What are your values.....Human and moral and or religious.....

Jun 2013
19,528
18,003
Here
.....and how do you consciously think to apply them universally and equitably, beginning with yourself (being true to yourself?

How do you set examples and what examples of your own actions can you point to as living according to your beliefs?

How often do you consciously think of the ethic of reciprocity/("Golden Rule" to some) with regard to your behavior towards others?

Being true to yourself and your values, assuming they include humility and honesty (to yourself, if no one else), in what ways have you failed to adhere to your own values?

If you outwardly condemn others for their behavior, do you apply your condemnations equitably to friend or foe?

Do you spend time in introspection about your own behavior and ask yourself if you adhere to your own values and meet your own standards?

Do you ever feel a need to improve yourself and if so, what ways do you believe you need to improve, why and what do you intend to do to make those improvements?

Do you apply double standards when it comes to those you percieve as politic friends, vs, those you perceieve as political rivals? What would be the purpose in that and do you understand how applying double standards undermine your own values?

Why would others NOT apply double standards, if you permit yourself to do so?

How would you rate your application of your standards, principles, values and morals at websites such as this?

Are you cognizant and aware, even conscious of how others see how you apply the standards, principles, values and morals you hold others accountable to, to yourself?

Do you consider yourself an honest person?

How honest are you, with yourself?

How do you perceive others view you, based on how you align your claimed standards, principles, values and morals with your "actions" online and offline? Would you say people see them as aligning or see them as contradicting/defying what you claim to believe in?

If a poll were taken to see how your "behavior" aligns with your claimed standards, principles, values and morals, how do you think you would do?

If you found that people said they didn't align, how would you handle that? Would you call it fake and blame them all for being wrong or would you see it as a sign you need to do some work to improve yourself, assuming you cared about doing so?

Why would you believe others should adhere to any standards, principles, values and morals that you won't hold yourself to?
 
Aug 2018
4,380
7,388
Vancouver
Why thank you for asking.

Values are the way you think and act. The way you manage your actions within your own brain. Morality is the more explicit application.

When someone treats others according to their own personal values or morality, they are doing wrong - in my opinion. You are applying a personal standard to people who don't know or care about your personal standards. No one else is obligated to please your values or morality.

Ethics, on the other hand, is the fair rules by which people interact with each other. And a person is as "good" or "bad" to their neighbours as their actions and words are ethical.

When we deal with people other than ourselves, it is shared ethics which needs to guide us. Not our personal values and morality.

My own values? I'm a Christian Humanist. But that's for myself. When dealing with others, such as politics, I'm strictly concerned with ethics.

When people on here argue about social politics they are really arguing about values vs ethics.


Values says "our type of people look out for each other" . Ethics says "all men are equal" .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo2 and johnflesh
Jun 2013
19,528
18,003
Here
Why thank you for asking.

Values are the way you think and act. The way you manage your actions within your own brain. Morality is the more explicit application.

When someone treats others according to their own personal values or morality, they are doing wrong - in my opinion. You are applying a personal standard to people who don't know or care about your personal standards. No one else is obligated to please your values or morality.

Ethics, on the other hand, is the fair rules by which people interact with each other. And a person is as "good" or "bad" to their neighbours as their actions and words are ethical.

When we deal with people other than ourselves, it is shared ethics which needs to guide us. Not our personal values and morality.

My own values? I'm a Christian Humanist. But that's for myself. When dealing with others, such as politics, I'm strictly concerned with ethics.

When people on here argue about social politics they are really arguing about values vs ethics.


Values says "our type of people look out for each other" . Ethics says "all men are equal" .
Thank you for your response BarKnuckles. While I understand what you are saying, I am not sure others might.

Our personal values appear to be most often shaped by taught and collective values. Ethics of reciprocity (the Golden Rule for many) did not originate with biblical stories about Christ, they are found in many cultures across all eras, including times before Christ. One might not only consider them "universal" in many ways, because the message is both simple and the same and appears to be derived from both the observance of humans best manage to get along with one another and test themselves (if they are honest and diligent) as to their own deeds and how they affect others, not just how others affect them. The very basic and simple observance and concept is that if we would not like someone kicking us in the shins, then why would be believe anyone else would like it, thus the lesson is, NOT to do something to others, that we would not want anyone to do to us.

Perhaps in contradiction to what you have said, but maybe along the same lines, but with added explanation, is that people can and do adopt common human values, from being taught or from their own observances. If someone treats another according to application of those personal values, I would not try to claim they are "doing wrong" as you suggest. I would suggest that generally humanity and societies set the standards for what is "good" behavior (positive to most, if not all human experience) and "bad" behavior (that which most, if not all humans would describe as strife filled, debase, tragic and absolute negative to most, if not all human experience, but for those who are perpetrating the wrong to their own personal, not a general profit).

We all appear capable of maintaining personal standards, values, ethics, morals and more that shape not only individuals, but collectively shape society.

My reason for asking is to try to establish what posters here believe are their personal standards, values, morals, ethics and more, when it comes to how they see themselves, versus how they see others as well as how what they perceieve and claim to be their personal values, line up with their "behavior".

In other words, if I claimed to be Christian and claimed to believe in Christian standards, values, morals and ethics, that claim suggesting they and mine own are one and the same, but my actions clearly defied one or many of the things I am claiming to believe in, am I being true, not only to myself, but to the standards, values, ethics and morals I am claiming to believe in?

If my understanding of what you have said might be correct, I would agree that it is wrong to simply make up our own standards, values, ethics and morals, especially as we go along, because doing so holds us to nothing. We can simply move or reshape them all, (as we see some do) to my convenience and profit in any given moment. The power of standards, values, ethics and morals are their relative, if not global, universality because if all people live according to the same base human standards, values, ethics and morality, we are truly "equal" in that none of us can escape being held to the same standards, values, ethics and morality we would hold others to.

For example: If all human beings are "governed" by the same human standards, values, ethics and morality, then the notion that sinful (or virtuous) acts are only sinful or virtuous when someone in "our" or "their" subgrouping (whether it is about those who like the color orange vs those who like the color green or anything else) does something.

In other words, if my subgroup was all those who liked the color orange a tact of suggesting a lie was not a lie, if any orange people lied, but was a lie, when those who liked the color green lied, would violate not just the standards that I claim to adhere to, but violate ethics, values and morals and essentially nullify them by suggesting a precedent that says all I do is okay, all that those I do not like do, is wrong, when I, (not the universal standards, values, ethics and morals I claim to be governed by) determine they are wrong, as is covenient as deeming them sinful or virtuous profits me.

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. One can argue the boundaries of "white lies" and lies to conceal happy surprises, but they are still lies. In the example I described, the "standard" the "value", the "ethic" and the"morals" I apply to others will be the same applied to me, no matter what the degree. A "white lie" or lie to cover up a suprise party for someone, is not the same as a lie to harm someone or avoid accountability. Under that example, I can't try to claim my lies are all on the level of white lies and someone else's are on the harmful level, when they are both on the same level. If I lie to deceieve someone in a harmful way and someone who likes the color green does the same thing. My lie is the same as theirs and if I am to hold them accountable, I must hold myself accountable for the same "sin".

If I am true to myself, I can't ignore my own actions because admitting to them would get me in trouble, while at the same time trying to hold someone who likes the color green accountable for the same level and type of lie. That's a double standard and hypocrisy and aside from maybe harming the people I lied to, the only other person harmed is myself, by my double standard and hypocrisy. Ignoring it or being blind to it myself, is foolish because my "hiding it" or banishing it from my own mind does not remove it from the view of others. Other people see it, even if I can't and my ignoring it or being blind to it only hurts me, not their eyes for seeing it and calling it out or asking me about it. It's not only not being true to myself, but not adhering to the same values I hold others to.

Indirectly that not only harms me, but the society I live in, because if I can "make up" the rules (standards, values, ethics and morals) for myself, who can't and who wouldn't make up rules (standards, values, ethics and morals) that only held others accountable, not themselves? That essentially means there are no values, since everyone can excuse themselves for the same things they try to hold others accountable for.

This is what seriously concerns me about the current state of our society. Too many of us are ignoring the rules we want others to adhere to, when it comes to adhereing to them ourselves. Further increase in that trend means the destruction of all "universal" standards, values, ethics and morals, because those who license themselves to ignore their own (claimed - as adopted from the universal societal) sets of standards, values, ethics and morals, also license all people to do the same. Thus all people can simply ignore accountability, the same accountabiity they wish to hold others to.

Standards, values, ethics and morals have no meaning, unless they are universal to a society, if not the whole of humanity, what applies to you, also needs to apply to me (but for what society also agrees are exemptions/exceptions) If I hold you accountable for a lie of a certain level and type, the same has to be applied to me in order for any society to claim they possess, standards, values, ethics and morals universally or individually.

Religions have their own sets of varying values and morals, but there are standards, values, ethics and morals that they also share.

I am talking about those standards, values, ethics and morals that are universal to most, if not all humans would agree to for themselves and thus hold others to them, even if they do not adhere to them for themselves. For example, I would venture most human beings would say they would NOT like someone lying to them in a way which is harmful (making it a universal human standard, value, ethic and moral or ethical or morals standards and/or values). When anyone then lies to another in a harmful way, they are "breaking" or not adhering the moral or ethical standards and values they claimed. This becomes even more prominent and noticeable when they then try to hold someone else accountable for lying, when they won't hold themselves accountable, for the same.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
4,380
7,388
Vancouver
Thank you for your response BarKnuckles. While I understand what you are saying, I am not sure others might.

Our personal values appear to be most often shaped by taught and collective values. Ethics of reciprocity (the Golden Rule for many) did not originate with biblical stories about Christ, they are found in many cultures across all eras, including times before Christ. One might not only consider them "universal" in many ways, because the message is both simple and the same and appears to be derived from both the observance of humans best manage to get along with one another and test themselves (if they are honest and diligent) as to their own deeds and how they affect others, not just how others affect them. The very basic and simple observance and concept is that if we would not like someone kicking us in the shins, then why would be believe anyone else would like it, thus the lesson is, NOT to do something to others, that we would not want anyone to do to us.

Perhaps in contradiction to what you have said, but maybe along the same lines, but with added explanation, is that people can and do adopt common human values, from being taught or from their own observances. If someone treats another according to application of those personal values, I would not try to claim they are "doing wrong" as you suggest. I would suggest that generally humanity and societies set the standards for what is "good" behavior (positive to most, if not all human experience) and "bad" behavior (that which most, if not all humans would describe as strife filled, debase, tragic and absolute negative to most, if not all human experience, but for those who are perpetrating the wrong to their own personal, not a general profit).

We all appear capable of maintaining personal standards, values, ethics, morals and more that shape not only individuals, but collectively shape society.

My reason for asking is to try to establish what posters here believe are their personal standards, values, morals, ethics and more, when it comes to how they see themselves, versus how they see others as well as how what they perceieve and claim to be their personal values, line up with their "behavior".

In other words, if I claimed to be Christian and claimed to believe in Christian standards, values, morals and ethics, that claim suggesting they and mine own are one and the same, but my actions clearly defied one or many of the things I am claiming to believe in, am I being true, not only to myself, but to the standards, values, ethics and morals I am claiming to believe in?

If my understanding of what you have said might be correct, I would agree that it is wrong to simply make up our own standards, values, ethics and morals, especially as we go along, because doing so holds us to nothing. We can simply move or reshape them all, (as we see some do) to my convenience and profit in any given moment. The power of standards, values, ethics and morals are their relative, if not global, universality because if all people live according to the same base human standards, values, ethics and morality, we are truly "equal" in that none of us can escape being held to the same standards, values, ethics and morality we would hold others to.

For example: If all human beings are "governed" by the same human standards, values, ethics and morality, then the notion that sinful (or virtuous) acts are only sinful or virtuous when someone in "our" or "their" subgrouping (whether it is about those who like the color orange vs those who like the color green or anything else) does something.

In other words, if my subgroup was all those who liked the color orange a tact of suggesting a lie was not a lie, if any orange people lied, but was a lie, when those who liked the color green lied, would violate not just the standards that I claim to adhere to, but violate ethics, values and morals and essentially nullify them by suggesting a precedent that says all I do is okay, all that those I do not like do, is wrong, when I, (not the universal standards, values, ethics and morals I claim to be governed by) determine they are wrong, as is covenient as deeming them sinful or virtuous profits me.

A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. One can argue the boundaries of "white lies" and lies to conceal happy surprises, but they are still lies. In the example I described, the "standard" the "value", the "ethic" and the"morals" I apply to others will be the same applied to me, no matter what the degree. A "white lie" or lie to cover up a suprise party for someone, is not the same as a lie to harm someone or avoid accountability. Under that example, I can't try to claim my lies are all on the level of white lies and someone else's are on the harmful level, when they are both on the same level. If I lie to deceieve someone in a harmful way and someone who likes the color green does the same thing. My lie is the same as theirs and if I am to hold them accountable, I must hold myself accountable for the same "sin".

If I am true to myself, I can't ignore my own actions because admitting to them would get me in trouble, while at the same time trying to hold someone who likes the color green accountable for the same level and type of lie. That's a double standard and hypocrisy and aside from maybe harming the people I lied to, the only other person harmed is myself, by my double standard and hypocrisy. Ignoring it or being blind to it myself, is foolish because my "hiding it" or banishing it from my own mind does not remove it from the view of others. Other people see it, even if I can't and my ignoring it or being blind to it only hurts me, not their eyes for seeing it and calling it out or asking me about it. It's not only not being true to myself, but not adhering to the same values I hold others to.

Indirectly that not only harms me, but the society I live in, because if I can "make up" the rules (standards, values, ethics and morals) for myself, who can't and who wouldn't make up rules (standards, values, ethics and morals) that only held others accountable, not themselves? That essentially means there are no values, since everyone can excuse themselves for the same things they try to hold others accountable for.

This is what seriously concerns me about the current state of our society. Too many of us are ignoring the rules we want others to adhere to, when it comes to adhereing to them ourselves. Further increase in that trend means the destruction of all "universal" standards, values, ethics and morals, because those who license themselves to ignore their own (claimed - as adopted from the universal societal) sets of standards, values, ethics and morals, also license all people to do the same. Thus all people can simply ignore accountability, the same accountabiity they wish to hold others to.

Standards, values, ethics and morals have no meaning, unless they are universal to a society, if not the whole of humanity, what applies to you, also needs to apply to me (but for what society also agrees are exemptions/exceptions) If I hold you accountable for a lie of a certain level and type, the same has to be applied to me in order for any society to claim they possess, standards, values, ethics and morals universally or individually.
I would argue that ethics have no meaning unless they are universal to a society. But values (aka: morales) are individual, and need not be shared amongst good neighbours, or even family members.

To pick a random example. Organ donation. Some people would consider it a civic duty to donate their organs when they die. Some would consider it a moral or spiritual duty to do it. And others would consider the idea awful and morbid and just plain don't want to do it.

These are three separate values but you might find those three people in the same family, or in the same church or whatever. People who happily live and work and love together would see it totally differently.

But all three of these people would probably feel very strongly that the choice of what to do with one's organs should be their own choice. And that their wishes should be respected, even if they don't share the same belief about it. You don't lie to the doctor, or fake a signature, to change your dead wife's organ donation card. That's unethical to all parties.

That's ethics. The shared agreement between people that how I feel, what I believe, even though I feel it deeply, does not give me the right to steamroll other people.

Their values are different, but they share ethics.
So society functions.

When people put morality/ values over ethics - that's when society can't function.
 
Aug 2018
4,380
7,388
Vancouver
I realise I picked the most boring example, but I do believe that values vs ethics is the defining argument of the "left vs right" gap in your country.

Take a person who believes in "family comes first. We look after our own, and that's the way it should be. That's what family is all about". Now put them in an environment with someone who believes in impartiality, objective evidence, and fair and ethical application of rules.

How long until the first guys values and the second guys ethics conflict?

The first guy will see the second guy as a traitor. Disloyal. Two faced. The second guy will see the first guy as corrupt. Dirty. Dishonest.

Both have their own perspective but the second guy is right. If the first guy gets his way it causes endless conflict. As everyone he doesn't see as "one of us" gets cheated, abused, and left out.

Ask a murdering psychopathic despot what he likes most in people and he will always say "loyalty".
 
Dec 2006
8,726
10,828
required field
Ask a murdering psychopathic despot what he likes most in people and he will always say "loyalty".
Meh. Anyone will betray you for a price. Doesn't have to be cash. They don't even have to be aware that they're betraying you or that they've accepted something for doing so.

Loyalty is overrated. Any alliance is conditional and temporary, whether it's group-to-group, group-to-individual, or individual-to-individual.
 
Aug 2018
4,380
7,388
Vancouver
Meh. Anyone will betray you for a price. Doesn't have to be cash. They don't even have to be aware that they're betraying you or that they've accepted something for doing so.

Loyalty is overrated. Any alliance is conditional and temporary, whether it's group-to-group, group-to-individual, or individual-to-individual.
Find someone ethical :)

Avoid anyone who "fights for what they believe". Because lord know what they'll fucking believe next and then boom... suddenly you're in a fight.

And life is drama free. Just like that.
 
Jun 2013
19,528
18,003
Here
I would argue that ethics have no meaning unless they are universal to a society. But values (aka: morales) are individual, and need not be shared amongst good neighbours, or even family members.

To pick a random example. Organ donation. Some people would consider it a civic duty to donate their organs when they die. Some would consider it a moral or spiritual duty to do it. And others would consider the idea awful and morbid and just plain don't want to do it.

These are three separate values but you might find those three people in the same family, or in the same church or whatever. People who happily live and work and love together would see it totally differently.

But all three of these people would probably feel very strongly that the choice of what to do with one's organs should be their own choice. And that their wishes should be respected, even if they don't share the same belief about it. You don't lie to the doctor, or fake a signature, to change your dead wife's organ donation card. That's unethical to all parties.

That's ethics. The shared agreement between people that how I feel, what I believe, even though I feel it deeply, does not give me the right to steamroll other people.

Their values are different, but they share ethics.
So society functions.

When people put morality/ values over ethics - that's when society can't function.
In my experience, they are all interconnected, even in usage, such as what are your moral and ethical standards......what are your moral and ethical standards.

We all have our own individual tastes which I would describe as likes and dislikes, but I would agree, whatever we adopt as basic universal values, we also adopt an obligation to adhere to those standards, values, ethics and mores, the same as we want anyone else to them.

I don't know of any universal standards, values, ethics or morals that would suggest not donating an organ is sinful, even if opposed to any idea that donating one was virtuous. There is no universal obligation to do so.

I would go back to the example of lying in a harmful way and the suggestion that most, if not all people, would NOT want to be lied to in a harmful way. Thats a moral or ethical value/standard most people would claim. When they don't adhere to it themselves, they are in a sense, wrecking their own credibility to hold anyone else accountable for something they won't hold themselves accountable for.

There are how many "Christian" denominations? There are that many, why? Because they all agree on every single point or because they differ? What then makes them "Chrisitian, but the moral and ethical standards/values they do all agree to?

I think we are mostly agreeing, but perhaps talking past one another, since you appear to be arguing something I am not and suggesting standards, values, ethics and morals are not necessarily interconnected. Aside that not being the point of my post, it appears to confuse the idea of all the things that humans, have observed and measured since the dawn of humanity that have evolved into sets of standards, values, morals and ethics for human beings universally, but also universally on a smaller scale by other divisions of human society, more specifically things like religion, race, cultural and national divisions.

My real focus is on things like lies and murder and a few others that might be considered base human values and universal, because most or all humans would claim them as their own standards, values, ethics and morals. What I am looking for is to identify those common and universal values that most, if not all of us wish others to adhere to and by that, obligating ourselves to adhere to the same. Then seeing how well as all are true to ourselves and the values we have adopted for ourselves making them universal by common acceptance and adoption of them.

In short, do we walk our talk? Do we adhere to the same things we want others to adhere to?

There are also the semantics of how words are used. The words "morals" and "ethics" can be combined as in 'what are your moral (or ethical) standards (or values) or they can stand alone as in what are your standards for behavior or what are the things you value the most in life when if comes to discussion of human behavior. Do you value honesty? If you value honesty, are you honest yourself? If you value honesty and conversely dislike lying, one could say you honesty are a part of your (individual values, as well as a part of a larger whole, which are all the other people who also value honesty, making it a universal value) You could call it a standard, too. Ethically, many, perhaps most people (because they wouldn't want others to lie to them) would consider lying wrong, if not only ethically, but morally.

I see them all on one at least one level as being somewhat interchangeable and basically synonymous, which takes us back to the set of questions asked. Take your pick what specific word to use, the point is basically about whether you adhere to the same things you hold others accountable to or for? The questions in the OP are all related to that in terms of how you perceive yourself and how you perceive others see you, again to see how well we all might adhere to our own sets of (pick one the words) standards, values, ethics, mores.


It is not an easy task to look ourselves in the mirror and be honest to ourselves, but if we consider ourselves to be the most important person in the world, if for no other reason than pure survival, how does lying to ourselves help us? While denial appears to be a defense mechanism of sorts to ease the pain of reality that hurts, experts suggest denial is also harmful if over extended and used to escape reality and facing up to it. For example, denial of having a substance abuse problem (alcohol being one of the most abused) is the most common stumbling block to moving forward with getting help to stop. It would seem to go without saying that drugs (alcohol included) alter reality on some level, in some way. The addictive part of them is the mental pleasures and stimuli, even if depressants, they present to the brain. Look at all the reasons people take drugs (for the effect, large or small). It takes a hell of a lot to break quit that which presents even a minute "escape" from reality. Even if one drinks to relax, the reality is their not relaxing and the relaxation is something they have to face giving up for the greater good of not losing jobs, family, friends and in some cases everything short of or including their lives. The memory of the "pleasure" presented by the substance/drug fights the propect of giving up that pleasure and so denial sets in about abusing a substance as a means to excuse one's self from giving up, what provides them the escape from reality and any small or large, long or short pleasure in that temporary escape.

Denial can also be a means to escape the reality of the loss of a loved one, by death or going separate ways, it can be a way of handling bad news of almost any kind. If I don't accept the reality of it, the reality will go away, is the brain's way of trying to avoid pain and anguish.

To me, what is disturbing about the times we live in are all those who appear to be in denial because the reality is too painful to take. They don't want to believe someone lies, so they deny the reality that they do and by doing so they end up lying to themselves, then to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Man
Jun 2013
19,528
18,003
Here
Meh. Anyone will betray you for a price. Doesn't have to be cash. They don't even have to be aware that they're betraying you or that they've accepted something for doing so.

Loyalty is overrated. Any alliance is conditional and temporary, whether it's group-to-group, group-to-individual, or individual-to-individual.
That might be true to people who recognize and/or believe that, but it does not change the people that believe in loyalty and demand it, as if they are king or queen of the world. Psychopathic despots will demand loyalty to themselves, but they mostly have no intention of returning the favor and thus as you suggest, such "alliances" are conditional and temporary. If the psychopathic despots feels even the slightest hint of a wavering from complete and utter loyalty to them, they will not only end the "alliance" but trample and try to crush, the formerly "loyal".
 
Aug 2018
4,380
7,388
Vancouver
In my experience, they are all interconnected, even in usage, such as what are your moral and ethical standards......what are your moral and ethical standards.

We all have our own individual tastes which I would describe as likes and dislikes, but I would agree, whatever we adopt as basic universal values, we also adopt an obligation to adhere to those standards, values, ethics and mores, the same as we want anyone else to them.

I don't know of any universal standards, values, ethics or morals that would suggest not donating an organ is sinful, even if opposed to any idea that donating one was virtuous. There is no universal obligation to do so.

I would go back to the example of lying in a harmful way and the suggestion that most, if not all people, would NOT want to be lied to in a harmful way. Thats a moral or ethical value/standard most people would claim. When they don't adhere to it themselves, they are in a sense, wrecking their own credibility to hold anyone else accountable for something they won't hold themselves accountable for.

There are how many "Christian" denominations? There are that many, why? Because they all agree on every single point or because they differ? What then makes them "Chrisitian, but the moral and ethical standards/values they do all agree to?

I think we are mostly agreeing, but perhaps talking past one another, since you appear to be arguing something I am not and suggesting standards, values, ethics and morals are not necessarily interconnected. Aside that not being the point of my post, it appears to confuse the idea of all the things that humans, have observed and measured since the dawn of humanity that have evolved into sets of standards, values, morals and ethics for human beings universally, but also universally on a smaller scale by other divisions of human society, more specifically things like religion, race, cultural and national divisions.

My real focus is on things like lies and murder and a few others that might be considered base human values and universal, because most or all humans would claim them as their own standards, values, ethics and morals. What I am looking for is to identify those common and universal values that most, if not all of us wish others to adhere to and by that, obligating ourselves to adhere to the same. Then seeing how well as all are true to ourselves and the values we have adopted for ourselves making them universal by common acceptance and adoption of them.

In short, do we walk our talk? Do we adhere to the same things we want others to adhere to?

There are also the semantics of how words are used. The words "morals" and "ethics" can be combined as in 'what are your moral (or ethical) standards (or values) or they can stand alone as in what are your standards for behavior or what are the things you value the most in life when if comes to discussion of human behavior. Do you value honesty? If you value honesty, are you honest yourself? If you value honesty and conversely dislike lying, one could say you honesty are a part of your (individual values, as well as a part of a larger whole, which are all the other people who also value honesty, making it a universal value) You could call it a standard, too. Ethically, many, perhaps most people (because they wouldn't want others to lie to them) would consider lying wrong, if not only ethically, but morally.

I see them all on one at least one level as being somewhat interchangeable and basically synonymous, which takes us back to the set of questions asked. Take your pick what specific word to use, the point is basically about whether you adhere to the same things you hold others accountable to or for? The questions in the OP are all related to that in terms of how you perceive yourself and how you perceive others see you, again to see how well we all might adhere to our own sets of (pick one the words) standards, values, ethics, mores.


It is not an easy task to look ourselves in the mirror and be honest to ourselves, but if we consider ourselves to be the most important person in the world, if for no other reason than pure survival, how does lying to ourselves help us? While denial appears to be a defense mechanism of sorts to ease the pain of reality that hurts, experts suggest denial is also harmful if over extended and used to escape reality and facing up to it. For example, denial of having a substance abuse problem (alcohol being one of the most abused) is the most common stumbling block to moving forward with getting help to stop. It would seem to go without saying that drugs (alcohol included) alter reality on some level, in some way. The addictive part of them is the mental pleasures and stimuli, even if depressants, they present to the brain. Look at all the reasons people take drugs (for the effect, large or small). It takes a hell of a lot to break quit that which presents even a minute "escape" from reality. Even if one drinks to relax, the reality is their not relaxing and the relaxation is something they have to face giving up for the greater good of not losing jobs, family, friends and in some cases everything short of or including their lives. The memory of the "pleasure" presented by the substance/drug fights the propect of giving up that pleasure and so denial sets in about abusing a substance as a means to excuse one's self from giving up, what provides them the escape from reality and any small or large, long or short pleasure in that temporary escape.

Denial can also be a means to escape the reality of the loss of a loved one, by death or going separate ways, it can be a way of handling bad news of almost any kind. If I don't accept the reality of it, the reality will go away, is the brain's way of trying to avoid pain and anguish.

To me, what is disturbing about the times we live in are all those who appear to be in denial because the reality is too painful to take. They don't want to believe someone lies, so they deny the reality that they do and by doing so they end up lying to themselves, then to others.
Ethics and values are not synonymous. They are opposites.

There are Christian churches that I, a self-proclaimed Christian, share no values with. Literally nothing. Except for both calling ourselves Christian.

The only one thing we might have in common is that we use that name.

I find that I have far more in common, faith-wise, with some people of other religions than I do with some people of my own church or family.

I had a Turkish neighbor in Ottawa who became a dear friend. He was Muslim. A couple times when I referenced something I knew as biblical or Roman or Greek he'd jump in as to correct me "that was Mohammed".

An example, the king David story of the two woman arguing over who was the mother of the baby. David said " let's cut the baby in half and give you each one half". The one lady agreed to that, the other surrendered the baby. So wise king David knew who the real mother was.... The one that wouldn't harm the baby.

I referenced that story and he said "that was Mohammed". He'd learned the same story, but that the wise judge was Mohammed. Not David.

I was about to argue before I realised.

.... Yeah it wasn't Mohammed. But it wasn't king David either.... It's just a good story. Attributed to random " wise" people by random cultures. It could be Yoda. Could be Buddha.

I'm no more right than he is.

But both of us.... Both of us.... Loved our children and understood the story. We had that in common.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Man