essay, I admit I was one of those who was thinking their was no use in moral blame in this case. I still don’t quite know what he means by “intrinsically interesting,” but he has given some pragmatic value to moral blame in poverty with the term priority.

Still, is it safe to avoid moral blame because most people tend to overuse it even when it is useless? Though there may be a case for prioritization and help in poverty, there is little doubt that moral blame is incredibly over-used.

For example, in the Israel-Palestine conflict in which everyone wants to find a side to “blame” while the other side is the victim and any actual constructive discussion is swept aside in the torrent of moral judgement? Or when two sides in a dispute (especially a massive social conflict) disagree and moral blame intensifies as both sides equally become both defensive. Then it becomes a race for who can execute retributive justice more swiftly. Isn’t it true that such an environment of moral judgement is only conducive to violence and negative outcomes when avoiding moral blame would have produced better results?

Common medications sway moral judgment

By

Kelly Servick

How many times would you give your neighbor an electric shock to earn a few extra bucks? Your answer could be more malleable than you think. A new study finds that two common drugs—an antidepressant and a treatment for Parkinson’s disease—can influence moral decisions, a discovery that could help unravel specific mechanisms behind aggression and eventually help researchers design treatments for antisocial behavior.

Previous research has linked two neurotransmitters, the brain’s signaling molecules, to our willingness to inflict harm. Serotonin appears to help keep us civil; it’s reduced in the brains of violent offenders, for example. Dopamine, meanwhile, has been shown to prompt aggression in animals, and it’s elevated in a certain part of the brain in people with psychopathic behavior.

But measuring how these neurotransmitters contribute to moral decision-making is hard to do in the lab. Many studies rely on theoretical questions like the so-called trolley dilemma, which asks a person whether they would redirect an oncoming train to kill someone if it would save the lives of several others in its path. A person’s answer might not always reflect how they would behave in real life, however.

So neuroscientist Molly Crockett of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and her colleagues developed a lab test with real consequences. They asked subjects to make a series of decisions about how many moderately painful electric shocks to deliver to themselves or to others. Half the questions gave volunteers a chance to earn money by inflicting self-harm. (For example: “Would you rather endure seven shocks to earn $10 or 10 shocks to earn $15?”) The other half offered the same type of decision, except that someone else stood to be shocked. At the end of the experiment, one of these choices was randomly selected and carried out: The decision-maker got paid, and either they or another person—waiting in a different room—got a series of painful zings on the wrist. Any answer could be the one with real consequences, so “people have to sort of put their money where their mouth is,” Crockett says.

The researchers could then calculate the “exchange rate between money and pain”—how much extra cash a person must be paid to accept one additional shock. In previous research, Crockett’s team learned that the exchange rate varies depending on who gets hurt. On average, people are more reluctant to profit from someone else’s pain than their own—a phenomenon the researchers call “hyperaltruism.”

In the new study, the scientists tested whether drugs can shift that pain-to-money exchange rate. A few hours before the test, they gave the subjects either a placebo pill or one of two drugs: the serotonin-enhancing antidepressant drug citalopram or the Parkinson’s treatment levodopa, which increases dopamine levels.

read more 

focus.org
"Don't Judge Me": Where We Went Wrong.

The problem (and this is a BIG problem) is that that’s exactly what’s happening in our present culture of tolerance and moral relativism. We’re so afraid of offending anyone that we’re forgetting how to tell right from wrong. We’ve bought into the culture of “don’t judge me,” the lie that to form any opinion, positive or negative, about the actions of another, is wrong.

While we are never called to condemn or hate another person, we cannot throw all sense of moral judgment out the window because we’re afraid of coming across as intolerant. Because our forgetting how to make distinctions between right and wrong is exactly what the devil wants. He wants us confused, disoriented, and afraid to express any moral opinion. Because it’s in the “judgment free zone” that sin takes its firmest stronghold.

So what should we do? How do we truly hate the sin while loving the sinner?…

Primum Non Nocere

We live in the silence of our shattered hearts,
Like broken bottles they can never be filled,
The contents seep through the cracks and we are left with remnants of the past,
Corroding the surface that holds it,
We are all bathed in the sea of a world that knows not how to nurture,
Hammered by the waves of humanity’s judgement,
Expectations designed by the “Flawless Saints”,
Moralities engendered to shame individuality,
For we must all fall in line with the beliefs of the masses,
Conform to popular opinion of theology,
It matters not that the mantra resides in scorn,
Preaching love through screams of rage,
There is but one virtue we need seek to fulfill,
An ideology that encompasses the very definition of humanity,
Primum Non Nocere,
First Do No Harm.

By The VirtuousMiscreant

What is the difference between ‘personal choice’ and morality? The difference is victimhood.

The moment we create a victim, we have moved beyond making a 'personal choice’ into an area where we assert that our self-interest is more important than our need to make valid moral judgements. 

Every nonvegan choice has a completely unnecessary victim. If we are nonvegan, it’s time to face the truth and start living our values. It’s the least we can do.

Vía There’s an Elephant in the Room