Consensus Gentium Debate: Is it good or bad to be open to influence?

[Liander]

I think my issue here is this

I never think of things in terms of good or bad or right or wrong, anymore. Morality is too subjective and it's too easy to justify things and not hold oneself accountable.

Instead I consider what effect my actions will have and if I'm willing or able to support or endure the results or consequences.

So picking a right or wrong type answer for me is....not realistic.

That's a lazy belief system. Though you're not the only person with it, I am rather sick of hearing it.

All it is, is a survival-based logic. It's lazy because there is no belief in it. If you never have to think of things in the context of right/wrong, good/bad, or from the standpoint of a code or ethos, then you never have to be accountable for what you do. You're saying you can do anything, justify anything, under the pretense of, "Well, the consequences weren't that bad."

Morality being subjective does not mean that it does not exist. This is a selfish, borderline sociopathic mentality.

"Can I live with the consequences of this action?"
"What does this do for me?"

Instead of questioning your role and looking inside yourself to discover something true or real, you lean on the superficial. "There is no good or evil" isn't a belief system, it's a crutch. You never have to face your demons if you deny they exist at all.

[Ezra]

I think my issue here is this

I never think of things in terms of good or bad or right or wrong, anymore. Morality is too subjective and it's too easy to justify things and not hold oneself accountable.

Instead I consider what effect my actions will have and if I'm willing or able to support or endure the results or consequences.

So picking a right or wrong type answer for me is....not realistic.

That's a lazy belief system. Though you're not the only person with it, I am rather sick of hearing it.

All it is, is a survival-based logic. It's lazy because there is no belief in it. If you never have to think of things in the context of right/wrong, good/bad, or from the standpoint of a code or ethos, then you never have to be accountable for what you do. You're saying you can do anything, justify anything, under the pretense of, "Well, the consequences weren't that bad."

Morality being subjective does not mean that it does not exist. This is a selfish, borderline sociopathic mentality.

"Can I live with the consequences of this action?"
"What does this do for me?"

Instead of questioning your role and looking inside yourself to discover something true or real, you lean on the superficial. "There is no good or evil" isn't a belief system, it's a crutch. You never have to face your demons if you deny they exist at all.

THAT is exactly what I meant, and what I read into your initial quote, because that's how I see nihilism justified most often. I agree that the explanation presented by Mag holds a lot more weight just intellectually IMO. Of course, this is all a little off-track of the original question...

I still vote "Influence is necessary to be a whole, social creature, but should be tempered by one's own internal moral compass and beliefs, whatever that may be."

[xxsacrificexx]

That's a lazy belief system. Though you're not the only person with it, I am rather sick of hearing it.

All it is, is a survival-based logic. It's lazy because there is no belief in it. If you never have to think of things in the context of right/wrong, good/bad, or from the standpoint of a code or ethos, then you never have to be accountable for what you do. You're saying you can do anything, justify anything, under the pretense of, "Well, the consequences weren't that bad."

Morality being subjective does not mean that it does not exist. This is a selfish, borderline sociopathic mentality.

"Can I live with the consequences of this action?"
"What does this do for me?"

Instead of questioning your role and looking inside yourself to discover something true or real, you lean on the superficial. "There is no good or evil" isn't a belief system, it's a crutch. You never have to face your demons if you deny they exist at all.

This is interesting to me because the accusations you make against my system are the reasons I ultimately rejected the system I lived by for so many years. It feels lazy to me to adopt a system and try to make the world fit into it. It feels like it's too easy to justify anything under a system that is constructed by subjective morals.

I question everything. I try to ask myself what the results will be in relation not only to myself but to the people around me. I don't think it's fair for me to pick a belief system and try to fit the people around me into that system.

In Plato's The Apology, Socrates discusses his ignorance of the world and how this means he's wiser than other men only in that he is aware of his ignorance.

The way this operates in my head comes from a similar idea. I can never know what I don't know and I think it's irresponsible to say 'This is what I believe' and subject the world around me to it. 

I don't deny that good or bad exist so much as I don't believe it's possible for any one person or group to define it and decide what is good or bad for people or the world as a whole. My stance on influence is much the same. I don't believe it's generally good or bad. It exists and effects each person differently. 
I put active effort into exposing myself to a wider variety of influence because it's important to me as a person. I don't get to decide that for anyone else. 

[Liander]

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.

[Yawa]

Instead I consider what effect my actions will have and if I'm willing or able to support or endure the results or consequences.

So picking a right or wrong type answer for me is....not realistic.

That's a lazy belief system.

Existentialist here again! Here's my defense of consequentialism:

Kant and Locke where consequentialists, and utalitarians Stuart Mill and Bentham could also be considered as consequentalists, considering they believed at least a variation of the following:

Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one with the best overall consequences.

The word “right” is ambiguous. It has a moral sense and an objective sense. (i) The objectively right action is the action with the best consequences, and (ii) the morally right action is any action with the best reasonably expected consequences.

Etc. There's a bunch of them including:

Egoistic Consequentialism: Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one that has the best consequences for that person.

Friendly Consequentialism: Of all the things a person might do at any given moment, the morally right action is the one that has the best consequences for that person and her friends.

A view held commonly amongst consequentialists is that happiness is the only kind of result that is good. Kind of like hedonism, but less Greek and less... wine-women-and-song centered

Granted, there are criticisms against consequentialism, but I highly doubt that a full branch of ethical theory can be dismissed as lazy. Critics may and have called consequentialism self-serving, cowardly flakes and nihilists self-serving, destructive cynics, but no one can accuse either camp of being lazy.

Professor Mag out.

[Joy]

Tomorrow is day ten and when I close off debates in favor of making a call on popular opinion. I'm not sad at all that this has been such a disagreeable topic. My head meats have been thoroughly exercised, I must say, and I am tired in a satisfying way.

Previously I broke the various opinions out into four categories:

• Influence is good, always.
• Influence can be good, but it is recommended with reservations.
• Everything and nothing matters simultaneously, even influence.
• Influence is the bane of living honestly and 'good and bad' is a construct.

Since then, through both insightful and inciting push back I've altered the categories to best reflect what has been put forth. Hopefully these satisfy some sort of majority and then the rest of you can just keep being you, uninfluenced by the masses, though whether that is good or bad has yet to be determined. Wink wink.

• Influence is good, always (even if it's something bad influencing you to do better)
• Influence is necessary to be a whole, social creature, but should be tempered by one's own internal moral compass and beliefs, whatever that may be. (Via Ezra)
• 'Good and Bad' is a construct and to be influenced is to exist stunted by manipulation.

Final thoughts? Want to change the opinions presented for voting? Yes, please.

[ophelia]

Regardless of what the outcome is this was a thought provoking read and I look forward to more