Download Episode Here – right click link and select “Save Link As…”
In this episode Joel and Antonia talk about ethics vs morals and how the near future will need us to be more mindful of their differences.
In this podcast on Ethics vs Morals you’ll find:
- Morality is like an old way of dealing with technological problems that have no means of fixing it. It is basically created for the lack of technology.
- Are these old ways of moral thinking still applicable today?
- The concept of what’s moral are principles of what’s good and bad / what’s right and wrong.
- What should we do when we get to a point when the moral stance no longer faces the technical difficulties? Do we maintain the same position as we did before if it’s no longer generating the same problem? Do we still see it the way we used to? An example would be the mosaic law which is mostly not applicable anymore these days.
- Is it possible that the moral stance was made in order to solve problems? Create more problems? Or is it because of its moral universalism?
- Oftentimes, people will transform personal preferences into morality.
- Anytime we don’t have the technology to understand issues, we tend to build a moral stance around it.
- We have to leave our weigh these complicated situations.
- There a lot of useful and misleading information in the internet that you need to use your gut and intuition. These days, we don’t always have a definitive answer anymore.
- Before the internet age, people used to rely on acquiring answers the traditional way like encyclopedias. Now, we have an surplus of information which, unfortunately also include misleading information. So when the question of morality comes up, we have a plethora of information available to us and we have to make a choice.
- How you feel should be the right calibration of you showing up in the world. When morality fails us, it influences us to behave in ways that are not life affirming. It leaves us asking, “what’s the ethical thing to do?” When this happens, you need to reach out to your core. Your core values can be flexible and not a solid state of “right and wrong”.
- If we can’t identify what our core values, or if we are solving a problem that’s no longer relevant, we end up being counterproductive in becoming productive and happy.
- Referencing your own system of morality, is it rigid or is it possibly based on something that’s no longer relevant?
- These days, information no longer comes from one source, it comes from a wide array of different sources. We have to claim our intuition and what make sense and meaningful to us as individuals.
- When we have a rigid moral stance, we turn off information that goes contrary to it and we stop inputting information. If somebody is offering a different perspective, we tend to get offended and shut off any feedback/information that’s given to us.
- Anybody who has complete total rigidity will get left behind in social technology.
- The antidote to moral rigidity is actually being actively for information that goes contrary to your worldview.
- Where do your ethics and morality heading? Leave your comments below.
To subscribe to the podcast, please use the links below:
Subscribe with iTunes
Non iTunes Link
Download The Android App
Subscribe on Soundcloud
Subscribe with Stitcher
If you like the podcast and want to help us out in return, please leave an honest rating and review on iTunes by clicking here. It will help the show and its ranking in iTunes immensely! We would be eternally grateful!
Want to learn more?
Discover Your Personal Genius
We want to hear from you. Leave your comments below…
Share:
Podcast - Episode 0069 - Tribal Leadership
Podcast - Episode 0071 - Disney Pixar Inside Out Movie & Emotions (Part 1)
13 comments
Thanks for the insight! I’ve enjoyed what I’ve heard and read from Sam Harris, though I’ll admit I haven’t followed all of his work intimately. I love having people who know their stuff add their perspective – please continue to do so! It fleshes out the conversations here beautifully.
A
Hi just a quick introverted intuitive response from a 28-year old historian (INTJ) from The Netherlands. You referred to the TEDx by Sam Harris on the relation between science and human values, also I noticef a regular referral to ‘life-affirming’ morality in this and other podcasts. This is clearly a Nietzschean (the Godfather of INTJs) term (not sure if it’s intentional) and therefore I can’t help looking at it from ‘beyond-and-evil’-perspective: although Harris makes some great points and is clearly both morally (at least to me) and rhetorically compelling, one simply has to disagree on the basis of pure systemic logic. I will assume the audience applauded his pro-active progressive moral stance, but not the consistency of his arguments – otherwise I might be branded ‘arrogant’ for believing they just didn’t get it. The argument was flawed because the speaker assumed some very obvious moral premisses, some of the most obvious ones being that murder is wrong and that suffering is bad for any individual and anything that removes this from us (using science) is thus morally right, objectively. Nietzsche, being the inventor of life-affirming moral philosophy, would have explained that it is sometimes precisely the unjust and often pointless suffering that makes us grow as humans, because it forces us to create meaning in a cold and unforgiving universe without any. He even goes as far as to blatantly contradict himself using the chess-dame analogy, as there he makes the same logical inference as Nietzsche would about suffering being also a good thing sometimes. In other words, although I agree with his moral values, I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with his idea of objective moral truths, as compelling as it may be rhetorically. He is very good in manipulating his audience and is obviously a very intelligent intuitive personality (dare I say INTJ?), and therefore I think he knows this all to well. He is promoting a (compelling) agenda, but his argument does not hold up philosophically. Cheers from Holland :)
Hey Andy! Thanks for the awesome feedback! Rules vs judgment are very polarizing for me due to a strictly confined, rule-oriented past. I prefer to reject such rule-centric systems, but I can see how they are a necessary evil for some. Rules create structure…which can be good in a world where not everyone honors everyone else. Not everyone has a well trained “Inner Authority.”
Maybe rule-oriented structures (e.g. gov’t, education, religion, dynasties, etc.) are there to draw those who like to be governed by rules, and those who prefer to use their own rubric can choose their own path. Maybe that is why some people are pulling away from traditional systems.
Sometimes I think you guys are pulling thoughts from my head! I was pondering the whole concept of judgment v rules which dovetails with some concepts in the podcast. Rules can be an easy fall back position and are totally socialized into our system not only in government but also schools families etc. They can make decision making easy for some people at some times (did I qualify that enough LOL) as no one has to think or decide for themselves. Using judgment requires consulting an Inner Authority as I like to call it and that requires for me thinking and feeling into the authenticity of what decision I want to make. When using judgment not only does a decision need to be made but also decision making criteria established (for me core values) and then also “technical” info about the subject. PHEW! That’s a lot of work for some people! That said, there are times for each on the spectrum. I used to be more toward the judgment is always better and now I see circumstances where personal rules can be helpful.
I believe in vibrational alignment as well and yes, you both are speaking to and building a community of like-minded transformational leaders…it’s your empire in progress!
Nope, you were not harsh on either side of the vaccine camp. Totally fair and the point was clear it was about a bigger issue of ethics v morals not which side of this or any issue you guys discussed. The energy with which you both share info is clearly in service to others and open to hearing all sides regardless of where you anyone listening lands on any given issue. I’d go so far as to say that neither of you need apologize for stepping on toes during this or any podcast.