@kellyjay saidThis might make sense to a sociopath, but otherwise it really doesn't. As I've been saying, one develops morals and ethics through learning and experience. One doesn't just decide what things are good and what are bad. One judges the consequences of one's actions; invariably, sane people will find that actions which cause suffering to others are unsatisfactory.
If I decide what I value want or believe is best, I can therefore justify any action or inaction, I alone am the sole measure of all things. If it is always an internal question with out regard to anything other than me, it will never be anything else.
All things that can be justified given motivation, desire, taste, and anything else the drives me. If we all do this tha ...[text shortened]... a different person, since we all choose there is no standard that all are held to without absolutes.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidI believe we would more than likely agree on what we would call good and bad, that which we would approve of and reject. That said we are talking about everyone, all ideas of right and wrongs.
This might make sense to a sociopath, but otherwise it really doesn't. As I've been saying, one develops morals and ethics through learning and experience. One doesn't just decide what things are good and what are bad. One judges the consequences of one's actions; invariably, sane people will find that actions which cause suffering to others are unsatisfactory.
We either have some standard that applies across the board or we don’t. If we don’t then only personal tastes can be used to look at someone else’s morality.
You may feel yours is highly developed another may feel ours are simply a means to repress him from following hid heart desires caring nothing for how he harms someone less than.
What do we say to such a one, think like us, we are better than you?
@avalanchethecat saidAnd how would someone who is flying down a dark road know it,if it’s all they know?
This might make sense to a sociopath, but otherwise it really doesn't. As I've been saying, one develops morals and ethics through learning and experience. One doesn't just decide what things are good and what are bad. One judges the consequences of one's actions; invariably, sane people will find that actions which cause suffering to others are unsatisfactory.
@kellyjay saidI disagree. It's not 'personal tastes'. You are still banging that same drum as though it is possible to choose what one sees as morally right. There are of course social mores among other groups which I would consider morally wrong but which within those contexts are considered morally right. These are not 'personal tastes' though, they are learned morals.
I believe we would more than likely agree on what we would call good and bad, that which we would approve of and reject. That said we are talking about everyone, all ideas of right and wrongs.
We either have some standard that applies across the board or we don’t. If we don’t then only personal tastes can be used to look at someone else’s morality.
You may feel yours i ...[text shortened]... he harms someone less than.
What do we say to such a one, think like us, we are better than you?
"You may feel yours is highly developed another may feel ours are simply a means to repress him from following hid heart desires caring nothing for how he harms someone less than."
If this hypothetical person wishes to commit acts which cause suffering to others simply to satisfy their own personal desires then I would say their moral standards are inadequate. They may disagree, but if they are a member of a social group, I suspect their disagreement may not avail them much. I think what we say to such a one is what we actually say to such a one; "that's against the law, don't do it or we'll (chop off your hands/ deprive you of your liberty/ some other sanction appropriate to our social mores)."
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidThat’s your opinion one I would agree but outside of our taste and those of likeminded there could also be many who agree satisfying their baser desires are more important than consequences to others. If there are no common standards to both sets what makes one the better choice by what means do we measure them, they are apples and oranges.
I disagree. It's not 'personal tastes'. You are still banging that same drum as though it is possible to choose what one sees as morally right. There are of course social mores among other groups which I would consider morally wrong but which within those contexts are considered morally right. These are not 'personal tastes' though, they are learned morals.
...[text shortened]... off your hands/ deprive you of your liberty/ some other sanction appropriate to our social mores)."
@kellyjay saidHuman beings are social animals. A moral code such as you paint here is obviously antithetical to living within a society. The society within which a person lives agrees the common standard.
That’s your opinion one I would agree but outside of our taste and those of likeminded there could also be many who agree satisfying their baser desires are more important than consequences to others. If there are no common standards to both sets what makes one the better choice by what means do we measure them, they are apples and oranges.
@avalanchethecat saidYou saw the zebra video correct?
Human beings are social animals. A moral code such as you paint here is obviously antithetical to living within a society. The society within which a person lives agrees the common standard.
@kevin-eleven saidJosephw is a born again and Spirit filled believer.
Yours makes my chest and back hair stand on end and crackle with sublime love lightning.
J/K -- but who is this @josephw character, anyway?
Contrary to what you may encounter in this forum based on what some posters may say.
I'm beginning to get the impression that you are too.