What determines what is "right or wrong" when it comes to dating and romance, if not laws or religious texts?

xQueen-Bx · 2021-08-05T21:52:04+00:00

nothing, the whole reddit college kid nerd dating "ethics" is retarded

Demasii · 2021-08-05T21:55:19+00:00

Without an objective source to point to, are these vicious arguments people have over whether something was "fucked up" or not pertaining to nothing more than the imaginary rules

Laws and religious text isn't objective either.

Kaisha001 · 2021-08-05T23:27:52+00:00

If it benefits women it's 'moral' and 'ethical'. If it doesn't, it is not.

6AMPostPerpetualFear · 2021-08-05T23:32:59+00:00

Nothing is objective. Even 'don't hurt other people' isn't objective, nor is 'people who hurt other people are bad'. Any sort of suggestion towards a particular action or behavior is based in subjectivity. This is destructive and toxic to people who interact with other people, you're right. The more individualistic world views are from person to person, the less fluid and satisfying relationships of all types become(on average). Similar personalities will always tend to sort together to nullify some of this, but the space between world views that qualifies as "similar" still expands, as individuality increases faster than sorting can close that gap.

Basically the root of the discussion of collectivism vs individualism, and your question is what happens when you engage in a predominantly collectivist behavior(interacting with other people) within a predominantly individualistic society. It's a soul-crushing problem IMO and anybody that tells you that they have it sorted it out is full of shit and too plugged in to our individualistic socialization to realize it. I try to live my life according to the things I think a good person is, but I realize that that's my choice to hold up an arbitrary set of standards for an arbitrary reason. I believe them because I choose to believe them. Which in a sense is interesting because it means nobody can argue me out of my ideals like "you don't want to hurt people" because you can't use logic to beat "I believe that way because I chose to for no reason whatsoever, and I also for no reason whatsoever choose to refuse to ever change it". But the thing with arbitrary stuff is that there's really nothing stopping anybody from picking any other behavior or opinion just as arbitrarily.

passepar2t · 2021-08-05T21:51:23+00:00

I personally find "atheist morality" patently hillarious and illusory.

Ma foi! Let's all follow a bunch of child rapists' interpretations of the mistranslated scribbles of a tribe of desert people who thought that voices were telling them to commit genocide.

Taipanshimshon · 2021-08-05T21:49:20+00:00

Most religion or law ( religion being the basis of many societies laws ) are based on what's good for said society's survival.

Frankly I don't give a F what you do as long as you don't physically harm someone.

DreamsOfWishes · 2021-08-05T22:36:10+00:00

Without an objective source to point to, are these vicious arguments people have over whether something was "fucked up" or not pertaining to nothing more than the imaginary rules Indiciduals expect every person around them to abide by?

No. They're based on whether someone got hurt or not and whether that someone was in control of their own hurt or not and whether the perpetrator of that hurt was aware or should have been aware or not and how much the perp is in control.

And then you have people that place more importance on one of those 3 factors. Like there's people that think that if you don't know that you caused hurt, you are completely off the hook and every possible degree inbetween that.

And the vicious arguments about whether something was fucked up or not are actually arguments of those 3 factors.

Take ghosting. Who says anyone owes you talking to them a second more than they wish to? You, the person who demands further communication to be explained to like a child?

For instance ghosting

1) there's the argument of whether there is reasonable hurt or not and most people would agree that the shorter the time you know each other, the more unreasonable it is to feel hurt by it, but the longer it goes on, the more reasonable the hurt becomes. And the arguing is about where the line is.

2) there's the argument of whether the "victem" is in control of their hurt. Like, someone can actually get hurt after getting ghosted after only 1 day of talking. But most people would agree then, that that person is too sensitive for apps where ghosting is a common occurance and should stay off that app. That the app isn't mandatory or somewhat of a necessity, the "victem" is in control of avoiding the situation.

3) is the perpetrator aware of that hurt? Which is kind of self-explenatory. The more aware the perp is of his action being hurtfull, the more it becomes an immoral act. Let's say...if the perp is ghosting someone that told them that they have very negative experiences with it and would prefer you just send a quick message that it's over, then it becomes bad if you don't do that. But there's the side-segment of how much control the perp has over being hurtfull, but I currently can't imagine a situation for ghosting. Maybe if the girl was absolutely fucking crazy and the perp would risk their own safety? Idk.

So it's not random. It's based on these 3, I personally am quick to find someone immoral if they're aware of being a perp, while there's people that think a victem holds more responsibility for avoiding hurt then me.

And we're not unable to see right and wrong then, we're disagreeing on the exact location of the line, but that's not needed. Everything that's absolutely fucking evil, is gonna be met with agreement and our personal differences on the line just make us not so compatible people.

jiggywitit2 · 2021-08-06T11:20:48+00:00

Objectivity died with postmodernism, however social standards are what usually dictated these things. The rules, while important, are seldom as important as their consistent application.

Sadly with hyper-individualization, social norms have also begun to crumble, as we create micro communities online which have vastly different ethics and expectations than our irl community.

I don’t have an answer, but I don’t think pure anarchy works, we have to intentionally sus out what our priorities and values are and then find communities to help provide perspective and consistent application of those values.

AntifaSuperSwoledier · 2021-08-06T11:43:24+00:00

You should look up Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Moral reasoning is developmental. The way we form beliefs about morality follows an empirical trajectory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

If you need an objective source like a law to tell you what is moral, it's likely you have lagged or stunted moral development. You would be down at Stage 4 moral development, in what is called conventional morality.

I say "stunted," but one observation was that not everyone passes conventional morality. A lot of people just stay stuck in those stages and never progress.

As far as specific moral beliefs and norms, these are remarkably consistent across time and culture. This would show religion does not define morality, but is more likely shaped by general human trends in moral belief that converge.

houstongradengineer · 2021-08-05T21:59:24+00:00

If you wouldn't want it done to you or your loved ones, don't do it to an innocent stranger without damn good cause. Treat the least of your fellow humans as well as you would treat some of the greatest. Just equality. You might find it silly, but if we all did this we would all probably be pretty safe and secure and happy around other humans.

superlurkage · 2021-08-05T22:14:22+00:00

Do unto others works pretty well

Which is why red pill and other movements try so hard to get around it

TheBookOfSeil · 2021-08-05T22:02:16+00:00

Groupthink and social acceptability rating.

reluctantly_red · 2021-08-05T21:49:33+00:00

Who cares about right or wrong. Law and religion have no rational basis to police consensual adult relationships.

LeadInfusedRedPill · 2021-08-05T21:55:29+00:00

This question is more suited for a philosophy department not a shit-slinging gender debate forum

AutoModerator · 2021-08-05T21:43:48+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

flapperfemmefatale · 2021-08-05T21:49:00+00:00

I choose based on what makes me happy and causes the least harm. That's about it.

Suitable-Law-6763 · 2021-08-05T23:01:37+00:00

"It basically seems to be whatever people make up in their heads."

yes and there's nothing wrong with that. A lot of men and women think having a high n-count is the best thing there is and it's normal for women to have contraceptive pills for breakfast. I don't agree with that but it's reality.

relish5k · 2021-08-06T00:01:18+00:00

The only leverage you have in your relationships with other people is the power to leave.

What makes something "right or wrong" is what you're willing to put up with, or not.

And then we extend our own assessment to others - 'I would not put up with this, I am v. smart, therefore is wrong.'

nemma88 · 2021-08-06T00:22:43+00:00

Without an objective source to point to

Which one is the one that's objectively correct?

I suppose most agree pig is bad. They are an artefact of their time, morality and pig farming has moved on.

Any_Conclusion_4297 · 2021-08-06T01:51:10+00:00

I'm sorry. Do you not believe religion was made up in people's heads? Who do you think wrote the Bible? Animals? Religion is a social construct.

Youarethedickhead · 2021-08-06T03:47:05+00:00

>I personally find "atheist morality" patently hillarious[sic] and illusory.

Why? Do you have something against rational thought?

>It basically seems to be whatever people make up in their heads.

As does every other concept of morality.

>So am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing rational thought.

>Without an objective source to point to,

What objective source do theists point to? You can't objectively demonstrate that a god exists, and even if you could your source would simply be the subjective rules of another being.

>are these vicious arguments people have over whether something was "fucked up" or not pertaining to nothing more than the imaginary rules Indiciduals[sic] expect every person around them to abide by?

No they pertain to our shared social, and evolutionary history as a cooperative species, i.e. the source of all morals.

>Seems awfully silly.

As silly as believing it is immoral to eat pork because an unevidenced, invisible superpowered being said so? Now that is silly.

>Are these just the self-soothing delusions of people trying as best they can to adapt to the modern state of social anarchy?

Perhaps, but atheism correlates with pretty much every measure of social good, and theism the opposite, so the "delusion" seems to be useful.

>Take ghosting. Who says anyone owes you talking to them a second more than they wish to? You, the person who demands further communication to be explained to like a child?

Yes, you can be a dick, you have every right to be a dick, it would be immoral for people to force you to not be a dick. It is still immoral to be a dick.

Reisiluu · 2021-08-06T08:18:17+00:00

If people think you're a dick or a creep or untrustworthy, that's up to them and they will treat you as such. If the majority of people in one culture think you're being immoral, then you are, at least in that culture.

If you want to ghost then ghost. Action, consequences. You'll be called fucked up by someone, and maybe others will know to avoid dating you in the future. Asking reddit how dare they judge me won't change anything.

PMmeareasontolive · 2021-08-06T16:08:35+00:00

Probably at bottom, if you keep asking the childlike "why?" to every answer, you arrive at some sort of metaphysical belief about why we should not hurt one another.

But we can also observe that since no one desires pain, it can be considered objectively bad for the one experiencing it. No metaphysics need inform that observation.

Or the pragmatic one of "we agree to abide by certain laws, as well as non-legal standards of conduct, etc, in order to reasonably expect to receive the same consideration in return". Every culture has its mores and taboos to guide conduct and organize itself in a certain way.

We're trying to have a civilization over here.

Title	What determines what is "right or wrong" when it comes to dating and romance, if not laws or religious texts?
Author	ToughAnswers
Upvotes	0
Comments	147
Date	August 5, 2021 9:43 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/oysldz/what_determines_what_is_right_or_wrong_when_it/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-determines-what-is-right-or-wrong-when-it.816286 https://theredarchive.com/post/816286

Comments