Good luck Doris! We might as well be twins separated at birth Slip, given they couldn't drive a piece of paper between our views! There are, of course, far more interesting disparities than eating or not eating dawgs. Leaving them aside for now, how could we work out who is to say what is moral and immoral? I don't want to leave the question up in the air, sage like. I think we can decide and that one of the keys is for us not to have to decide too often. A code is possible once one realises any code will need particularist application on some occasions. Thou shalt not kill isn't bad when thinking generally about homicide, gets more difficult on thinking about primates and dolphins, and fairly dire once thinking about eating and bacteria. We even encourage it in war. Your reflections are correct, but I see them as pointing to a morality, at least a possible one, as well as establishing we are a long way off. Moses the 'law giver' is undoubtedly a vile war criminal in Numbers 31. The vile Cardinal Brady is still immorally failing to accept his vileness over paedophile priests - etc. Machiavelli was a realist and his critique applies today.
Being moral needs to be habitual and clearly it isn't in many of our practices. Yet we also need to be able to recognise when the habits are not good for us and need to be broken in a manner not immoral or unlawful. Free speech and protest need to be able to play their part. Rhetoric and rationalisation need to be seen as dangerous in supporting immorality. It's a complex, needing practical simplicity. Easy enough to state, yet even this is probably not well understood. I'd favour, for instance, stopping and searching ethnic minorities on a disproportionate basis, if this could be shown to stop a lot of crime. One sometimes has to do stuff that breaches the 'ideal'. My experience though is that stuff like this is usually not based on evidence (either way). Not much we do is 'evidence based'. We are having this particular debate again in the UK with our Equalities and Human Rights Commission spouting that the figures are dismal - yet the EHRC itself is dismal and full of sanctimonious jerks saying the opposite. One of the things that would make us 'more moral' would be the evidence on which we operate being made more transparent. Had our politicians been subject to 'stop and search', no doubt over half of them would have been banged up. In fact, a former Home Secretary was found not to have been in her 'second home' on police records on many occasions she claimed to have been, and made far more money over the claims she was than most drug-dealers make. The bwankers often claim to have skills the rest of us don't have, yet I never hear what these are and am rather strangely accredited to teach them, finding many bwankers don't have the skills I teach. If we kept 'tap turning on skills' secret, no doubt we could make much money doing this - indeed one sect of Peruvians did more or less exactly this with water in the past through control of water through gods only they could contact. I suspect there is a 'morality tap' in operation. Cheating is still the best competitive advantage. On 15 Mar, 02:25, Doris Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote: > uhmmm. Who do you know that have not sliped up here and there in there life > time? If you believe or you don't believe. I have been watching lock-up on > tv real prison life..I feel like I will make it to heaven after watching > some of this show. dj ... > > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- 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.
