Morality is not a fixed system. Morality is defined by various groups and adherence or conformity becomes a matter of choice. Morality among Tibetan Monks is extremely different from Pirates. Morality isn't universal by any means, in fact it is continually ramified and dichotomized by individual interpretation and preference. The morals you conform to are the morals that are a constant within the parameters of your life and those others that choose to stay within the same parameters. This is not to imply that morality cannot become Universal but just to say that it isn't now nor do I see that it has every been. We can't even say that everyone on the planet thinks killing people is immoral. Morals may be based on reasoning but only by the reasoning of the individuals establishing the morality pertinent to their group. When reasoning deems annihilation of a group a viable solution then genocide ensues. Religions throughout history have tried to establish a fixed set of morals by which all people could follow but it hasn't worked all that well. Even the ten commandments have failed to stick. Some just don't think it is immoral to covet thy neighbors wife.
On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Staples <[email protected]> wrote: > Fiddler: > > "Morals are far too fluid...to be a guide in any dilemma; > reason...provides the ability to make decisions." > > Assuming you actually meant this, you implied that: > > 1. Morals are not a constant. > 2. Morals are not based on reason. > > How could anyone live with a system of morality like that - one > divorced from rationality and is "fluid", e.g., changes from day to > day - on what basis? Irrationality? I suppose so. -- 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.
