reply to post by Pinke
The same way I'm not sure a moral person needs to be entirely kind or understanding of all people.
Really? That's generally what we mean when we say someone is 'moral'.
For instance, lets say you're having a 'bad day'; someone comes up to you, they seem a little flustered, nervous, downtrodden, or whatever, and
they ask you a question in a timorous voice. You hear it - and quite possibly, a part of you finds this weakness repulsive - in the fashion of
Nietzsches 'uber-mensche'. How do you respond? In most peoples view, and I would argue, objectively, the only proper response would be commiseration
towards that persons emotional state of mind. To respond harshly, would be cruel and selfish, and so, immoral.
There are other examples as well. Say, instead of being approached by someone who is downtrodden, that you are approached by someone you find annoying
or irritating. Is it ok then for you to express some irritation with this person? Is it ok for you to 'lower him a few pegs' in order to bring him
within your own personal estimation of his worth? That too I believe could be called immoral, inasmuch as it an unnecessary act which injures another
persons self esteem.
A moral person doesn't even need to be right sometimes. Look at the things some people do in the name of morality connected with religion and you get
This is where we come into conflict within the world of 'morals'. I think an objective moral exists and can be stated as 'do not do to others that
which you would not want done to you' and the inverse 'do to others what you would want done to you'.
In the case of Islamic extremism, for example, they are CLEARLY acting immoral, otherwise there wouldn't be such debate within the Islamic world as
to the moral and religious legitimacy of suicide bombings etc. There is an obvious conflict between the injunction to love, and the injunction to
spread Islam. But in case persuasion towards conversion doesn't work, love should take PRECEDENCE to the hatred of martial jihad.
No one need deny another persons sense of meaning in order to live morally. For example, I disagree with my cousins choice to live a gay lifestyle,
have gay sex etc, but this personal opinion of mine need not interfere with our relationship as cousins; my love for him takes precedence to my
philosophical beliefs towards homosexuality. Thus, even though he is aware of my opinions, he never feels that I think of him or treat him any
different from anyone else I know. This is because from his
perspective, and his sense of right and wrong, he isn't doing anything wrong; of
course, I disagree, but my disagreement cannot change his perception, and quite frankly is more likely to aggravate it and create a rift between us.
Therefore, I respect and tolerate his views, and even if he needs moral or spiritual support, I help in the terms of HIS WORLDVIEW and not my own.