Hey OM, Wrong? Yes I think it is a question of being right or wrong don't you?
I have stated my stance I have said that I know some disagree so in their eyes I am wrong. We are talking about an unsubstaniced beliefe I currently hold to, I wish to examine it to find out it's validity. Are we emotional creatures 24/7? Now that's a bloody good question, and one that I will have to dwell a bit on before I can answer it. If though I understand what you are saying, wouldn't such a propersition make a mockery of morality. Does it not render moral questions down to 'Coz I feel like it'? Is 'Coz I feel like it' a valid expresion of morality? Of course you seem to have gotten right to the gist of my stance, trust you old fella. On Aug 16, 4:31 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "...I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, > can > you show my why I am wrong? " - Lee > > Wrong?...since we all have emotions (and I would posit that we have > emotions all of the time too), any determination of right/wrong would > be made including emotions. However, assuming the truth of us having > omnipresent emotions, morality would/could not exist without them. > > On Aug 16, 4:09 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Paradox, yes agreat frind of mine tells me the same sorta thing, that > > morality without emotion is somehow lacking. It is partly due to his > > words and my respect for him that I have started this thread. > > > However as Rigsy points out to evict a looter from his council home > > for his looting does not adress any problems, nor does it serve as > > adiquate punishment, and would I think only make things worse. > > > This course of actions is a fine example of thinking/talking about > > morality whilst angry, and is to my mind no good at all. > > > I maintian that morality is best sreved without emotions attached, can > > you show my why I am wrong? > > > On Aug 14, 5:31 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Deep question, Lee; not an easy one. One who suffers injury must have > > > the right of redress, be that restitution or retribution, or else we > > > live in Hobbes's state of nature. The question of balance and > > > proportionality is the proper remit of the law courts and great minds. > > > Where the injury in question falls outside the purview of the > > > collective good or the legal framework to that end, morality and > > > values must act to constrain the individual in respect of balance and > > > proportionality; that is why it's so very vital that we understand > > > what we do when we tinker with the foundations and structures of a > > > society's moral compass. > > > > Personally, i've always felt that emotions are the fuel for the > > > directed mind. > > > > On Aug 12, 1:28 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So as we should all know we have had quite a week of it here in the > > > > UK. Facebook and many other web places have been inundated with all > > > > sorts of sillyness. > > > > > Calls to bring back national service, calls to evict those found > > > > guilty of the rioting and looting, calls to stop their benifits. I > > > > have witnessed some of my good good friends spew out all mannor of > > > > sillyness in their anger. > > > > > I have procliamed in the past that all questions of morality are > > > > better served sans emotions and I see much this week that has only > > > > firmed this view. > > > > > In order to discover though the validity of this thought tell me do > > > > you agree, or not and why? People of ME sway my opinion with your > > > > wise words. > > > > > What good can come of deciding upon a course of action whilst holding > > > > onto your anger? > > > > > I ask of course as a self confessed recovered angry man.- Hide quoted > > > > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
