Ahhh Don you say that but of course that is such a subjective thing you can't really claim it as truth.
If nobody is meant to be monogamous, then why do people get emotionaly unbalanced when a partner cheats? You may have read at sometime in your life the odd problems pages in you news paper or magazine of choice, ask yourself why the advice for those thinking of giving in to their partners wishes of threesome sex is always, don't do it, or jealousy wil rear it's head. Of course going back to subjectivity, I realise that for some it IS not an issue, and in truth myself I see nothing wrong with consenting Polymorous relationships, if that is your wish. Brining it back though to morality. If I was to fall in love with another woman and ask my wife about the possiblity of bringing her into the family home, she would undeniably say no (and probably make plans to stab me as I sleep). So even though I say that morality IS better approached with a certian amount of emotional detachment, of course one should take into account how your descison will affect the emotions of others. In the case of the above then, it would be moraly unsound of me to attempt to do such a thing. On 24 Mar, 21:39, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > As long as everything is out in the open and no one is being coerced or > forced I don't see the moral failure here. However, imo, a relationship > between boss and employee is almost always coerced or implied coercion. It > may be hard to say no to they guy/girl signing your paycheck. It's one of > the reasons I find Clinton's and Letterman's behavior so disgusting. > > We are not meant to be monogamous. We just aren't. > > dj > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:23 AM, DarkwaterBlight > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Good instinct. So Molly is correct in saying that it is wise to > > detatch emotionaly in order to make a moraly sound decision. Orn is > > also correct in stating that morals are both subjective and objective > > and that they are fixed and not fluid. P.S.K more thoroughly made my > > point by saying that it is "people specific" and mentioned > > conditioning which alludes to what Molly said earlier. Set principals > > are learned only through application and by repetition. Knowledge of > > principals are of little value without knowledge of self pertaining to > > such. > > Personaly I would probably bang her and send her back to her > > hubby right after getting hired somwhere else for more pay. Of course > > thats just me not being afraid to get out my "ten foot pole" to touch > > a subject ;-P Maybe someone will learn someting! > > > On Mar 24, 4:59 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Then I would have to walk away and probably try to aviod her company > > > for a while. > > > > On 19 Mar, 17:30, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ok I'll make this less implicet by saying that she is ready to take > > > > your "relationship" to another level and your are "emotionally" > > > > attached to this woman. As it may be hypothetical please try to "wear > > > > the shoe's" of the man in question. > > > > > On Mar 19, 12:17 pm, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is there a moral dilema in spending time with a woman whom I find > > > > > attractive, and who is married to another? > > > > > > No sir there is not. I find many people attractive, yet my morality > > > > > says that even if I were not married(I am) I would not hit upon a > > > > > woman who is. However I can clearly spend time with whomever I wish > > > > > to. > > > > > > To take your question in a differant direction, and to place myself > > in > > > > > the 'shoes' of another, well I cannot do that. As I have no idea of > > > > > the experiances that have caused their morality to develop and thus > > > > > have no clear idea of what that morality would be. > > > > > > On 19 Mar, 17:10, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > OK! So let's say Molly is correct in saying; > > > > > > > "technically speaking, in terms of language, morals and ethics are > > > > > > synonymous, although they have been applied differently to > > > > > > philosophies and theologies."> and since they can be applied > > > > > > differently we shall apply them to a work place where they frown > > upon > > > > > > nepatism and relationships with clients. Your bosses wife is not a > > > > > > client, nor is she an employee and you work closley with you boss. > > > > > > Over the course of time you become close with his wife as well, who > > > > > > happens to be very attractive and thinks the same of you. I light > > of > > > > > > this you reflect on your experiences concerning relationships and > > > > > > decide that you enjoy the company of your bosses wife above > > anything > > > > > > you have expereienced. You also note that as far as the set of > > ethical > > > > > > values established at work, there is not an issue except for the > > fact > > > > > > that it's your bosses wife. Also noted is the fact that you are an > > > > > > excellent employee and an asset to your organization. Let's say you > > > > > > are both athiest. Is there a moral dillema? Or let's say you are a > > > > > > theist that has been divorced. Have your morals changed? > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 9:36 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heh Rigsy, > > > > > > > > Well that for sure is one persons version of possible future > > events. > > > > > > > Not mine, but there we go. > > > > > > > > Did I really say that morality is a personal decision? You know > > I > > > > > > > might have done so at that, that is not though what I really > > mean. A > > > > > > > persons moral compass must originate from somewhere. Like the > > ethcial > > > > > > > system of the sociaty they have been brought up in, like > > overwhelming > > > > > > > morality of the times they find them selves in, and any other > > ideas > > > > > > > they may formulate dependant upon thier own lifes experiances. > > > > > > > > So not really a choice as such, perhaps better described as a > > personal > > > > > > > outlook? > > > > > > > > On 19 Mar, 13:07, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If Morality is a personal decision rather than imposed by a > > religion, > > > > > > > > society/government or family/tribe, then it all boils down to > > what you > > > > > > > > can get away with, it seems to me. I have been thinking about > > this and > > > > > > > > trying to trace a line through four generations and here's > > where I am > > > > > > > > at: the Vatican/religion has lost its moral authority but so > > have > > > > > > > > governments and families. The public/mass media have emerged as > > the > > > > > > > > judge and jury of people, places and things leading to a herd > > > > > > > > acceptance of what is acceptable. You can trace the steady > > influence > > > > > > > > through late night comic hosts, Oprah, Phil, the reality shows, > > > > > > > > program content, print media, tech hysteria and so on.It's > > pretty much > > > > > > > > complete in the West and will struggle in the Muslim world and > > China > > > > > > > > plus geographical relatives but there too, central authority > > will > > > > > > > > collapse. The basic concepts of the Good, human happiness, etc- > > all > > > > > > > > categories- will adapt and change as well. Money, power, youth, > > > > > > > > popularity and dozens of other attributes will replace the > > dusty > > > > > > > > virtues and duties of the past. And yes, I also expect to see > > the > > > > > > > > infamous "death panels". :-) > > > > > > > > > On Mar 18, 4:34 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I'll say it agian Slip so we are all clear of what I mean > > when I use > > > > > > > > > the word Moral. Morlaity is your personal definition of what > > is right > > > > > > > > > or wrong. So you and I can share the same ethical system but > > still > > > > > > > > > have a differing morality. > > > > > > > > > > So yes ALL morality is subjective. > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Mar, 22:52, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ah! But isn't that the key and part of your own > > acknowledgment, that > > > > > > > > > > establishing a moral decision as right or wrong is the > > problem. By > > > > > > > > > > what standard do we decide what is morally incorrect. > > Again as I > > > > > > > > > > stated in my first post; morality has a broad scope > > considering much > > > > > > > > > > of it is defined by society/culture/religion. Emotional > > attachment > > > > > > > > > > to a moral dilemma would have to be based on the defined > > moral > > > > > > > > > > incident specific to a circumstance. Perhaps there are > > moral > > > > > > > > > > decisions that do not evoke emotional interplay while > > others create > > > > > > > > > > emotional hysteria that is divisive and counter productive. > > We can > > > > > > > > > > only find answers by pointing to specific instances of > > moral dilemma > > > > > > > > > > and even then it is highly subjective, individually and > > culturally. > > > > > > > > > > Is marriage to one's cousin immoral? We can see that > > emotions, ie; > > > > > > > > > > love, would play a strong part in making that decision but > > then who > > > > > > > > > > decides if it is immoral, the parents, the church, the > > neighbors, the > > > > > > > > > > culture etc? > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 12:11 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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.
