Right or Wrong - who determines that? - Page 16

Originally posted by: lighthouse

I think what we are saying is that our morals are mostly similar as the 10 commandments hasn't changed since our ancestors time and our moral judgement is consistent within our domain hence ppl engage in lying about affairs, cover ups and using modern era freedom to justify anything and everything. All of us still get hurt the same and feel the same pain when we are victims . hence don't do what you don't want to be done unto you is still a favorite quote.

why would you quantify something I never said and run away with it? that was not my point about "mostly similar". I was refering to your comment about us being different from our ancestors. I don't think so in respect to 10 commandments, worked then and works now - namely stealing, murdering, coveting, adultery, bearing false witness, swearing, honoring mum/dad except for the first 2 which refer to supreme god and no idol worship which wouldn't apply to atheist. The more things change the more they remain the same. 😉 Is it really that difficult to identify our own flaws and -ve emotions of greed, fear, insecurity etc and not see them in 8/10 commandments?.

also in terms of tone, imo what you have seems to be a less rigid position than what a position of absolute rights and wrongs might imply. if that's the case, then i think we are making some progress in getting to what i was alluding to all along.😉😆 think what you may but I haven't changed my views, except in certain very rare life/death type of situations , it is not that difficult to identify the right course of action.. the fact that we don't always listen to our inner voice and follow thru is another debate. Gosh I know I shouldn't have this piece of chocolate with my tea now but hey it is worth ignoring my diet sense for some instant gratification.. 😉 😆 I know I'll regret it later..😛

lol. so are we saying the cat typed "mostly similar" above?😆

in any case, excuse me if that's not really your position. after all, qwerty and you seemed to have positions that are "mostly similar". though i remember now you did acknowledge some differences- human behavior is not similar, or was that human judgment? 😆

as for the ten commandments working out so well, wonder why the wonderful folks who started their own brand of religion didnt realize that. their followers sure think their specific brand is something worth dying for and killing. each seems to think they've found their own manna to heaven and the other guy's manna is the wrong manna.😆

actually even with this latest post of yours, you are somewhere still ignoring the fact that people with good conscience can and do see things differently. i dont think anyone's been siding with folks who wilfully misbehave for no good reason, but somehow that's been your bogeyman. is that even a worthwhile debate? 😕😉

then somewhere before, you seem to be excusing away dissimilar behavior on grounds of those being of an exceptional variety. well, isnt that what separates us from the chimpanzees, the few exceptions? or do we next start to find common ground with the chimpanzees and say that just because they too have sex, they too eat food etc, they too do most of the things we do on a daily basis, that we are the same as chimpanzees? i mean are we still arguing on those points?😆

Originally posted by: lighthouse

I think you are talking about social conventions not morals. Everyone knows it is wrong to steal but if it is allowed in a certain community , it becomes social convention. 😊

The thing is that social conventions are determined by the morality of the society as a whole. Consequently social conventions themselves influence morality.

Whether lying is wrong or not is a moral principle. When the Russian lies to save face or the Japanese is not honest about poor performance they have altered this moral principle to their society. The definitions of lying, the moral issues encompassing lying have been altered giving way to these social conventions. On the other hand there are societies that have different views of lying and feel that cover up to save face is immoral.

I am not trying to deny that there are basic moral principles. However, the point I want to make is that these principles are not rigid but very flexible guidelines. They are adaptable to society and situations.

Take the moral principle 'one must return what is borrowed'. However, if we borrowed a piece of paper to write on, we do not feel obligated to return a piece of paper back. If one borrowed a car, then we expect it be returned. When we borrow books, games etc how soon we return it depends on our relationship with that person. If we borrow small amounts of money like a few quarters for soda or laundry it completely depends on our relationship with people if we ever return it and how soon.

Whether it is a major decision or simple things in life moral principles adapt to people and situation. I am not saying morality should be twisted for personal purposes, but what is right and acceptable may well and truly vary and the person adapts to it.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The thing is that social conventions are determined by the morality of the society as a whole. Consequently social conventions themselves influence morality.

Whether lying is wrong or not is a moral principle. When the Russian lies to save face or the Japanese is not honest about poor performance they have altered this moral principle to their society. The definitions of lying, the moral issues encompassing lying have been altered giving way to these social conventions. On the other hand there are societies that have different views of lying and feel that cover up to save face is immoral.

I am not trying to deny that there are basic moral principles. However, the point I want to make is that these principles are not rigid but very flexible guidelines. They are adaptable to society and situations.

Take the moral principle 'one must return what is borrowed'. However, if we borrowed a piece of paper to write on, we do not feel obligated to return a piece of paper back. If one borrowed a car, then we expect it be returned. When we borrow books, games etc how soon we return it depends on our relationship with that person. If we borrow small amounts of money like a few quarters for soda or laundry it completely depends on our relationship with people if we ever return it and how soon.

Whether it is a major decision or simple things in life moral principles adapt to people and situation. I am not saying morality should be twisted for personal purposes, but what is right and acceptable may well and truly vary and the person adapts to it.

absolutely on the mark!

social conventions and morality can never diverge too strongly without forces kicking in that try to bring them into sync.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

The thing is that social conventions are determined by the morality of the society as a whole. Consequently social conventions themselves influence morality. rather it should be the otherway round.. morality should influence social convention....

Whether lying is wrong or not is a moral principle. When the Russian lies to save face or the Japanese is not honest about poor performance they have altered this moral principle to their society. The definitions of lying, the moral issues encompassing lying have been altered giving way to these social conventions. On the other hand there are societies that have different views of lying and feel that cover up to save face is immoral. Lying is wrong.. thats the bottom line.. the semantic and situational justification for anything is not going to establish anything.. When you say everything is fair in war.. Still we set up rules dont we...so violation of a moral principle in world is not lack of compliance but an attempt to aberrate...from the norm

I am not trying to deny that there are basic moral principles. However, the point I want to make is that these principles are not rigid but very flexible guidelines. They are adaptable to society and situations. Not really. Guideline unless adhered to is loose way of allowing individual actions to define a rule..which is never the case.. Adhering to guidelines in the subsequent mandate.. .so Its essential, however you interpret.. it should have strong adherence...

Take the moral principle 'one must return what is borrowed'. Yes i borrow kleenex I woudl surely return it if the person wants it back... 😆😆However, if we borrowed a piece of paper to write on, we do not feel obligated to return a piece of paper back. If one borrowed a car, then we expect it be returned. When we borrow books, games etc how soon we return it depends on our relationship with that person. If we borrow small amounts of money like a few quarters for soda or laundry it completely depends on our relationship with people if we ever return it and how soon. What you are saying is the cost of replacing what was borrowed.. that doesnt change the basic principle.. If a wife doesnt scream rape an forcing husband (though not a hurting one, who leaves bruises or physically hurts her) cant be indicted, even otherwise...

Whether it is a major decision or simple things in life moral principles adapt to people and situation. I am not saying morality should be twisted for personal purposes, but what is right and acceptable may well and truly vary and the person adapts to it. Moral issues are always more evident when seen in bigger issues but not so in case of smaller ones.. that doesnt yet establish non-compliance..