Is Your Morality Being Manipulated?
8 years ago in #manipulation by bitcoinparadise (67)
$98.19
- Past Payouts $98.19
- - Author $83.86
- - Curators $14.33
375 votes
- dan: $41.95
- val-b: $8.54
- berniesanders: $6.78
- hendrikdegrote: $5.40
- proskynneo: $4.68
- nextgencrypto: $2.43
- kushed: $2.22
- engagement: $2.21
- jaewoocho: $1.97
- au1nethyb1: $1.84
- clayop: $1.78
- steemit200: $1.43
- thecyclist: $1.38
- charlieshrem: $1.11
- donkeypong: $1.10
- dollarvigilante: $1.03
- pfunk: $0.96
- benjojo: $0.95
- krnel: $0.62
- curie: $0.58
- and 355 more
Hello @bitcoinparadise,
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.
If you wish to not receive comments from SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.
Happy TRAIL!
Of course mosality can and is being manipulated. That's part of the purpose of propaganda.
Good demonstrations of how word magic and influence of consciousness can manipulate behavior. Resteemed.
An important question for people to ask themselves is: if you claim to care about "Tyler", the harmless innocent chick, why don't you care about the other "Tylers" you pay others to kill, or kill yourself, for you to satisfy your pleasure when you can eat and thrive without harming others? For survival? Nope. And survival and choice does not dictate morality. Morality is supposed to dictate our choices if we align with it. So much information is out there to learn more, reality is there with animals before us to learn more about them and their cognitive, emotional and psychological lives. Disabled Rooster Helps At-Risk Children.
Thanks. I was hoping I presented it well enough for others to understand. We do so many things without even realizing that we do it to ourselves.
You couldn't have put it any better.
After getting all upset, she probably went to lunch and had a chicken salad. I'm not a vegetarian, I just think lack of perspective is funny sometimes.
Interesting study
It's been a while since I've entered into these sorts of discussions, but if I recall correctly ethics enters this discussion as what "ought" to be, in a more universal sense. Morals reflect what we do and can sometimes be subjective.
An example could be a code of honor. In one society it could be a code of honor to never shoot a man in the back. That would be their moral imperative. In another society the situation would warrant further review. For instance, what if the person you'd have to shoot in the back was stronger and more capable than you, and was about to kill innocents if you didn't take them out? Does the code of honor to not shoot someone in the back supercede that or bow before it?
Some would call this situational ethics. But I don't think it fits. It's wrong to murder in cold blood. But is it wrong to kill to defend those who cannot defend themselves, even if killing involves a non-personal attack from a safe distance? I think most of us would agree that it is not wrong.
Perhaps another way to put it would be that ethics objectively embrace the NAP. Morals are a society's effort to codify ethics.
Or, since it's been a while since I've worked through this, I have my wires crossed. ;)
Thank you for the feedback. Yes you are correct about ethics, that is to govern our moral behavior on what we think "ought" to be right and wrong.
If you think about your example, that is the kill or be killed mentality and there is nothing wrong with that, ultimately that is part of our survival instincts but were we built with killer instincts? The thought of harming others should not be entering anyone's mind at all but that is not the case in this world.
Just because you can think it, doesn't mean you should think it.
We have the answers to most of our questions within us. If an individual had the correct knowledge and understanding of morality, and ethics, one would not need to harm anyone at all or worry about being harmed.
I don't think that experiment was really a case of manipulating morals. Your morals are your morals and it can certainly take a certain amount of correct information to act according to your desire in that regard. This is more a case of manipulating someone through deceit. You can manipulate someone anytime you can successfully mislead them but this isn't really manipulating their morals.
Even the time magazine thing seems like it is jumping to conclusions. Time magazine's goal is to sell magazines. They will put different covers in different places if they believe that is what will sell in that location. Unless that cover is a misrepresentation of what is inside the magazine, I don't see it as manipulation and certainly not manipulating your morals. It's just a smart business decision to use a cover/story that appeals to your market. And not every Time magazine cover in the U.S. displays frivolity. I've seen the Time magazine meme around for a long time but has anyone ever asked them why they use different covers to see what they say?
I think people have an obligation to educate themselves so that they can not easily be misled but in the case of the chicken experiment, I'm not sure what the lesson would be other than don't trust anyone ever. Not sure that's a great lesson.
It turns out it's one of the only lessons. Good intent, no matter how good, still does not equal an unfailing safety net. Understanding the part that fallibility plays in trust is critical. Not giving in to cynicism or pessimism in the face of this is also integral to learning resilience. Every lesson can be great.
If you don't see it that way, then you don't see it that way. That is why I stated "some will view this as clever marketing."
The experiment was to show show morality. Then I went on to describe manipulation. Then I went on to describe the choice to be moral with the awareness of this.
The lesson isn't not to trust anyone, the lesson is morality, truth, and understanding. The power of thought and influence and an individual to be responsible with that power.
I think that all of these are at least aspects of moral challenges. It appears to me that there is a persistent and systemic misunderstanding of the meaning of morality. Many people want it to be all wound up with spooky, feely, superhero that lives in the sky, magical thinking relativism. I am not sure why so many reject morality based in reason.
Zen has a similar concept in "correct action" or action with respect to the parameters of the dynamics of the natural world. When performed correctly, action becomes effortless, due to avoiding action that resists natural dynamics.
Yes because essentially these were controlled experiments but it was just to give an example of what we perceive as moral truth and wonder, is it all the truth? How do we distinguish it? Do we have a good sense of understanding morality ourselves?
Thank you for the feedbacks :)
It's hard to even rely on "morality" when our community manipulates what is moral depending on their own desires. The only true compass is yourself. Sales is mind control. People have hooks built in that some people know how to manipulate. Government's manipulate people the same way. The Gulf of Tonkin is a perfect example. Imagine President Johnson saying what Vin is above... "Do you want to avenge the USS Maddox today or tomorrow?" I did a steem about this technique here: https://steemit.com/mindcontrol/@jamestrue/a-simple-blueprint-for-mind-control