In the day to day interaction with people I don't generally get involved with thinking about their moral compass but dating, the for runner to relationships and courting eventually marriage a person's moral compass takes on a lot greater meaning.

If a person is going to become my mate and the other half of me in all things that we are "one the same page " is a big deal.

Then I look for compatibility and yea I value where I stand in regards to the morals I live by and set as a standard for my children and friends. I can't do one thing then expect another.

i mean by demonstrate people who do what you said in that last part- sit on their high horse and act superior to others because of morals

i have morals that i was both taught and learned yet i have NEVER been accused of... being on a high horse or acting superior to others.

as to being judgmental... we all do it each and every one of us. when ever you chose this over that you are doing it. the only trick there is not being demeaning while doing it

how is this weird? well by including the end part you lump all people with morals into an extremely bad place that only a small percentage really belong


so in conclusion the middle ground you seek is the first part of the first choice with out stepping over into acting like the second part of the first choice.


in simpler words... have your morals but don't beat the world over the head for not sharing them exactly as you see them.

There are definetely some people that are quite pompous when it comes to moral values. Definetely some people like that on this forum, even. I would say that if they're dogmatic and preachy types that constantly drone on about the depravity they see in others they're not on any middle ground and you can't really have a conversation with someone that attacks you about that stuff. Just an argument.

The main thing is to not take yourself too seriously, I would say. There's nothing worse than humourless self-important do-gooder types. Most busybodies undoubtably consider themselves to be helping people but they're annoying.

TL; DR If you don't want people to think that you like to get on your high horse just don't be a pompous snob.

BALANCE

for me there is no 'my morals' , there is just morals

and they are not attached individually

if one has a set of morals that they apply consistently and justly,,

they are a well balanced person,, not on a high horse where they never see the wrong they do, and not terrible because they dont care about what wrong they do

I was once reminded without yourself, you can not help anyone else. Therefore if you are not doing things for yourself then what are you teaching others about self-preservation? Is that self righteous? or Self aware?

Some things to consider to start thinking about this:

* Those who act without restraint, are following moral principles every bit as much as those who do restrain themselves. Each have made decisions for which they bear complete responsibility, and have chosen paths which they believe prove their appreciation and understanding of the world to be correct.

* Holding oneself to a set of standards is an entirely separate action from holding others to them, or from judging others by them.

* Self-righteousness has nothing to do with high moral standards whatsoever. The most self-righteous people I have ever known, were those who adamantly demanded that they be allowed to conduct their lives at all times, with no regard whatsoever to how anyone else felt about it, or were hurt by them. In other words, the people who pretended to have NO standards, have usually been the most self-righteous.

* The strength of a person's values is not found in how rigidly they assert them, it is in how thoroughly and subtly they understand them.

* Being ACCUSED of "being judgmental" or "riding a high horse," is not always a direct factual accusation. In my experience, it is rare that someone makes such an accusation accurately. It is VERY common however, for people who want to overturn another person's standards for their own personal benefit, to CLAIM said person is acting high-handedly, as a manipulative trick.

Moral relativism is the closest thing to a middle road until it conflicts with law.

At least in the U.S., due to multiculturalism, and constant influx of immigrants with their own cultures and demand for representation, acceptance, and tolerance.

Not to mention constantly changing technology requiring whole new values and morals to be developed.


Based on today's culture it's whatever you can afford and leads to whatever makes you "happy."

You explained it very perceptively.
Others have explained it well too.
I believe the middle ground does not exist.

I would suggest a different phrasing of that thought. Not that a middle ground doesn't exist, and that therefore only the extremes are valid, rather that it is off the mark entirely to talk of compromise.

I think of having morals and standards of personal behavior (I prefer calling it a sense of personal honor) more along the lines of you either hit your target or you don't.

I wont alter my sense of honor to get along better with people, however I will very readily adjust how I present it to them, in order to avoid unnecessary offense, and if it is logical, I will adjust how I arrange my life, if at all convenient, to avoid trampling on theirs.

Sometimes that means avoiding associating with them socially, to avoid their needing or wanting to declare me to be "on a high horse."