Interviewing Heyo

[JustGeorge]

Yes, we don't know if non-human animals are moral agents and usually assume they are not.

Do you have any thoughts on the morals of animals?

Children are not moral agents, nor are people with limited mental capacity, but there is no fine line between children and adults. The law sets an arbitrary date, but you don't become a fully moral agent, just by turning 18 (or whatever date it is where you live).

No, there is no real set age. I've met folks far older than me with less maturity than my oldest son.

When and how do you feel a person becomes a moral agent?

An example of hypocrisy would be "religious liberty" rights, as they are wanted by some extreme evangelicals and republican lawmakers. They want a privilege to display their faith without granting the equal right to other faiths. The Church of Satan frequently points out the hypocrisy by erecting Baphomet statues near Christian displays, usually the ten commandments.

It is ironic those terms are picked sometimes. It does often mean "I want to practice my religion, but I don't want you to do the same."

What's the situation regarding 'religious liberty' in Germany?

It does. But I don't think it is a moral right. We have an obligation to do no harm, but we don't have an obligation to do good.
A moral act (or, in most cases, refrain from acting) can be neutral. A good act is going above and beyond moral obligation.

An obligation to do no harm sounds tricky. It can be hard to fully steer clear of anything that brings harm to another.

Where do you feel a line should be drawn?

Survival is not a thing we usually have to contemplate in our modern world. It is so rare indeed, that we often forget about it when talking about morals. So, it isn't on par with the other pillars, but can override all of them in special circumstances. Without survival being moral, killing in self-defence would be immoral. I can't see that as moral, and I guess very few people would.

Other than that, there is no hierarchy. That's why moral dilemmas exit. One has to carefully way one right against another when they conflict. We had that recently in the pandemic. Liberty (to not get vaccinated) had to compete with wellbeing (not being subjected to the virus).
I made an (only half joking) comment about people wanting to go to church without masks. I said they should have the right to go in (their liberty), but not to come out (potentially harming other people).

I think that sounds like a fair arrangement...

 

[Heyo]

Do you have any thoughts on the morals of animals?

Until we can have a debate about morals with them, I'll stay agnostic.

Except cats. Cats know exactly what they do. They are pure evil. (jk)

No, there is no real set age. I've met folks far older than me with less maturity than my oldest son.

When and how do you feel a person becomes a moral agent?

Once they are able to contemplate the repercussions of their actions - which isn't helping much as a definition because you could ask when that happens. It's hard to fix it unambiguously.

It is ironic those terms are picked sometimes. It does often mean "I want to practice my religion, but I don't want you to do the same."

What's the situation regarding 'religious liberty' in Germany?

Opposite of what it is in the US. De jure, we don't have separation of church and state, but in practice, there is little controversy.

An obligation to do no harm sounds tricky. It can be hard to fully steer clear of anything that brings harm to another.

Where do you feel a line should be drawn?

There is no hard line. Most of the time, you end up in a dilemma between your liberty and the wellbeing of others. One way to solve the dilemma is to reverse the situation. Would the other person voluntarily curtail their liberty to prevent harm from you? Then so should you.

Or, on a more abstract scale: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will, that it should become a universal law." Categorical Imperative, Immanuel Kant

 

[JustGeorge]

Until we can have a debate about morals with them, I'll stay agnostic.

That sounds fair. And, expected, from what I've learned of you!

Except cats. Cats know exactly what they do. They are pure evil. (jk)

Maybe, but they're cute anyways.

Once they are able to contemplate the repercussions of their actions - which isn't helping much as a definition because you could ask when that happens. It's hard to fix it unambiguously.

I suspect its not always a straightforward process...

How did you come to form your ethics?

Opposite of what it is in the US. De jure, we don't have separation of church and state, but in practice, there is little controversy.

What does not having separation of church and state look like?

There is no hard line. Most of the time, you end up in a dilemma between your liberty and the wellbeing of others. One way to solve the dilemma is to reverse the situation. Would the other person voluntarily curtail their liberty to prevent harm from you? Then so should you.

I guess that makes it pretty case by case... and that's probably a good thing.

 

[Heyo]

How did you come to form your ethics?

1. I was born with a basic sense of empathy.
2. My parents taught me their morals, which pretty much align with mine.

E.g. whenever we were caught in some shenanigans that led to conflict,​

my father wouldn't defend me (like most parents would defend their​

child). He would hear all sides and put blame on who he judged was at​

fault. So, tribalism was never in my catalogue of values.​

3. From there on, morality always seemed a thing of logic to me. Once one

accepts some basic premises, the rest follows trivially.​

What does not having separation of church and state look like?

For once, we have the CDU and CSU (Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union), two parties, mostly ranking first or second place in members and voters. Also, the Christian churches have some privileges which go back to the time of the Kaiser. In the Weimarer Republik and under Hitler the RCC was dispossessed of some of their land (they are still the biggest real estate owner), and in exchange were granted these privileges. They don't have to adhere to worker protection laws, and the state collects their tithes as a tax. Those aren't laws, but treaties, so they can't be easily changed. There is more, but I can't remember of the top of the head, I think they have guaranteed seats in some ethics commissions, and religion is a regular subject in school.
But the churches are smart enough not to overuse their power.

 

[JustGeorge]

1. I was born with a basic sense of empathy.

Interesting. Do you think empathy is more of a natural behavior, then, as opposed to a learned one?

2. My parents taught me their morals, which pretty much align with mine.

E.g. whenever we were caught in some shenanigans that led to conflict,​

my father wouldn't defend me (like most parents would defend their​

child). He would hear all sides and put blame on who he judged was at​

fault. So, tribalism was never in my catalogue of values.​

That's very helpful. Was there a lot of squabbling between siblings?

3. From there on, morality always seemed a thing of logic to me. Once one

accepts some basic premises, the rest follows trivially.​

Fair enough.

For once, we have the CDU and CSU (Christian Democratic Union and Christian Social Union), two parties, mostly ranking first or second place in members and voters. Also, the Christian churches have some privileges which go back to the time of the Kaiser. In the Weimarer Republik and under Hitler the RCC was dispossessed of some of their land (they are still the biggest real estate owner), and in exchange were granted these privileges. They don't have to adhere to worker protection laws, and the state collects their tithes as a tax. Those aren't laws, but treaties, so they can't be easily changed. There is more, but I can't remember of the top of the head, I think they have guaranteed seats in some ethics commissions, and religion is a regular subject in school.
But the churches are smart enough not to overuse their power.

In a country that doesn't separate church and state, as a non-religious person, do you ever feel pushed upon by the religious?

 

[Heyo]

Interesting. Do you think empathy is more of a natural behavior, then, as opposed to a learned one?

I don't know if nature or nurture contribute more to morality, but nature is the basis on which morality is build. Nurture does a lot to refine it.

That's very helpful. Was there a lot of squabbling between siblings?

Not that much.

In a country that doesn't separate church and state, as a non-religious person, do you ever feel pushed upon by the religious?

No. We don't have separation of church and state, but we have religious freedom in our constitution. The religious are smart enough not to be too pushy. And neither are the non-religious. It is just a private thing.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't know if nature or nurture contribute more to morality, but nature is the basis on which morality is build. Nurture does a lot to refine it.

Well put. I always leaned that they go hand in hand.

Not that much.

No. We don't have separation of church and state, but we have religious freedom in our constitution. The religious are smart enough not to be too pushy. And neither are the non-religious. It is just a private thing.

Sounds like a good compromise all around.

What are some ways you live out your ethics in daily life?

 

[Heyo]

What are some ways you live out your ethics in daily life?

With my depression, I am barely able to hold my life together, so I don't try to be a "good person". But I try to be a moral person, i.e. I try to refrain from immoral actions. I treat people equally without playing favours or acting tribally, I don't curtail their freedom, and I try not to hurt anybody. I don't go out of my way to help people (nor would I have the time or power to do so), but I help, when I can, when someone in need comes to me.

 

[JustGeorge]

With my depression, I am barely able to hold my life together, so I don't try to be a "good person".

"be a good person"

I find this statement interesting. It turns the idea of a good person into an action rather than a state.

Any thoughts on this?

But I try to be a moral person, i.e. I try to refrain from immoral actions. I treat people equally without playing favours or acting tribally,

That can be hard.

Do you feel you have a 'tribe'?

I don't curtail their freedom, and I try not to hurt anybody. I don't go out of my way to help people (nor would I have the time or power to do so), but I help, when I can, when someone in need comes to me.

Seems sound to me.

 

[Heyo]

"be a good person"

I find this statement interesting. It turns the idea of a good person into an action rather than a state.

It is one of the principles of moral philosophy that people aren't "good" or "bad". Only actions are moral, amoral or immoral. The concept of "bad person/good person" (or villain and hero) makes for useful literary figures, but not for real humans.
And often enough, the heroes, if they don't die as heroes, live on to become the villains. That happens when they do immoral things "for the greater good".

Do you feel you have a 'tribe'?

I have a bunch of people for whom I care more than for others. And yes, that leads to me not treating them equally. Actions I would let slide in a stranger, will bother me when a "tribe member" does them. And I will bother them.
I think that is also a remnant of my upbringing. My parents instilled part of the arrogance in me that I still have. I was always asked "what were you thinking?" or told "you are smart, you shouldn't do stupid things like the others". I will always hold myself (and my tribe) to higher standards.

 

[JustGeorge]

It is one of the principles of moral philosophy that people aren't "good" or "bad". Only actions are moral, amoral or immoral. The concept of "bad person/good person" (or villain and hero) makes for useful literary figures, but not for real humans.

I like that.

I have a bunch of people for whom I care more than for others. And yes, that leads to me not treating them equally. Actions I would let slide in a stranger, will bother me when a "tribe member" does them. And I will bother them.
I think that is also a remnant of my upbringing. My parents instilled part of the arrogance in me that I still have. I was always asked "what were you thinking?" or told "you are smart, you shouldn't do stupid things like the others". I will always hold myself (and my tribe) to higher standards.

I can understand that. I think I do something similar. Have to catch myself...

Is there anything you'd like those reading this interview to know about your outlook or worldview?

 

[sun rise]

The concept of "bad person/good person" (or villain and hero) makes for useful literary figures, but not for real humans.

There are a few people who really challenge that for me but basically I see it the same way.

 

[Heyo]

Is there anything you'd like those reading this interview to know about your outlook or worldview?

I think a vital part of a world view is the Menschenbild (another philosophical German word, you should adopt, "image of man" just doesn't have the same meaning). Mine is that most people do good, most of the time. But people are also lazy, fearful and dumb.
That is diametrically opposite of the Abrahamic Menschenbild, where people are inherently "fallen", and unable to change that state without divine help.
We are able to do almost anything we want. We just have to learn how, overcome the fear of the unknown, and get off our arses.

 

[JustGeorge]

I think a vital part of a world view is the Menschenbild (another philosophical German word, you should adopt, "image of man" just doesn't have the same meaning). Mine is that most people do good, most of the time. But people are also lazy, fearful and dumb.

I would agree. It seems most mean to do okay, but sometimes fall short(because of laziness, fear, and stupidity).

That is diametrically opposite of the Abrahamic Menschenbild, where people are inherently "fallen", and unable to change that state without divine help.

True. How do you think it is you came to drop that Menschenbild while living in an Abrahamic culture?

We are able to do almost anything we want. We just have to learn how, overcome the fear of the unknown, and get off our arses.

Do you mean this on a personal level, or societal level(or both)?

 

[Vinayaka]

This is an enjoyable and insightful read. Thanks to the both of you.

 

[Heyo]

True. How do you think it is you came to drop that Menschenbild while living in an Abrahamic culture?

I don't think the culture I've been raised in had much of that Biblical Menschenbild. The majority religion was Lutheran. Compared to Catholics, they are very progressive, and they don't lay on that sin, hell and redemption schtik quite as thick. And it were the 60s and 70s, I was six when NASA put men on the moon. That was an inspiration.

Do you mean this on a personal level, or societal level(or both)?

In general. I made an OP, based on a YouTube video I saw, about "learned helplessness" (Learned Helplessness and Religion) (which got 0 replies). That video explains what hinders us from doing what we can. And most of the time it aren't physical challenges, but people who tell us we can't do it (and sometimes actively hold us from it).
When I'm asked if I can do something, I use my Agnosticism. I say "I don't know, I never tried". I don't say "no", if I don't know that I'm really unable.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't think the culture I've been raised in had much of that Biblical Menschenbild. The majority religion was Lutheran. Compared to Catholics, they are very progressive, and they don't lay on that sin, hell and redemption schtik quite as thick. And it were the 60s and 70s, I was six when NASA put men on the moon. That was an inspiration.

How did that affect you and other children you knew at that time?

In general. I made an OP, based on a YouTube video I saw, about "learned helplessness" (Learned Helplessness and Religion) (which got 0 replies). That video explains what hinders us from doing what we can. And most of the time it aren't physical challenges, but people who tell us we can't do it (and sometimes actively hold us from it).

Why do you think folks do that to each other?

When I'm asked if I can do something, I use my Agnosticism. I say "I don't know, I never tried". I don't say "no", if I don't know that I'm really unable.

That's a healthy way to do it.

 

[Heyo]

How did that affect you and other children you knew at that time?

It increased my interest in science and technology. Others weren't phased by it, at least not in that way. But I think it affected us all for a long time. The outlook on life was mostly positive for all of us.

Why do you think folks do that to each other?

Control. People who can't help themselves are dependent. When I can convince them that they need me, they won't kick me out, and they gladly pay me for my service.

 

[JustGeorge]

It increased my interest in science and technology. Others weren't phased by it, at least not in that way. But I think it affected us all for a long time. The outlook on life was mostly positive for all of us.

Control. People who can't help themselves are dependent. When I can convince them that they need me, they won't kick me out, and they gladly pay me for my service.

Hm. Right after I read that, I told my youngest son he couldn't do something, though it was because he was going to bust his head on the step if he continued.

Do you think "you can't do that" is always(or more often than not) a self centered comment?

 

[Heyo]

Hm. Right after I read that, I told my youngest son he couldn't do something, though it was because he was going to bust his head on the step if he continued.

Do you think "you can't do that" is always(or more often than not) a self centered comment?

Yep. Although I see the pragmatic necessity. "You can't do that" should be reserved for being a married bachelor, dividing by zero and breaking laws of nature. "You can't do that, yet" or "you can't do it that way" are better answers, but then you'd have to show how it is done.