I thought about it the other way around - that a person would NOT do what he deems as immoral, even if his society tries to force him to. For example, a German who refuses to gas the Jews. Or a Russian conscript, who does not go to war, because he sees it as immoral ( not because he is afraid to come back in a body bag ), despite being called a coward and a traitor by his society.

I more thought about it the other way around - that a person would NOT do what he deems as immoral, even if his society tries to force him to. — stoicHoneyBadger

Certainly! But whatever a person has concluded as a concept of reality is not necessarily concurrent with reality. Sometimes we are wrong. The capability to make a decision about what concepts we will follow is the power, and also responsibility of every human being. The issue I wanted to point out, and I think you realize it as well, is the notion of responsibility for what we decide to do. When we accept societies precepts without thought, we avoid responsibility and make our decisions based on things such as fear, avoiding rejection, or a host of societal pressures that shouldn't tie into the reasoning of the concepts themselves.

So I am glad to hear you say that. As I noted earlier, it was pretty much the only line of your OP I took issue with, everything else is a viable world view, and definitely a pattern I can agree with.

A person is able to generate his own concepts and build a coherent world view out of them. Cultural norms are no longer relevant to him. He himself has the authority to determine what is good or bad, regardless of other people. — stoicHoneyBadger

I think that your description of the journey from intellectual childhood to intellectual maturity gets some things right, but it is perhaps romantically exaggerated. For instance, new concepts build on old concepts. 'Determining what is good and bad' is easy, if one secretly decides, that this or that taboo has no cosmic or divine backing. Violating these norms may be practically quite difficult. The internal freedom of the moral skeptic can be framed as a kind of escapist or substitute freedom. A more practical kind of freedom might require risk of life or at least comfort or reputation for its establishment.

A more practical kind of freedom might require risk of life or at least comfort or reputation for its establishment. — jas0n

Well, of course when a person goes against the mob, the mob would try to bully him back into conformity. But hopefully he has enough of a spine to say "no, I am right and you all are wrong!". Modern examples that come to mind might be Peterson, Gad Saad and such. :)

The issue I wanted to point out, and I think you realize it as well, is the notion of responsibility for what we decide to do. When we accept societies precepts without thought, we avoid responsibility and make our decisions based on things such as fear, avoiding rejection, or a host of societal pressures that shouldn't tie into the reasoning of the concepts themselves. — Philosophim

I think people always bare responsibility for their action or inaction, no matter whether they did it on their own accord to were lead there by societal norms. )

"I have the right to do whatever I want and call it good, no matter how it affects other people." — Philosophim

On the other hand, that is how the world works. People do what they believe is good, sometimes it is really good, sometimes they might be extremely delusional.

I think people always bare responsibility for their action or inaction, no matter whether they did it on their own accord to were lead there by societal norms. — stoicHoneyBadger

Agreed. My intention was more to convey that people who only rely and act on societies expectations without question or thinking about it, are avoiding their responsibilities as a being with agency.

"I have the right to do whatever I want and call it good, no matter how it affects other people."
— Philosophim

On the other hand, that is how the world works. People do what they believe is good, sometimes it is really good, sometimes they might be extremely delusional. — stoicHoneyBadger

To be clear, I was paraphrasing what you said. I don't agree with it. We have the capability to do whatever we want and call it good. That doesn't mean we're correct, or that we aren't responsible for what results from that decision. If I chose wrong in what I deemed to be good, those who had chosen correctly would have every right to stop me.

If I chose wrong in what I deemed to be good, those who had chosen correctly would have every right to stop me. — Philosophim

Of course, again, that's how the world works. Different people have different concepts and they often fight each other in some way to make one concept dominate over the other. For example, Putin wants to export his 'russian world' concept onto Ukraine, while Ukraine wants to have its own concepts, so they are fighting for it.

I'm loving it! It's practically exactly the way I see it to be

Would it be better to say what you are talking about is ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ rather than beliefs and concepts?

If not what is the difference?

In terms of ‘concepts’ and how we develop said concepts through growth - from infancy onwards - we do not have hard and fast concepts at all. We build them over time gradually then extend them into other areas and see if they hold or not.

As an example when a small child saw a horse for the first tome she pointed at it and said ‘big dog?’. She understood that it was like a dog in some ways but she had no knowledge, and no concept to apply, to the animal she saw.

If we are talking about this in later years of life we still come across new words and often fumble with how to use them correctly. Again, we begin with a gist then refine it over time.

Compared to ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ that fits more with your stages. An ‘ideal’ is obviously taken for granted and not really so readily open to questions like a ‘concept’ is. Furthermore, as I have outlined, it might even be reasonable to suggest that ‘ideals’ and ‘ideologies’ are made up of ‘concepts’?

Thank you! :)

Would it be better to say what you are talking about is ‘ideals’ and ‘ideology’ rather than beliefs and concepts? If not what is the difference? — I like sushi

Our culture does not have an exact term for this thing, so we need to coin some precise terminology to describe it. )

I think it does and I think the term/s you are looking for are ‘ideals’ or ‘ideology’. If not tell me how what you are talking about differs.

Note: It is generally a bad idea in philosophy to keep making up new terms. That many terms are not exactly absolute/precise does not necessarily mea we need to keep remaking them (eg. ‘love,’ ‘war’ etc,.)

I think it does and I think the term/s you are looking for are ‘ideals’ or ‘ideology’. If not tell me how what you are talking about differs. — I like sushi

Probably an 'ideal' is something you strive towards. Like Christians want to be like Jesus, so Jesus is their ideal.
'Ideology' might refer to world view that takes a person over completely, like 'communist ideology' or 'transgender ideology'. Plus this term has a somewhat negative connotation, implying that a person is somewhat brainwashed.

While 'concepts' might be close to the term 'idea'. Only 'idea' is usually something a person come up on his own, while in this context 'concept' is more of what one gets from the outside...

He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very combative against anybody questioning their validity. — stoicHoneyBadger

If that is nothing to do with ‘ideals’ or an ‘ideology’ I have literally not idea what you are talking about.

An example might help?

For example, “a good person has to fight climate change” or “a good person has to support BLM” or "democracy is the best and only just system of governance" or "children need to do good at school to get into a good college", "I need to an expensive car, so that neighbors would respect me", etc.

Those are ideological assertions.

Modern examples that come to mind might be Peterson, Gad Saad and such. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

Both Peterson and Saad have mobs supporting them as well as mobs opposing them. Both are reactionaries, agents of 'the people' in the otherwise wicked and elitist and self-deceived ivory tower. Do you see a hero myth in all of this?

Probably an 'ideal' is something you strive towards. Like Christians want to be like Jesus, so Jesus is their ideal. 'Ideology' might refer to world view that takes a person over completely, like 'communist ideology' or 'transgender ideology'. — stoicHoneyBadger

Again, I like this theme. What do we call the ideology that would like to transcend all ideologies? What is the ideal that puts every other ideal in question, that takes a distance from it? Cast a cold eye on life and death, O traveller on horseback. Pass by.

http://ireland.wlu.edu/landscape/Group4/analysis6.htm

For example, a German who refuses to gas the Jews. Or a Russian conscript, who does not go to war, because he sees it as immoral ( not because he is afraid to come back in a body bag ), despite being called a coward and a traitor by his society. — stoicHoneyBadger

I think you are pointing toward an updated version of 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' Of course 'God' is replaced by this or that principle, more or less articulate.

I think you are pointing toward an updated version of 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' Of course 'God' is replaced by this or that principle, more or less articulate. — jas0n

I think so. So 'all mighty personal God' concept might not work for modern people, so something that does the same function, yet is culturally acceptable is needed. :)

Stirner treated the 'the sacred' as a sort of X that played the role of such an authority. I call it the triangle inequality. The 'geometry' goes like this: I am better than U due to my greater proximity to X.

When this theme was more in my thoughts, I got in the habit of looking for that absent/virtual yet decisive vertex in rhetorical conflicts. Does so-and-so quote their scripture (Bible or Wittgenstein or Lacan or Trump or Osho or Oprah or ... )? Appeal to norms of rationality, decency? Appeal to the Inner Light or Direct Mystical Experience? Basically we enact our self-flattering, self-shielding heroic roles...and maybe there's no face behind all the masks?

I don't pretend to reject the norms of rationality or decency, by the way, though one can get a certain distance from them by means of them.