The "M" Word & Autism Politics

Post Reply New Topic

I will explain my morality within context to autism politics (advocacy) as simply as possible. A dignity in context to autism is defined in a personal way and is not always a collective indication of the dignity perceptions of others. The individual differs from his or her label in that a label is a man-made concept describing only certain potential aspects of another wherever applicable. It is treated entirely separate then the totality of being yet in a diverse sense manifests as an aspect of the total person. Hence to describe autism in negative ways may make me personally feel bad but it is not describing me as a total person nor is always applicable to myself or others in all the ways described.

Autism may be perceived harshly focusing strictly on the negative things to help others and yet even as a public advocate my sense of self in context to a personal dignity differs from the label. It would thus be immoral of myself to insist a dignity in a disorder label for my own self-perception and the perception of others within reason excluding autism makes people criminals, psychopaths and ignorant for instance. It is the far reaching items that imply a reality that indeed lacks truth but differs from describing autism when it manifest as a disability in the disability sense so as to correct the disability when chosen by others. Thus it would be immoral for myself to seek in any indirect way to remove the right of the choices of others to have the disability aspects corrected.

What is your personal morality in Autism Politics?

Nathan Young

Morality According to Wikipedia.

""Appropriate" redirects here. For other uses, see Appropriation (disambiguation).

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. [1][2][3][4]
Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.

In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That person is morally responsible" rather than descriptive statements like "Many people believe that person is morally responsible." These ideas are explored in normative ethics. The normative sense of morality is often challenged by moral nihilism (which rejects the existence of any moral truths)[5] and supported by moral realism (which supports the existence of moral truths).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality is silly. The only moral that makes any sense is do unto others what you would have them do unto you. What the hell else could there be that isn't completely made up?

Convictions, standards and principles. Aside from eating, sleeping and some other basics not nearly as profoundly important. Yet still have their place in the human mind and more important then some then others. Not sure why morality is not improtant especially given the issues. I stated mine and am clear with it.

morality cant be separated from politics because morality is a root of political thought.you can not say the world should,love,respect and promote the advancement of autistic people without engaging in moral thought.any agenda from any disabilty movement is inherently pushing morality on society.your asking other people to change there attitudes and behaviors to better you,that is morality.if morality is a non issue than so is any political structure.for instance if its wrong for the police to push there morality on you by giving you a traffic citation,than the police shouldnt push morality on the robbers breaking into your house by arresting them

Yes, exactly. We have to move beyond cops and laws. The only "moral" that stands, is acceptance, because who doesn't want others to accept them? Not to say agreement, mind you, but acceptance; I don't want people to push their ideals on me, so I don't push mine on them. If someone's violent, then I can only assume that they must revel in violence and so the appropriate response is to forcibly remove them from my presence.

And I don't think people should love, respect, or promote the advancement of autists. They should accept us as people and not a disease, but that's it. I'll advance myself, and earn my respect. And nobody "should" love me; I'll convince them to do so by being awesome and if someone doesn't, well hell, no skin off my back.

If survival of the fittest was the dominant natural law we would not be alive right now. Humans and the majority of every other animal have gotten where they are through mutual support and aid. Working together, not against each other a la political force and billy clubs, will advance us. Morally speaking, the current condition of society IS largely survival of the fittest. He who bluffs and connives the best wins. THATS why power always necessarily leads to abuse.

actualy thats a very good point many animals survive by cooperation.

Cooperation in the private sector is needed more for skills development ect for individuals left out of the mainstream whom with the cooperation can be better mainstreamed.

True, if we worked together so many of the inefficiencies of "free market" competition could be eliminated, such as overwork, and capable employable people going jobless. But free market (private sector) is firmly based on competition. Can't have it both ways.

@vermontsavant: I think this is an important factor for human evolution, since clearly we're so widespread and diverse, and have so many safety nets, natural selection just isn't gonna cut it anymore. Actualization and acceptance of ALL neurotypes could lead to... Well.... Something interesting, I can tell you that much.

That is the problem I am working on now in social experimentation. There to me is a great gift for people in society to give which is inclusion. It is a very loving and friendly thing to do. There is also the instinctual components that relate to it and thus far really the survival of the fittest components manifest in society leave people out and not just out of spite for one another but the idea of competitiveness with others who do not include disabilities is perceived as a strength at times rendering a competitive group less competitive without some kind of alternative innovation to it beyond the subjective fact a disability need not necessary render an individual less effective at all tasks compared to others. Compassion is a tool of accommodation and adaptation. Whatever I decide to do ends up in the media and in broadcasting so the kind of logic you are expressing I think of as well.

This world could suck more but I choose to change what I can of it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lKBro5YkPs&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

All I know is that society wants people to fit it, so they give the diagnosis to people and the "treatment" that is required to change that person to fit society. Society finds it much easier to change people than change itself.

People who don't fit, like people with autism, are like a puzzle piece and society being the almost completed puzzle. When you try to fit this odd puzzle piece with the puzzle of society, it blatantly does not fit. So the puzzle piece has to be bent, cut, morphed, or damaged in some way so it can fit the puzzle of society.

If society was only more fluid and flexible, it would be far easier for people to adapt to society and for society to adapt to people.

Society likes to generalize which is a shame because people are so much more than their "sex", "religion", "disability", "sexuality", "race", and any other label society can slap on them. People are a systematic, holistic interaction of many characteristics. Our current civilization's are far too concerned on the part rather than the whole.

Absolute morality does not make sense, because it does not take into account the whole.

To put a spin on it I would say that we are square tiles among hexagonal tiles.

I am not sure why a puzzle piece means the whole of a person instead of the parts that are the disability. Also a puzzle piece to me is symbolic for finding solutions and that doesn't always mean I must change but also aspects of society to make myself and others more part of it. The solution therefore has parts which are pieces and they must all find ways to fit together. That's my understanding of the puzzle piece and why I use it and do not find insult over it.

Exactly.

The way I like to see it, it's like: in the aspie brain, we have more developed analyzer and processor regions, and less developed connector and transmitter regions. Well, so too in the human society. We are more advanced analyzers and processors, NTs are more advanced transmitter/connectors. Thing is, the modern society is overwhelmingly dominated by the latter. So as you see in the individual NT, who is great at connecting and relaying limited, unprocessed information, but woefully likely to supress the new and simply pick up whatever information is sent to it, so too you see in society; predominance of rumors, illogical hearsay, lack of critical thought.

Well maybe it's time for a more balanced society, with more analysis, processing, and advanced specialization to sophisticate the relayed messages. Aspies are uniquely designed for these things and, as society becomes more aware and willing to allow us the freedom to advance ourselves free from judgement, humanity can become a more cohesive and powerful force.

It's straight evolution.

I think it has been happening all around us for the last 50 years. Many things in life now require analysis and processing instead of social communication; it wasn't like this 50 years ago.

It was almost all social then as compared to now. There's no turning back where moving into "an asperger" world whether people are ready for it or not. People call facebook social, but true social requires face to face interaction, there is no true substitute.

What I think we have is cultural evolution; people have to catch up with pretty much the same inherent tools they have always had. Neuroplasticity happens within one generation. That's where we are, I think. Not all people have an easy time adapting to it.

As far as humanity as a cohesive force, that is a good thought, but we have the ability to move in different directions now more than ever; it seems like the individual is the way of the future instead of the group. Humans for the most part aren't designed like that though, it's quite an adaptation for many in a species to make within a generation.

In some cases people with traits of Autism may be the lucky ones, many of these people will likely never come close to a diagnosis. Some thrive in this type of life.