Just curious as to what moral compass people here follow.

For me, I would probably summarize some of my main principles as "Treat everyone with respect, never believe you are above others and always have an open mind."

I believe in the innate potential of every human being, and that every human being has a thought, dream or idea that could benefit the world. I also believe a lot of people don't have the self-confidence to express those ideas, and either feel like their opinion isn't worth sharing. Thus, I want to treat everyone with respect and as my equal, so I can give them confidence and safety.

I don't believe a debate where one part sits above the other will yield any good results either, and I believe that a discussion where members aren't willing to change their mind is worth having, as it'll just be a waste of time with no conclusion.

This is probably poorly written and full of inconsistencies, nevertheless, I am curious.

TeeArctic1 wrote:

"Treat everyone with respect, never believe you are above others"

My version of this is Treat the person the way you want the person to treat you.. Not a great thing if people who don't care how they are treated adopt this, but I'm not saying that's how the view should be for everyone. If I treat someone badly, then I think it's fair for them to treat me badly too. If they treat me nicely, then I should treat them nicely too.

mine is Not everything looks like what it seems

not all nice people are nice.
Not all bad people are bad.
Not all truth are truth
Not all lies are lies

Expose the world, and victory is assured.


L Sike Cangoroo

Hmm. I've never actually thought of what sort of moral code I had, and I never really lived by any principles in particular, but...

I'll come up with a few principles, not ordered in any matter of importance in particular.

"Be mindful of things as they are, not judge them as they seem." - The principle of passive awareness. Take a moment to see things from not just your own perspective, not just any particular side or party involved, but instead piece things together and take a gander at the big picture. This eventually involves finding ways to understand each individual's perspectives and ideas, taking them into account, and negotiating between them all to find a conclusion better for all parties involved in the long-term. Actively looking for something you agree with won't always wind up very well. For instance, take into account the stories of the people made out to be antagonists, and see their reasoning.

"Whatever it is you find yourself in, make sure you get through it." - The principle of endurance and self-sufficience. It's a given that things won't go well for you as often as you'd like. Misfortune is bound to happen. Prepare for it, be ready to withstand it, knowing what you need to know and cutting through the desire for sympathy and instead looking towards perservering through the tough shit without relying on others to validate your efforts. Not to say that you should go it alone, but when you dont have anyone, be ready for it, and be self-sufficient. Get through it.

"Strive for practicality. Move in straight lines, and get to the point." - The principle of efficiency and forthrightness. Prioritize the things that concern your necessities. The decorative shit comes later, just make sure to conserve your resources. Efficiency over comfort, if possible. When it comes down to it, you'll need to be blunt and make a statement on things as they are. Tell them exactly how it is. Soften them up if you find it necessary, but it comes as a secondary task. Look for ways to cut down time and save what you can get, you only have so much time to live.

That should sum up the basics of what I work with.

The world is not black and white.

hayate13 wrote:

The world is not black and white.

This is a pretty good one. At the same time, it's a given, but it's definitely important.

Gonna need to call the Ghostbusters, there are so many spooks in this thread.

B1rd wrote:

Gonna need to call the Ghostbusters, there are so many spooks in this thread.

Share with us your principles then, oh great B1rd

do unto others as you would have them do to you

adapt or die

i forgot about this stuff, actually.

i guess it's to be happy about what you have in life??

" There is no justice, happiness, or freedom in dichotomies. There can be thresholds, but no dichotomies."

Everyone has a reason for something. Everyone has reason to surmise some form of forgiveness. There are going to be scumbags in the world: rapists, child molesters, serial killers, money launderers, walking contradictions [looking at you Trump]. These people are the exception to the rule. When you cross boundaries of purity of flesh and consent, taking a life, etc. There is no forgiveness when it comes to those people because I don't believe trust exist for those people. The only way trust can be forgiven is if those accusations are proven to be false.

However, for most individuals I can't just paint someone as all good or all bad. People's characteristics are more than one-offs. Build up a rapport and social evidence, then you can make decisions about where they tow the line between good or bad.

TeeArctic1 wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Gonna need to call the Ghostbusters, there are so many spooks in this thread.

Share with us your principles then, oh great B1rd

I don't think B1rd has one.

Green Platinum wrote:

TeeArctic1 wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Gonna need to call the Ghostbusters, there are so many spooks in this thread.

Share with us your principles then, oh great B1rd

I don't think B1rd has one.

Maybe that's his principle? Have no principles?

TeeArctic1 wrote:

Maybe that's his principle? Have no principles?

free market is his principle and authority be damned

Live up my life to my best because I only have this one life.

OneTrueDuceOK wrote:

Live up my life to my best because I only have this one life.

That is... a very good one. I relate to that.

OneTrueDuceOK wrote:

Live up my life to my best because I only have this one life.

Hmm. Decent, I guess.

I've heard this one far too many times though.

*Always assume the person you're talking to knows something you don't.*
(It keeps me humble, in the end you can't know everything. It also gives me room to stop talking and let someone else speak.)

*Treat people the way you would want to be treated*
(Simply because it's a honorable way to act, if someone doesn't threat me the same way back then you simply move on and don't dwell on it.)

*You can only control your mind, not outside events.*
(Sometimes you overreact simply because it didn't go the way you wanted, but if you accept that it's outside of your control you don't have to expend energy reacting at all.)

*Is this according to my values?*
(Im not very consistent in doing it but when I'm at my most productive I usually think and write down some values I aspire to embody, looking at them helps me go in the right direction.)

*Would the version of me 10 years from now approve of what I'm about to do?* / *Would you allow your kid to do the same?*
(Most decisions are made on impulse, but if you can view yourself as somebody else then you can be more objective in what is the most appropriate decision to make.)

*Do I really need to buy this or am I merely spending to fill a temporary desire, wait until the next morning and make a decision.*
(To stop me from purchasing things that I'm never going to use more than once.)

My main principle that I prioritise at any given moment is quite simple, albeit quite pessimistic.

That life will inevitably suck and will likely continue to suck. However, trying to understand why life sucks is a waste of time, time that could be spent trying to build ways to cope when life sucks so you can uphold your values and still be a decent human being despite every things that's happening. The same goes with your faults and emotions. As much as we want to change those faults sometimes it's better to accept that your faults are a part of you and trying to change it will likely result in more self-loathing instead you should build yourself to the point where you can live with these faults.

Take pride for being able to be a decent and functional human being despite whatever life is throwing at you.

Take pride for still upholding being able to uphold your values

Take pride for doing the best you can regardless of results.

In hindsight, this doesn't really answer the question does it?

It allows me to keep a level head in tough times. I also inherit this from the Buddhist teachings my mom uses.


This allows me to continually break my limits. I remember the cross-country race I had earlier last Saturday for example, and I pushed myself passing at least three other people who were close to me as I approached the finish.


Allows me to recognize others' hard work and enables my possibilities to be limitless (apart from my morals.)

My Moral Code is simple, just remind yourselves when every time you're about to do something, remember that your action could benefit both individuals. YOLO btw

"i need love and affection, not fake friends and attention"
i dont want fake friends, because in the end, they aren't there for you.
i dont want attention, i'm a lone wolf.

i want love and affection because i've usually been bullied and no-one was really there for me, i want someone i can text after school, or cuddle with in the winter

holy shit that got deep

Just be a cool dude, dude.

abraker wrote:

TeeArctic1 wrote:

"Treat everyone with respect, never believe you are above others"

My version of this is Treat the person the way you want the person to treat you.. Not a great thing if people who don't care how they are treated adopt this, but I'm not saying that's how the view should be for everyone. If I treat someone badly, then I think it's fair for them to treat me badly too. If they treat me nicely, then I should treat them nicely too.

my version is: "Treat every entity with as much respect as plausible".
1.) i stand with teearctic's version here because i think even if someone doesn't treat you nicely, it's not generally a good idea to treat that person back in the same bad way. yet there should be:
2.) some clause that gives you some freedom to vary the extent of this aka "as much as plausible". since i don't expect that if someone murdered your family you just invite them to your birthday and give them some cake. this clause is also relevant for:
3.) entity instead of everyone since i also respect animals or the nature. this fuses perfectly with 2 since it's not always possible (you can't avoid stepping on ants for your entire life or killing billions of mites when you lay down in your bed).

If there's a will, there's a way.
But just because there's a way, doesn't mean that will is justified. Not all paths are supposed to be followed.

We all make choices but in the end, our choices makes us.

mulraf wrote:

i stand with teearctic's version here because i think even if someone doesn't treat you nicely, it's not generally a good idea to treat that person back in the same bad way.

If a person doesn't treat me nicely and I want them to treat me nicely, then according to "Treat the person the way you want the person to treat you" I would still treat them nicely.

mulraf wrote:

some clause that gives you some freedom to vary the extent of this aka "as much as plausible". since i don't expect that if someone murdered your family you just invite them to your birthday and give them some cake

At that point I don't care if the person treats me nicely because no amount treating me nicely afterward would fix that emotional scaring they done to me. Hence, no point in treating them nicely.

mulraf wrote:

entity instead of everyone since i also respect animals or the nature. this fuses perfectly with 2 since it's not always possible (you can't avoid stepping on ants for your entire life or killing billions of mites when you lay down in your bed).

I don't expect animals to understand the concept of morality and what it means to treat others nicely, so no point in applying this to them. On the other hand this may apply to pets like dogs who can respond to others treating them a certain way.

mulraf wrote:

"Treat every entity with as much respect as plausible".

The issue with this is unconditional benevolence + any exceptions you want to throw in their. That's a very bulky way of doing it and just shows that you don't have a solidified moral principle. One exception, two exceptions, you can find edge cases everywhere. With "Treat the person the way you want the person to treat you" you get to choose based on what is logical to do; the best future outcome for you while giving fair chance for others comparative to yourself.

I'd have to say that my biggest moral code is, "Don't get too frustrated with those around you, for they may not have the same mindset and ethics as you."

Biggest reason is I always have this issue with assuming others are expected to follow my example in workplaces because I strive to set such a huge positive example; and when they don't, I get extremely frustrated and I have to remind myself that they aren't me and won't take well to being told to follow my example.

first I ask if this action harms anyone in any way, then I decide if that harm is worth causing for the ends. If no to both, it is immoral. If yes to one, it is morally gray at least.