Morality, Heidegger and you

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

a question that is rarely if ever faced around here,
is this notion of morals and ethics…
What does it mean to be moral, ethical?

I hold that the point of philosophy is its use as
a ‘‘way of life’’… Philosophy values comes from its
usage in life, as a ‘‘way of life’’ and part of that stems from
our current political and social situations we find ourselves
today… the question is posed, even if you personally,
follow the law and practice being moral, if you follow an
immoral person like IQ45 and Trumpism, you are immoral…
Morality/ethics stem from not only what we do, but also
what we believe in… if you agree with IQ45, that he could
shoot someone on 5th ave, and he wouldn’t lose a single vote,
I would suggest that you are, by the very act of agreeing with him,
and would still approve of him, that you are also immoral…
if you believe, as several around here seem to agree with, that
Hitler didn’t go far enough in eliminating the Jews, even if you
yourself didn’t transport the Jews to the concentration camps,
even if you didn’t do anything at all, I would hold that your
belief in this failure of Hitler to kill all the Jews, I would call
you, correctly I hold, that you are immoral, unethical…
if you agree with the MAGA party, that illegal immigrants
must be removed, I would hold you to be immoral…
based on what the bible says about neighbors…
and confirmed by the Parable of the Good Samaritan,
that denying people their humanity, by treating them like
animals, to cage them and violently deport them…
As that is not, NOT Christian behavior, and one claims to
be a Christian and still supports this immoral/unethical,
not to mention illegal, actions against immigrants,
tells me that you are not Christian… and frankly, I am
more Christian than you are if you support ICE and their
deportations of immigrants…I would not only say that one
is not a Christian if supporting ICE, but I would say that you
are also being immoral and unethical…

Being moral/ethical isn’t about obeying the law, but also
practicing morals and ethics in ALL aspects of one’s life…
you can’t practice being immoral, such as supporting ICE
and its illegal deportations, and still call yourself, a moral/ethical
person…being moral, ethical is a 24/7/365 activity…
it isn’t whenever one decides to be kind, every once in a while,
but every single time… for being moral/ethical is about being moral
and ethical in every aspect of our lives…

Now a major part of liberalism is its ideal of ‘‘WOKE’’
and what it means to treat people with ‘‘WOKE’’ ideals…
that is to say, treat people with decency, respect, fairness
and with justice…if one practices that, treating everyone
with ‘‘WOKE’’ ideals, then one is being moral, ethical…

for being moral/ethical is a 24/7/365 activity… and with every
single action, we can judge ourselves, either moral or immoral…
The path to being a moral/ethical person isn’t an easy task…
We have to work at it, every single ‘‘transaction’’ we engage with
as a human being is another engagement with being moral, ethical…
with every single engagement with another human being or even
an animal, we can practice being moral/ethical… and if we fail
today in being totally ethical and moral with another, there is
always another chance tomorrow to practice, to engage with
being moral/ethical… being moral isn’t a part time game, but
a full time practice… involving us with every second, being another
chance for us to practice or fail, at being moral/ethical…
it is a lifetime and ongoing engagement with
being moral… to be ethical requires us to engage with that
with every single transaction with another human being/animal…
with every single engagement with another, we have a chance
to practice being moral, to being ethical… but this requires
us to do something that we rarely if ever do, which is
a mindfulness of our actions and behavior…This is why
MR A. is a terrible Buddhist, because one of the major
aspects of being Buddhist, is this mindfulness of our actions…
and preaching violence and dictatorship and being anti-democracy,
that isn’t the mindfulness that the Buddha demands…
in fact, I would say MR A. is anti-Buddhist… because he advocates
actions and beliefs that are not Buddhist in any way, shape or form…
he is being morally wrong because his words and his actions are
not one and the same…his words and actions do not match…
and that is certainly part of being immoral, of being unethical…
morals/ethics requires us to match our words with our actions…
MR A. fails to do this…and thus I believe him to be unethical,
immoral… but do your words and actions match?
if not, then I hold that you to are not ethical, not moral…
we need much more awareness in what our actions are
and what they mean in terms of being moral or ethical…

a philosopher, such as Heidegger, I hold to be unethical,
immoral because part of his belief system is an engagement
with immoral values and beliefs… being antisemitic, that
is immoral… because it is based not on any facts or evidence,
but based on prejudices and bigotry… to claim that an entire
race is corrupted because it is Jewish or black or a minority,
that is immoral, unethical… to broadly paint a group of
people as being wrong because they are a collective race,
is inherently immoral…we can certainly claim that a
person is immoral or unethical because they practice or
believe in a immoral/unethical belief… I hold that antisemitism
is morally wrong, and belief in such, is a sign of immorality…

being immoral is not just actions, but also lies within belief
and values that are unethical…

But Kropotkin, no one can be free of being immoral, or
unethical given your description of it… and that is my point…
I hold that part of our modern day malaise and discontentment,
lies in our inability to know how we engage in immoral and
unethical practices and beliefs every day… so, what is immoral?
people today have no idea because they don’t think about it…

what does it mean to be immoral or unethical?

Kropotkin

1 Like
2

How might we understand this notion of immoral or
unethical? Well, if you don’t want it done to you or
your family, it is probably immoral or unethical…
for example, to be treated as Jews are because they
are Jews… do you want to be treated with antisemitism?
NO, that would suggest that being antisemitically is unethical
or immoral… or do you want people to treat you badly?
no, then it is probably unethical or immoral…
If you treat someone in a way that you wouldn’t want to be
treated, then it is probably immoral…
we can simply use ourselves as a judge for what is immoral or
unethical… would I want my wife to cheat on me? No, so
why would I approve of cheating spouses? or being deported
as an illegal, is that ethical? No, because you yourself wouldn’t
want to be deported… if you don’t want it done to you or
your family, it is most likely unethical or immoral…

Use your own actions as a judge for if something is
immoral/unethical… do I want that done to me?
NO, then it is unethical/immoral…

Kropotkin

1 Like
3

I disagree… could you be wrong about that?

So, a masochist would say it’s good to kick you in the balls, you say?

1 Like
4

@Peter_Kropotkin

Yeah, we shouldn’t challenge Zionism, Jews, or Judaism at all so that way they can rebuild their third temple after they orchestrate things of getting the Christians and Muslims to slaughter each other in endless war. You forgot those parts of their religious prophecy.

Once their third temple is rebuilt we should just let the Jews recreate their Davidic monarchy with the intention of ruling the entire planet from Jerusalem instituting Noahide Laws internationally everywhere. This is something apparently our liberal democratic Peter supports here because criticism of Jews is antisemitic according to him. He calls himself democratic but I am betting he’ll be the first one to praise the throne of the Davidic Monarchy if it ever becomes implemented.

Speaking of monarchies the first Buddhists including Buddha himself historically were monarchists. There was no democracy in ancient India Peter.

Again, in political history I would argue autocracy is merely the evolution of monarchy.

Liberal hippies don’t understand that Buddhism isn’t completely pacifist beyond the monasteries, in Buddhist culture there is nothing wrong with self defense or protecting others. If a group of people suggest about setting up a global dictatorship because their God tells them they have the right to do so you’ll have to excuse me if I think people are justified in fighting against that.

Of course with Peter here we know how much he likes to lick their boots where I find it shocking he isn’t a Trump and Netanyahu political supporter himself.

I am very moral and ethical it’s just that I view democracy as a farce where I believe in a world that Jews don’t get to rule the entire planet from a Sanhedrin out of Jerusalem. I believe in a world free of imposed Noahide Laws and Jewish superstitions.

So, between me and Peter, who here is really supporting the freedom of people? It’s certainly not him.

:clown_face:

5

Well, here in this environment to be moral could include things like apologizing for insulting someone. Pretending that you didn’t do this, refusing to even do this in private, these are generally not thought of as moral actions. They could become not merely ironic actions, but hypocritical ones, if, for example, the person in question pontificated on morals, made criticism of morals central to many if not most of his posts.

It’s a small thing in terms of actions in the world. But, on the other hand, in the little small world of a philosophy forum, most of the horrific actions are out of reach, so the smaller ones available interpersonally here are what we have to judge character.

have you considered my point, that to be human in 2026,
is to be ‘‘soul sick’’… and what are the solutions are available to us
being ‘‘soul sick?’’ that is my question… that you don’t
see my point because you are "soul sick’'…
have you ever considered that? Nah, that would require reflection

The part about soul sick, given that it was applied to the writer and the reader both, need not be an insult, but the self-answered question and answer…… There’s the insult.

And mind you it was an insult earned how? Because someone answered a question in the OP of a thread, but in a way that the OP writer did not like. It was not an insulting response and it was on topic about Heidegger.

1 Like