You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How to choose right from wrong
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
???
What is?
making a decision about what to do.
this is all that morality boils down to
making a decision about what to do. ...this is all that morality boils down to
I have to agree. But I'm not so sure that it goes far enough, does it? I mean, if a single individual decides to do something that HE thinks is moral, that does NOT mean that others, who may be affected or who are just watching, think that decision/act is moral. How is that to be resolved?
And remember, if a person is the only one on Earth, then every decision he thinks is moral is, in fact, moral. But I think morality means much more than just what one person thinks it is. Ditto with the issue ethics. These are societal concerns/issues, not individual concerns.
Baron Max
RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
I have to agree. But I'm not so sure that it goes far enough, does it? I mean, if a single individual decides to do something that HE thinks is moral, that does NOT mean that others, who may be affected or who are just watching, think that decision/act is moral. How is that to be resolved?
And remember, if a person is the only one on Earth, then every decision he thinks is moral is, in fact, moral. But I think morality means much more than just what one person thinks it is. Ditto with the issue ethics. These are societal concerns/issues, not individual concerns.
Baron Max
in effect, i think it depends on a roughly even distribution of give and take within a mutual community.
All too often we try to solve problems by creating an absolute authority by which everything is in black and white for everyone to see. when someone around you does something that offends you, rather than go to some authority to make them stop it, why not go to them yourself and ask them to either do it somewhere else, or make some other compromise.
but this would only work if everyone (or just enough people) acted that way. alas, for i forsee that humanity will never find a solution to differing opinions of morality. forever will we be stuck in warring factions fighting to gain authoritative ground in the hopes that one is "right".
...why not go to them yourself and ask them to either do it somewhere else, or make some other compromise.
but this would only work if everyone (or just enough people) acted that way. alas, for i forsee that humanity will never find a solution to differing opinions of morality. forever will we be stuck in warring factions fighting to gain authoritative ground in the hopes that one is "right".
Now ye're beginning to catch on to the various conflicts in virtually every corner of the planet! Everyone thinks he's right, and the other guys are wrong, so they fight it out ...and even when there's a winner, they're descendents will continue to argue and fight.
That's basically what it means to be human, I think. Violence is most often the deciding factor in human conflict simply because humans are not willing to compromise.
Baron Max
I agree about the abdication of moral and ethical stewardship at some universities; and this will do nothing to engender the masses towards education. My experience and analysis is that the university system passively encourages and propagates elitism and worse.
the absolute truth is seen by the one who:
sees right and wrong equally, who knows that right and wrong both are manifestations of the absolute truth itself, yet neither of them are the absolute truth themselves; nor is their combination, since their combination may form something that is tangible in form of a thought, anything thought can be limited to brain and therefore to your own body... if something is tied to your body it wont last forever and hence it cannot be absolute truth.
Spiritual Ethics therefore demands : i see evil/ bad / good /greatness /best /gods around me; yet i see them equally as my own i see them equally. So the best approach is not to form any bias for anything.
On the other hand, in context of the threads question i would say good is subjective, therefore it may vary very widely, therefore its not a valid question....
Thanks
sees right and wrong equally, who knows that right and wrong both are manifestations of the absolute truth itself, yet neither of them are the absolute truth themselves; nor is their combination, since their combination may form something that is tangible in form of a thought, anything thought can be limited to brain and therefore to your own body... if something is tied to your body it wont last forever and hence it cannot be absolute truth.
Spiritual Ethics therefore demands : i see evil/ bad / good /greatness /best /gods around me; yet i see them equally as my own i see them equally. So the best approach is not to form any bias for anything.
On the other hand, in context of the threads question i would say good is subjective, therefore it may vary very widely, therefore its not a valid question....
Thanks
This is typical of the binary opposition inherent in religion - culturally-specific absolutes of right and wrong...little room for ethical hermeneutics or consideration of the cultural relativity that characterises the human experience.