Right or Wrong - who determines that? - Page 10

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

..............we keep going on and on and on and on making those black and white lines and refining and defining them.

Life is circumstantial, each situation is unique to the people involved, the life and times surrounding them. We may sympathize with a rape victim aborting a child, but we may frown on some spoiled teenager who screwed up, someone else may look on both as equally sinful for abortion, yet someone else will sympathize with even the spoiled child for never knowing a parents love support and guidance.

IMHO trying to define life and its intricacies is futile. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway.Arrrr!

my thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

my thoughts exactly.

Kya main samjhoon debate samapt hua??? 😆

RTH - Great summative post! 😛

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

Kya main samjhoon debate samapt hua??? 😆

RTH - Great summative post! 😛

i think so. no need for debate. we can pick up the do-it-100%-right-100%-of-the-time manuals on the way out.😛

Originally posted by: chatbuster

i think so. no need for debate. we can pick up the do-it-100%-right-100%-of-the-time manuals on the way out.😛

I want to know who authored these without my contribution 😉😆 They can't be right 😆

Originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

I want to know who authored these without my contribution 😉😆 They can't be right 😆

😆😆😆 lo, gayee bhains pani mein😆

as far as whether debate is samapt or not...yeh to waqt hee batayega😆

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

😆😆😆 lo, gayee bhains pani mein😆

as far as whether debate is samapt or not...yeh to waqt hee batayega😆

I reignited the debate, didn't I ?? 😆 Or maybe not. You see, I am always right 😉

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Taking a human life is wrong, which brings us to the question is abortion right? Depends on if you consider a fetus to be human life. If fetus is not human life than adoption is wrong. Forget feotus boetus... what about armed forces taking lives.. That brings us to how do we define a fetus. If it is a human life then you are taking a life and it is wrong. That brings us to the question can we make exceptions to the norm that taking a human life. So taking life is not really a moral issue.. its more an issue related to humanity.... since animals has vague sense of showing mercy...
A or B, but if C then not A or B but D & E, but if F then G, if C & F then G we keep going on and on and on and on making those black and white lines and refining and defining them. Na na.. its always A, A, A, A... and in a rare case B or C...

Life is circumstantial, each situation is unique to the people involved, the life and times surrounding them. Life is not circumstantial.. only few rare occurences in life are really circumstantially justified......We may sympathize with a rape victim aborting a child, but we may frown on some spoiled teenager who screwed up, someone else may look on both as equally sinful for abortion, yet someone else will sympathize with even the spoiled child for never knowing a parents love support and guidance. We treat taking life veri seriously which is why even sympathizing with rape victim becomes debatable. IMHO trying to define life and its intricacies is futile. Hang on to the code, and hang on to the rules. They're more like mandatory guidelines anyway.Arrrr!

RTH...dont worry, stick on to my 3 stooges...😉

Originally posted by: shrutichopra

I come back to my first question - who makes these guidelines and what in our mind makes us follow them and adopt them? Erm... nothing interesting came up in last 12 pages that could be considered worthy of discussion.?.😊 😕 It is said many a times that a child's mind and heart are as pure as they can be and there arent any preconcieved notions... yup that is why a toddler keeps walking when at the top of the stairs.. ignorance is not a bliss always.. Hence there is something that 'feeds' all of the rules, rights, wrongs in it. Why? you live and learn, not to touch that hot iron again.😉. Doesnt this infringe upon our right to freedom and choice? ..Freedom without knowledge and responsibilty does not lead to right choices..as demonstrated by Brittany, Lindsay and Paris.😛. Because technically we havent been given a choice! One always has a choice to act as led by conscience and intellect or blame a person of their choice to have messed up their choices..😊. If someone comes and says that you have the choice to choose later in life I'd have one more question, when we make the choice later we have it in our mind that some things are right or wrong and our choices are mde on the pretext that what we are doing is right or wrong. Eventually we all have to learn to trust our own instincts , whether they are right or wrong .. Besides if one didn't know or cared to know right from wrong , then why bother about which choice was made in the first place...😉

Originally posted by: chatbuster

so wat are we going to do? start enumerating all the things we find clearcut according to us?😆and ignore the rest of the stuff that's so divisive? lol, reminds me of the quote "All living souls welcome whatever they are ready to cope with; all else they ignore, or pronounce to be monstrous and wrong, or deny to be possible. -George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952) "

let's see the kind of choices presented so far: milk vs rum. great- i am sure folks face those choices everyday of their lives, no?😛 thought ppl would know easy ones like what to have for dinner or who to invite for a party , and as far as what to do for living and chosing life partner goes, most are faced with narrow range of available options which shouldn't put them in any life/death type of conundrum..

mother aborting a fetus to save her own life. great.. Wonder why folks cant things as clearly when it comes to abortions in general. Because they know , the child will have chance to live if put up for adoption..😊

There's an entire lot of people who also consider it wrong to eat meat. But no, that's fine because seemingly the greatest dharma is survival. that's somehow wired into our DNAs. great. Yup plenty of vegans doing just that, surviving by making the best choice available ...

i mean, arent we applying our personal take here and coming up with new religion as we go along?😆 ..ok so I should plagiarise and apply someone else's views..Last I checked , debate when presented as exchange of personal views and beliefs is desired and more interesting then as some hackneyed googled stuff ...

actually the other "ultimate reality" is that there's a lifespan between birth and death. along the way, people mess up at times. and more often than not it's not because they didnt read up on the ten commandments or are bad people. more likely, it's because things are never so clearcut. except perhaps in hindsight. if things were so clear, no one wld mess up and we wldnt be having all the problems we've been having.

Except for life and death type situations, making choices shouldn't be that difficult when one has their basic fundamentals down right. All other stuff is just variation of basics, the problem arises when one is not happy with making just one choice..jmo.

Originally posted by: qwertyesque

RTH...dont worry, stick on to my 3 stooges...😉

- The fetus example is just used as an example to illustrate the various questions and processes involved when society and individuals address moral concerns. While debating the ethics of 'taking a human life' opens a Pandora's box - euthanasia, war, death sentence, negligent homicide, self defense and a lot more; why it can even be argued that inaction on our part to do something is indirectly responsible for death of people dying of starvation.

- How are morality and humanity separated?

- You say always A and occasionally B or C. Can you elaborate on the statement. In society where do we see a situation that is always 'A' ? Can you express a justifiable cause on why there is only 'A' and what determines 'A'?

- You say life is not circumstantial? How do you explain every situation to be equitable and to warrant the exact same cause effect and treatment? Do you interact the same way with a 5 year old and a 50 year old? When you eliminate circumstance the events preceding and resulting in an act and the outcome is inconsequential, only the act holds consequence. Taking life will be taking life - a murderer is the same as a 5 year old who accidentally pulled the trigger on a gun that was lying around because apart from the act of 'taking life' every bit of factor like age, intent, situation, mental capacity etc is purely circumstantial and has no standing. How is this outlook a rational and justifiable outlook to life?

- One persons not sympathizing with a rape victim proves the point how the determinants of right and wrong vary. Society varies in their judgment of situations and each individual within a society differs too and the individuals and society are constantly influencing each other.

- You have made a lot of claims and statements I am curious to know what premises your conclusions are based on and how are they deduced.