a moral question

[robtex]

a moral question.

Last month a fella at my night job told me I was ammoral for paying my credit card one month late. I started to tell him that without his partipation in the community he was a poor represenative of morality but didn't cause it would have prompted a bunch of bible qoutes at work from him.

But it leaves me with a question. This guy is

a) a regular church goer and bible studier
b) does not drink, smoke do drugs (illegal ones)
c) is celebant does not lie cheat steal or exaggerate
d) does not watch porn go to topless bar or other adult activity
e) pays his bills on time

But also he does not:

1) do volunteer work
2) help others in any way (put them up loan them money ect ect)
3) support any charities that i am aware of
3) offer comfort or emotional support (like staying after work and hearing problems) to any of coworkers

He has few friends (in his bible study group only)but other than that is a hermit.

So I see him as neutral. Not ammoral cause he avoids hedonistic activities but not really moral either cause he does not help his community in anyway. Well actually I guess he might offer spirutal guidance at the bible studies at attends. Other than qouting scripture (which he is very skilled and knowlegagle at) he doesn't really offer advice either (actually nobody goes to him for advice) He is not mean, not nice, just there. He is the only guy I can think of right now that is like that.

So my question is based roughly on that senerio is my co-worker (and this is true guy not made up hypothicial)

1) moral
2) neutral
3) ammoral

and why?

 

[robtex]

darn sorry poor aim i was aiming for ethics section.....can i blame it on the mouse?

 

[Jenyar]

In my opinion: immoral. A moral life does not consist of Bible quotes any more than it exists out of Nietzsche quotes. He sounds like someone who's afraid of doing the wrong thing, so he does nothing at all. Okay, I don't know him, but it seems he's not pointing out immorality, he's pointing at immorality. Like the Pharisees did to Jesus. They made a lot of fuss about him eating with sinners (a very "immoral" thing to do) and working on the Sabbath.

There's no such thing as neutral, it's a comfortable illusion - neutral morality simply neglects the duties of being moral in the first place. I have the same problem with agnosticim in principle. It's a "safe" position from where to live your life as you choose, ignoring the reality that life permits no safe options. Unless you can fly, you have to put your feet down somewhere. But putting them down on other people is a sure way of tripping over yourself.

Just don't make the same mistake on him, okay? Try to involve him somewhere. His bible study group or church should do that, but "should" is a long why from "do".

 

[Dreamwalker]

I agree with Jenyar. To be neutral one would need to be utterly objective and devoid of emotion, always keeping a distance. This cannot be accredited to the guy you describe.

A moral life not solely consists of thoughts, also of actions, moral actions and I do not see those in your description. Hence I would also label him immoral.

 

[robtex]

In my opinion: immoral. A moral life does not consist of Bible quotes any more than it exists out of Nietzsche quotes.

ok acutally, just for arugements sake lets pretend he didn't qoute the Bible. like you said it doesn't matter, acutally what the hell, lets say he qoutes ren and stimpy instead. (sorry had to say...making myself laugh over here)

is your stance still the same..and if I am understanding you correctly, you say non communial partipation or abstaining from community partipation is immoral?


2nd thought, you tied agnostism to morality. Does that mean you make no distinction between gnosim and morality or am i reading too much into that

3rd....when you say make same mistake you mean include him in my activities? That might be hard. We work with about 20 others and out of those 20 only one other woman and i are non christians. he really feels more comfortable with christians and is upfront about it....although the two of us non christians are still gnostic ....so maybe i am assuming. (sorry that was off the subject and question at hand).

as far as his bible study including him.....when he goes to bible study it aint about play. those fellas are as serious as a heart attack. they open the bible and study they no fooling around from the way he describes it to me. i buy into to that cause the guy can qoute scripture to me and i look it up at home and he is on the money. fella knows his bible so i figure he is as intense when he studies it as he says he is which means at bible study no socializing...

 

[Jenyar]

ok acutally, just for arugements sake lets pretend he didn't qoute the Bible. like you said it doesn't matter, acutally what the hell, lets say he qoutes ren and stimpy instead. (sorry had to say...making myself laugh over here)

is your stance still the same..and if I am understanding you correctly, you say non communial partipation or abstaining from community partipation is immoral?

That might be an oversimplification of a complex issue. Immorality is always within a context. What you quote or don't quote hardly makes you anything. It's how what you do fits into what you believe that creates that tension by which we measure people's integrity.

"Communal participation" is also measured that way: if he quotes ren and stimpy and belongs to a few book clubs, he's participating isn't he? Maybe he's even chairman of the national ren and stimpy appreciation society. The only reason why "quoting the Bible" and "being a Christian" has anything to do with moral behaviour is because faith isn't anything on paper. Faith that "doing the right thing" extends beyond yourself, will translate into deeds that serves people beyond yourself. If he doesn't live by that, he might as well believe in ren and stimpy.

2nd thought, you tied agnostism to morality. Does that mean you make no distinction between gnosim and morality or am i reading too much into that

In a broad sense, no. Being moral is an act of faith - whether you believe in something or not. Agnosticism and faith are mutually exclusive: if you say "I can't know, so I won't decide", and you decide that something is right (so right, in fact, that you might stake your life on the fact, like a fireman or policeman might do for someone) - it's because you believe it's right, whether it can be proven to be right or not. That is the type of conviction faith requires. A true agnostic would apply the reasoning behind his agnosticism consistently, not only where it fits him. Nihilism is irrefutable, yet few people actually live as if nothing matters, or as if we can know nothing for sure. Morality is evidence of that.

3rd....when you say make same mistake you mean include him in my activities? That might be hard. We work with about 20 others and out of those 20 only one other woman and i are non christians. he really feels more comfortable with christians and is upfront about it....although the two of us non christians are still gnostic ....so maybe i am assuming. (sorry that was off the subject and question at hand).

as far as his bible study including him.....when he goes to bible study it aint about play. those fellas are as serious as a heart attack. they open the bible and study they no fooling around from the way he describes it to me. i buy into to that cause the guy can qoute scripture to me and i look it up at home and he is on the money. fella knows his bible so i figure he is as intense when he studies it as he says he is which means at bible study no socializing...

Nobody was more serious about knowing their Bible and religion than the Pharisees and experts of the Law in Jesus' time. And he called them whitewashed graves. Not because they didn't understand the Law, or didn't know their Bible - he acknowledged that they did. But because they took so much pride in their knowledge and learning that they were more interested in God than in people. Jesus said serving people is serving God. Nobody's in heaven yet, and while we're on earth we shouldn't try to escape it. Besides knowing what the law requires, one should also know why it requires it: in order to live as we should.

I know people like that as well. Most are wonderful people - truly dedicated, very sincere and loving. But they have fenced themselves in. All their knowledge and learning is trapped behind walls that Jesus actually came to break down.

Look at the parable of the Good Samaritan - he was someone who broke down all religious and social barriers in order to help an enemy. He touched a dying man, which made him "ritually unclean". That is why the priest and levite wouldn't help him - they were on their way to the Temple, to "serve God". They were doing the "right" thing by leaving him there: according to the law you can't go into the Temple unclean. Jesus made it clear the law was there to serve man, not God. God requires much more than perfect knowledge and blind application of the law and pure lives, he requires love. Love can't be codified, it has to be lived.

 

[laughing weasel]

You are probably right that he will not want to join in your activities. He sounds like he is one of those straight and narrows, no deviation for mercy and compassion kind of guys. I say that he is being immoral by his own religion in that he is failing to be a light to the world. I believe that the best thing that you can do to accomplish a positive change in this world is to help someone else without expectation of reward. I believe that the strong in any field have the obligation to help those who are weaker. I say help because I also believe that if you do something for someone then you make them weaker, maybe only a little bit but if you do enough then you are responsible for the corruption of their spirit that occurs. A community becomes stronger by the connections between its members. The connections act like multicolored fibers in a tapestry. They make the community stronger and more vibrant at the same time.

 

[robtex]

You guys are tough!! So why can't he just be netural? A hermit in the metro? Why must someone commit positivly to the community to achieve morality? Isn't the absinsce of immorality an equivilant of morality? Or are yall saying the absense of community spirt is ammoral?

 

[one_raven]

I think they are not not necessarily referring to being "involved in the community" in any strict sense, rather like not being a part of the solution makes you a part of the problem.

Is that what you guys were getting at?

 

[Asguard]

i think its wrong to say that agnositcs and morality are mutually exclusive

for example what if we take someone who doesnt know what comes after death so just takes there morality from sociaty?
and also what about athiests?

god doesnt nessarally mean moral. There are some bloody apaling religious people and some really good athiests\ agnostics.

Who is a more moral person

an agnostic who gives up all there spare time and works for the red cross doing everything they can to make other peoples lives better

OR

A man who goes to church every sunday but is a murder, rapes babies, exstors old ladies ect

which one is more moral?

 

[Jenyar]

The one who attributes to the good to the community. Wasn't that our point?

If the agnostic is agnostic about God because "He cannot be known to exist", shouldn't he logically be agnostic about other things that "cannot be known" either? Like whether being moral is something one has a responsibility to act on? Isn't that what the "believer" in this example is doing wrong?

 

[water]

You guys are tough!! So why can't he just be netural? A hermit in the metro? Why must someone commit positivly to the community to achieve morality? Isn't the absinsce of immorality an equivilant of morality? Or are yall saying the absense of community spirt is ammoral?

Basically, yes. Humans are gregarious beings, being social is part of what makes you human. Denying this socialness is denying your humanity.

 

[cosmictraveler]

a moral question.

Last month a fella at my night job told me I was ammoral for paying my credit card one month late. I started to tell him that without his partipation in the community he was a poor represenative of morality but didn't cause it would have prompted a bunch of bible qoutes at work from him.

But it leaves me with a question. This guy is

a) a regular church goer and bible studier
b) does not drink, smoke do drugs (illegal ones)
c) is celebant does not lie cheat steal or exaggerate
d) does not watch porn go to topless bar or other adult activity
e) pays his bills on time

But also he does not:

1) do volunteer work
2) help others in any way (put them up loan them money ect ect)
3) support any charities that i am aware of
3) offer comfort or emotional support (like staying after work and hearing problems) to any of coworkers

He has few friends (in his bible study group only)but other than that is a hermit.

So I see him as neutral. Not ammoral cause he avoids hedonistic activities but not really moral either cause he does not help his community in anyway. Well actually I guess he might offer spirutal guidance at the bible studies at attends. Other than qouting scripture (which he is very skilled and knowlegagle at) he doesn't really offer advice either (actually nobody goes to him for advice) He is not mean, not nice, just there. He is the only guy I can think of right now that is like that.

So my question is based roughly on that senerio is my co-worker (and this is true guy not made up hypothicial)

1) moral
2) neutral
3) ammoral

and why?

Why are you so interested in someone elses lifestyle when you should be paying attention to your own? Seems that you must have some problems to overcome if your that busy thinking of what others are doing.

 

[Jenyar]

Why are you so interested in someone elses lifestyle when you should be paying attention to your own? Seems that you must have some problems to overcome if your that busy thinking of what others are doing.

Good question on a thread about morality.

Why should we care? Doesn't each person have enough problems of their own? Why worry about the splinter in our brother's eye?

 

[Cyperium]

a moral question.

Last month a fella at my night job told me I was ammoral for paying my credit card one month late. I started to tell him that without his partipation in the community he was a poor represenative of morality but didn't cause it would have prompted a bunch of bible qoutes at work from him.

But it leaves me with a question. This guy is

a) a regular church goer and bible studier
b) does not drink, smoke do drugs (illegal ones)
c) is celebant does not lie cheat steal or exaggerate
d) does not watch porn go to topless bar or other adult activity
e) pays his bills on time

But also he does not:

1) do volunteer work
2) help others in any way (put them up loan them money ect ect)
3) support any charities that i am aware of
3) offer comfort or emotional support (like staying after work and hearing problems) to any of coworkers

He has few friends (in his bible study group only)but other than that is a hermit.

So I see him as neutral. Not ammoral cause he avoids hedonistic activities but not really moral either cause he does not help his community in anyway. Well actually I guess he might offer spirutal guidance at the bible studies at attends. Other than qouting scripture (which he is very skilled and knowlegagle at) he doesn't really offer advice either (actually nobody goes to him for advice) He is not mean, not nice, just there. He is the only guy I can think of right now that is like that.

So my question is based roughly on that senerio is my co-worker (and this is true guy not made up hypothicial)

1) moral
2) neutral
3) ammoral

and why?

He is probably moral. He probably has concerns for you that he might not tell you because it would alienate him even more.

That's just my own interpretation.

I would give you a better answer if you provided me with answers to these questions:

1: Have anyone, that you are aware of, asked him for a personal advice?
2: Have anyone tried to be friends with him?
3: Do you rather try to ignore him and pass him like air instead of saying "hello"?
4: Do the people seem to feel natural around him, or are they afraid of being judged? (people have a easier time to relate to someone that has weakness).
5: When he does talk to you (it's bound to have happened at least once without bible-quoting) is he kind/nervous/polite/judging or anything else?

 

[water]

Why are you so interested in someone elses lifestyle when you should be paying attention to your own? Seems that you must have some problems to overcome if your that busy thinking of what others are doing.

When we try to deal with something in general, we still need practical everyday examples of this phenomenon, so that we actually have something to work with.

Using a practical example does not necessarily mean that one is trying to stick one's nose into things that are none of his business.

Robtex has introduced this thread as "a moral question" and it is placed in EM&J. As such, it is supposed to trigger some more general discussion. (As opposed to seeking personal advice, trying to gossip or to aimlessly criticize.)



As for

Good question on a thread about morality.

Why should we care? Doesn't each person have enough problems of their own? Why worry about the splinter in our brother's eye?

Like I said above, it is to be a more general debate, not a sticking your nose into things that are none of your business.
Also, if we'd only deal with our own problems, all by ourselves -- we couldn't do much, could we? Some things just call to be discussed in the open.

 

[Jenyar]

Like I said above, it is to be a more general debate, not a sticking your nose into things that are none of your business.
Also, if we'd only deal with our own problems, all by ourselves -- we couldn't do much, could we? Some things just call to be discussed in the open.

Those were rethorical questions, meant to form part of the discussion. So I agree. One reason we discuss things is to deal with them and form opinions that we can take back into our lives.

 

[zanket]

So my question is based roughly on that senerio is my co-worker (and this is true guy not made up hypothicial)

1) moral
2) neutral
3) ammoral

and why?

Immoral, but that’s always a personal choice, not an absolute. Everyone has their own sense of what’s moral, what’s right and wrong. I put in the “wrong” category proselytizing, which it seems this guy did to you. But when other people do that to me, I don’t tell them they’re wrong, because that is itself proselytizing. I just avoid people who do it too much.

BTW credit card companies love it when you pay late, so they can charge late fees and bump up the interest rate. If nobody paid late they’d probably have to lay off a bunch of people.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Everyone creates their own moral system. He doesn't seem to be infringing on anyone elses, so his moral system is compatible with mine. From a utilitarian perspective, he isn't adding much to the common good. That doesn't concern me much however, so i consider his actions moral.

 

[Jenyar]

Everyone creates their own moral system. He doesn't seem to be infringing on anyone elses, so his moral system is compatible with mine.

That's true for the moment. But imagine a scenario where your path crosses with someone like him. Say for instance you have a son whose survival for some reason dependends on him acting instead of pointing fingers. Will you still think it's compatible? How many people have suffered because of an "everyone for himself" mentality?

Morality depends on our being able to construct scenarios like that, and adjusting our behaviour accordingly.