I think we're both singing from the same hymnsheet here, gruff. There is no opt-out from basic responsibility, not to laws, not to personal proclivities, we all carry the responsibility for our own lives and the freedom to form them - despite obstacles. And the role of the deciding subject grows and develops through life, if he/she follows a way into a deeper understanding of his/her inner centredness and connections to others - the poem of life lived out ...
Francis On 24 Aug., 00:52, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry Francis but I don't see the distinction. One can make a > personal decision that is situational (be it moral, ethical or > otherwise) and still take responsibility for it. Nor does it make > hiding behind any other reason mandatory or even necessary. I've > spent most of my life employing situational ethics and consider it to > be the same as relativism. My choice of behavior is relative to the > situation. > > On Aug 23, 1:37 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Aug., 22:30, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's a situational ethic or morality which some people > > > > consider to be an easy means for people to do what they want ... > > > In fact, it's quite the opposite, because it means that you have to > > make a personal decision and take the responsibility for it, rather > > than being able to hide behind some rulebook, code of commandments or > > divine order. > > > Francis --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
