Fidd must be right about the Duck. In English Law (which will once again be international once they can grow enough oak to build a decent navy), it is held one cannot **** a duck or even be guilty of the attempt because it is impossible. Such is the stature of the Duck (R v Fowler 1877). When it comes to recognising emotions as they form, we are not good. Politics (based on rhetoric) basically use emotions by concealing them as rational.
On 18 Mar, 09:37, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Ahhhh yes Molly this is exactly what I mean. > > On 17 Mar, 13:51, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Emotional Intelligence is not something we often consider, Lee, and > > most of us are uncomfortable talking about our emotions, primarily > > because we do not take the time to examine them. For me, being > > emotionally detached does not mean emotionally unfeeling. It means > > that we recognize our emotions as they come up, but we do not attach > > them to our identity, we do not hold on to them and make them more > > complicated by connecting them to past events, ego etc. While faced > > with a moral decision, I think it is important (and highly emotionally > > intelligent) to examine the emotions that arise, taking into account > > what they may be telling you about who you are in the moment and the > > nature of the decision you are facing, and then let them go. Just as > > you should examine the thoughts that come into your mind while you are > > deciding, sorting them through and organizing them, managing emotions > > in much the same way is important, especially during times as critical > > as moral decisions. > > > On Mar 16, 1:11 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes that does and my thanks for it Slip. > > > > I disagree though. With emotions attached to moral deciscions do you > > > not think the chances of makeing a moraly incorrect desicion are > > > hightend? > > > > On 16 Mar, 14:20, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes emotions should play a part in a moral dilemma. Emotions play a > > > > part in almost everything we do, not to be construed as a fervent > > > > emotion all the time, but any level, from non-emotion to radical and > > > > all in between. In a moral dilemma emotions may vacillate while one > > > > is trying to assess a situation, however in my 3 examples there is no > > > > need for assessment, I would immediately get my weapon and kill. The > > > > danger is obvious from the beginning, at the entry into the house. > > > > I think emotions have their part in the formation of morals and > > > > ethics. People probably establish their own morality based on their > > > > own emotions. Therefore, if emotion is an integral part of any > > > > morality, it should be there in the endeavor to negotiate the dilemma > > > > and bring it to a conclusion. Hope that answers your question. > > > > > On Mar 15, 11:37 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So despite you asuranes that this is not an emotional response, I > > > > > think it is so. > > > > > > I would love to be able to say I would B, but who knows what would > > > > > actualy happen. Just so that we are clear though. I hold no ideas > > > > > about the sancticty of human life, I certianly do not belive in such a > > > > > thing, and it is purel;y moral reasons I would like to say B and also > > > > > has nowt to do with my own spirtuality. > > > > > > The question though was not are their emotions involed in moral > > > > > dilemers, it is clear that there are, but should there be? > > > > > > You have not really answered this Slip, wanna have a go at doing so? > > > > > > On 15 Mar, 15:33, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We also had other discussions on the death penalty, a much divisive > > > > > > topic where we might as well toss Religion in with the Moral and > > > > > > Ethical issues. > > > > > > > A man comes home and finds two of his children beheaded and beaten, > > > > > > blood everywhere, he goes into the closet and gets his shotgun and > > > > > > slowly walks up the stairs, where at the top he finds his wife > > > > > > brutally murdered as well. He hears moaning and sobbing coming from > > > > > > the bedroom and as he walks over he finds a strange man raping his > > > > > > teenage daughter. The man sees him and jumps off the bed, puts his > > > > > > hands up and says he's sorry, that he doesn't know what came over > > > > > > him > > > > > > and says please don't kill me. > > > > > > > What to do Lee; > > > > > > > (A) Tell the stranger that you are going to get help for him to see > > > > > > if > > > > > > he can be rehabilitated. > > > > > > > (B) Explain that because of your moral and ethical values and your > > > > > > religious beliefs you can't kill him but you will make sure that > > > > > > instead he gets food and shelter and medical care for the rest of > > > > > > his > > > > > > life in an institution. > > > > > > > (C) BLAM BLAM Death Penalty immediately issued while ridding the > > > > > > world of a demented piece of garbage who most likely wouldn't be > > > > > > rehabilitated anyway and if escaped would go out and kill and rape > > > > > > some more victims. Recidivism rates speak for themselves. > > > > > > > I'd go with (C) and with a clear conscience. This nonsense about a > > > > > > moral social conscience in regards to murderers is IMO, faulted > > > > > > reasoning. We've better things to do with our society than support > > > > > > murdering mental defectives. What are we trying to prove? Do we > > > > > > pat > > > > > > ourselves on the back and claim we are a more advanced society > > > > > > because > > > > > > we don't even kill those who kill us? Are we more religiously > > > > > > righteous and heavenly bound? Should we pamper Pit Bulls as well > > > > > > after they inflict a lethal attack on an innocent child? > > > > > > Oh and do you think for one minute that I would let my daughter > > > > > > have a > > > > > > baby if she became pregnant from an incident like that? I'd perform > > > > > > the abortion myself if I had to. > > > > > > > US Prisons house over 2 million inmates, according to outdated > > > > > > sources > > > > > > and out of that population thousands are people I wouldn't spend 2 > > > > > > seconds thinking about other than their riddance. What is > > > > > > rehabilitation for a "lifer", rehabilitation for "what?". > > > > > > > As of August 2009 the total prison population of the UK stood at > > > > > > 93,574. That is a lot considering the size of the UK. > > > > > > > We need to stop raising and nurturing criminals. China might have > > > > > > had > > > > > > it right, chop their heads off in the public square, let the people > > > > > > see that crime really doesn't pay. I'd be the first to buy a ticket > > > > > > to the show, let the heads roll. > > > > > > > BTW, I'm not emotion about this, I'm laughing while typing. lol > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 7:13 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heheh very strange what we all take as common knowldge isn't it. > > > > > > > > I had always understood the diffrance between morality and ethics > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > be this. Morality is one personal definition on what is good or > > > > > > > bad. > > > > > > > Ethics is concerened with doing that which is right. So one > > > > > > > descriptive and the other more concerned with the doing, or > > > > > > > actions. > > > > > > > > I had always had this in mind when talking about morality here. > > > > > > > However a little while back, and by that I mean less than a year. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > had another debate about morality, some questions where asked > > > > > > > abotu > > > > > > > what I mean when I say 'Moral' and when I say 'Ethical', it seemed > > > > > > > that my ideas where just a little out and due to the helpfull > > > > > > > people > > > > > > > here I re thought teh definitions that i had always belived where > > > > > > > correct. That is: > > > > > > > > Morality is still ones personal opinion on what is good and what > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > bad, but Ethics deals with a more social morality. That is you > > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > could have differing ideas due to our morality, but our ethics > > > > > > > come > > > > > > > fro the society or other groupings we find ourselves in. > > > > > > > > Now you say that this is also wrong? Hhahah gees, a little help > > > > > > > anybody? > > > > > > > > On 15 Mar, 11:54, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I disagree. Morality is not a personal decision but a communal > > > > > > > > one and > > > > > > > > is not innate but taught by the family and society. Morals are > > > > > > > > loose > > > > > > > > enough to change according to current trends and therefore not > > > > > > > > fixed- > > > > > > > > they are a cousin to "situation ethics". > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:31 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think that is wrong mate. Morality is no more than ones > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > definition of what is right and what is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > On 14 Mar, 06:27, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And no: morals are not based on reason, ethics are based on > > > > > > > > > > reason. > > > > > > > > > > Morals are the "spiritual " measure of right and wrong and > > > > > > > > > > ethics are > > > > > > > > > > the intellectual/societal force that makes living in > > > > > > > > > > groups possible. > > > > > > > > > > > Ethics are what we get when we apply logic and concern for > > > > > > > > > > others to > > > > > > > > > > ourselves. Morals come from illiterate bronze and iron age > > > > > > > > > > paedophiles > > > > > > > > > > and misogynists in silly little collections of quaint tribal > > > > > > > > > > stories. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:32 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.- Hide > > > > > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
