Morals are like boobs. Bouncy and fun to gnaw on.

How's that?

(October 30, 2013 at 8:08 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: The good person is the one with the glue in his/her back pocket, willing to take it out and put the broken things back together, things that others broke and things that were broken by him/her (the good person).

I like this analogy. I have known several "gluers" in my life, and I strive to be like them. The closest I consistently come is in my role as Auntie. I have no children of my own, but I am very close to my sister's children (they have their own room decorated as they like and with toys, etc, in my house), and I am my best, "gluing" self when I am with them. I want to be more like Auntie (kind, forgiving, loving, gluing) in all aspects of my life. She's a part of me, so why can't I access her more often?

I like Kant's categorical imperative:

Act in a way such that others are the end to your actions and not the means to an end.

(October 30, 2013 at 8:05 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: . . . and millennia past are leading toward future generations who will move us even further away from our roots - unless religion kills us all first.

This sounds interesting, but I think I missed something. What are you saying here?

And the "Do no harm" thing gets me, because what about in the defense of the weak?
Because, as a Christian (and I'm not bringing up God, just stating a moral dilemma that I think about every now and then) it seems that I should be as much of a pacifist as possible, turning the other cheek and all that, but am doesn't Evil win when Good does nothing?

If you just lay down to a bully, does the bully stop?

Seriously, I had this thought in my head once where all the good people in the world became complete pacifists and those who meant to do harm started to take over, but they saw that the good people were so good and so passive and forgiving that it changed those who meant harm. Kinda like the Grinch who stole Christmas . . .

Embarrassed a little to admit to this, but it was a thought none the less.

(October 30, 2013 at 8:22 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: And the "Do no harm" thing gets me, because what about in the defense of the weak?

Doesn't the fact that the weak need defending imply that there's something attacking them? If so, the harm brought to the threat is justified, really.

Quote:Because, as a Christian (and I'm not bringing up God, just stating a moral dilemma that I think about every now and then) it seems that I should be as much of a pacifist as possible, turning the other cheek and all that, but am doesn't Evil win when Good does nothing?

If you believe that, ask yourself why god, the ultimate good, also does nothing.

Quote:I've thought about that before, do you mean like being completely straight forward about what you see and do?

Since the alternative is duplicitousness, then yes.

Quote: I tried it before (with my wife) and it was a definite strain on the marriage.

Your marriage, your problem.

Quote: If I am right about what you are saying, do you think that tact comes into it at all? Or do you think that people just need to face up to hard truths in a sink or swim sort of way?

Of course tact comes into it. But there are 7+ billion people in the world, and I simple cannot and will not alter my actions on the off chance that someone may react negatively. Here's a perfect, recent example:

I dislike private messaging. Another poster here wanted me to PM them. I declined to do so, and this person, quite frankly, went off. I had no idea, no possible way of knowing they would react that way. I'm sorry this person got their feelings hurt, but I don't hold myself responsible for the unpredictable actions of other people.

Boru

(October 30, 2013 at 8:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 30, 2013 at 8:22 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: And the "Do no harm" thing gets me, because what about in the defense of the weak?

Doesn't the fact that the weak need defending imply that there's something attacking them? If so, the harm brought to the threat is justified, really.

Quote:Because, as a Christian (and I'm not bringing up God, just stating a moral dilemma that I think about every now and then) it seems that I should be as much of a pacifist as possible, turning the other cheek and all that, but am doesn't Evil win when Good does nothing?

If you believe that, ask yourself why god, the ultimate good, also does nothing.

I can answer second one if you really want me to, but we already know that we do not agree with each other on it.

I am really more interested in what you had to say with your first statement, about justifying the harm done to those who harm the weak. It's a really interesting point.

Because if we look at history (and I am not a history buff so please feel free to fill in the details) we see two figures that acted in different ways to the same evil. MLK Jr and Malcolm X

MLK Jr promoted a nonviolent civil disobedience, maybe not complete pacifism but certainly not the same level of harm that his oppressors brought to the people of that time (and the time before).

Malcolm X was another human rights activist, but he promoted "any means necessary" a much more extreme approach.

In my opinion, MLK Jr has the moral high ground here because he kept to a standard higher than his enemies.

What do you think?

---

(October 30, 2013 at 9:28 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Your marriage, your problem.

No doubt!

(October 30, 2013 at 9:57 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: Because if we look at history (and I am not a history buff so please feel free to fill in the details) we see two figures that acted in different ways to the same evil. MLK Jr and Malcolm X

MLK Jr promoted a nonviolent civil disobedience, maybe not complete pacifism but certainly not the same level of harm that his oppressors brought to the people of that time (and the time before).

Malcolm X was another human rights activist, but he promoted "any means necessary" a much more extreme approach.

In my opinion, MLK Jr has the moral high ground here because he kept to a standard higher than his enemies.

What do you think?

I agree, I think MLK Jr definitely had the moral high ground.

Quote:Seriously, I had this thought in my head once where all the good people in the world became complete pacifists and those who meant to do harm started to take over, but they saw that the good people were so good and so passive and forgiving that it changed those who meant harm. Kinda like the Grinch who stole Christmas . . .

The trouble is, what if those that do harm aren't moved by passivity? The moral high ground holds little meaning if all those that have it are 6ft under.

(October 30, 2013 at 6:41 pm)GodsRevolt Wrote: We are like a bull in the china shop of everyone else's emotions. There is the delicate balance between self-restraint and acting to your own instincts. And the only way to really avoid breaking something (not hurting another or yourself) is to completely leave the shop, which would be akin to emotional seclusion.

I have read this tired analogy, or something similar, many times when I frequented Facebook.

It is not my responsibility to tread lightly around others who may become upset at something I might do or state. I am not their emotional keepers. It is their responsibility alone how they react to what they experience in the world.

(October 31, 2013 at 5:23 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: The trouble is, what if those that do harm aren't moved by passivity? The moral high ground holds little meaning if all those that have it are 6ft under.

Harry Turtledove has a thought-provoking alternative history short story—sorry I've forgotten the title. In it the Nazis swiftly defeat Britain, smash the Soviet Union and charge across Asia to capture British India where a portion of the British Army was holding out. Gandhi is there of course, and he continues his tactics of non-violent protest to demand independence from Germany. The German general orders his soldiers to machine gun the protesters, and then when Gandhi is captured, he orders his execution ... with a trace of regret because he really admires Gandhi's courage.