I guess it depends on how we define "morality". I clearly disapprove of the "oh no you shouldn't do that because it's immoral" variety, but in the great scheme of things I do think that there is such a thing as "good" and "bad". It's not very clearcut, and it doesn't always apply and there are a helluvalotta loopholes, but basically it comes back to the categorical imperative - do as you would be done by.
I don't believe in objective good and bad, not the least reason for which is the lack of an objective authority; morality requires a lawgiver to be obeyed, so objective morality will require an
objective lawgiver. If an objective entity (a trait in itself clearly superhuman enough as to make its owner be called
divine) ever makes an appearance to set up their law, the morality issue is permanently settled - obey every command unquestioningly, everything else is
evil. Until that happens, I can't be bothered with morality, as morality set up by a subjective lawgiver (i.e., a human or a group of humans) is inherently flawed by its subjectivity.
Still, the Golden Rule/Cat.Imp. is, indeed, a very useful compass to go by... however that's not because a violation of this rule would be "bad/evil", but because following it increases your likelihood of living a happy, peaceful and content life. It's strictly utilitarian, which makes it a question of
ethics, not of morality. (Yes, I consider morality "ethics for dummies".
😀)
it sounds a bit like being good is a birthright, and who doesn't come with these characteristics doesn't have a shot.
Yes, that's how I see it. You're basically born to be a sinner or a saint (the latter being a more than vague theoretical possibility
😉). If you're not born a saint, then you'll never be a "good" person in this life. End of story.
"It's our choices that show who we truly are, far more than our abilities." I don't think I could say it better than Albus Dumbledore. So yes, ultimately it is the deed that counts, but a person like Angel, who fights his inner demon day in, day out, certainly has greater personal strength than someone for whom making the right choices comes as natural as breathing (and I can't come up with even a fictional example, which is kinda telling don't you think).
Hehe, that part in HP was something I definitely disagreed with when reading it, too... and I still disagree. Indeed, it would seem like glorifying myself if I saw it that way. I am firmly convinced that I am
not a "good person", and can't ever become one, and that it would be dangerous hybris to think otherwise.
So what are your "bad urges"? (no details please 😀) Do you mean "bad" in the sense of "not socially accepted" or "bad" in the sense of hurting people? Because not caring about social expectations doesn't make you bad in my book, but hurting people does.
Both. Giving in to some of my urges would hurt people, a lot, and has already done so in the past. The fact that I'm dedicated to keep the urges under control, as to not to hurt people anymore in future, both by medication (which, thankfully, works like a charm) and ruthless honesty to myself doesn't undo that they are there, and always will be. I will never be a "good person", because the underlying fact of their existence is not going to change, except by my death.
And the fact that I do get the chance to control them, by medication, honesty, and spirituality/philosophy, does not make me better or stonger than someone who just gives in. It just makes me
luckier than them. (I counter your Albus with an Anya. Shazam!
😀)
But that's an unattainable ideal. Everyone has inner demons.
Indeed. Humans are not good. (Original Sin - a colorful metaphor for a basic psychological truth.
😛)
I'd envy, not admire them. I was a lazy-ass student, but I got decent enough grades in high school. I never worked much for uni, but I'm still graduating with an upper second (if my last two exams work out really well I might even get a first). I'm sure some people find that admirable, but it's absolutely undeserved.
Huh. We're very different there, I guess. I admire people for what they
are, not for what they
do. If one has to work hard for something that someone else just gets for granted effortlessly by luck of the draw, I'd feel pity/sympathy for the hard worker, not admiration.
