What is your moral barrier?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I have all ways liked this definition of morality: Morality is doing the right thing or doing what is right when no one is watching.




posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Morality is nothing more than being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. question should be, what is right or good conduct? I would have to say anything that conforms to the laws of nature.Going against these laws only causes suffering and pain either to ones self, or others.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


My principle is communicating, but I am noticing fear of communicating in the public, and I am noticing a not wanting of this.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



In Dr. Frankls opinion (mine as well) you gain more in terms of self esteem and a sense of personal moral accomplishment, than you do in engaging in a momentary passion.


I would disagree here. Momentary passions can and often do last a lifetime, and can carry one through some rough times, and can certainly outlast lost moments due to morally ambiguous decisions.

That being said, fooling around with a friend of someone with whom you have a relationship is not only stupid, but extremely bad mojo, or someone who is in a relationship with a friend.

Now, sometimes helping someone out who is in a bad relationship, who needs some validation to get away from a person of questionable character, not so easy.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Let me clarify. If I'm forced to defend myself and it means the other person might die, yes, of course, I would kill him. My situation referred to having to kill someone who is innocent. Which I wouldn't do.


It's not like they are going to walk up and announce their intentions, unless they think they have nothing to fear.

These days you are most likely to be taken out by some back stabbing co-worker who is out to deprive you of the substance for your survival.

One of my observations is that the first to cry foul, is usually the first to have committed a foul.

From my experience, evil is opportunistic.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





I would disagree here. Momentary passions can and often do last a lifetime, and can carry one through some rough times, and can certainly outlast lost moments due to morally ambiguous decisions.


In the case of most feeling humans, the satisfaction and peace from overcoming a moral challenge outweighs the transitory satisfaction of an easy lay.

In my own experience, I can verify this. I have both succumbed, and done things too embarrassing to mention, and I have conquered those things by not doing them again.

The way you talk is that you can essentially act in any way, regardless of consequences. You can waste vast amounts of money on prostitutes, alcohol, drugs, etc, and it wouldn't have just been better to realize where such stupidity leads to; where it often leads to.

But the relativist has this supercilious attitude that he doesn't believe there's any real fundamental moral element which he should pay deference to. He wants to conduct a 'test' to see if it will work "differently" for him. Charlie Sheen is this type of person (with his drug addiction).

A momentary passion such as cheating on your spouse, is one that hurts. Your love is predicated on trust. You betrayed this trust, now your love imposes on you shame.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally[/

Personally, I see nothing wrong with drunks or prostitutes. I put them ahead of con artists who earn a living cheating people out of their just due, and there are far more of those these days. Charlie Sheen crossed the line when he put a knife to his wife's throat. Yet, you went after the drinking and the prostitutes! Why is that?

All I was doing was discussing morally ambiguous situations. While I certainly enjoyed drinking and chasing women back in the day, I was never the kind to gIo after a girl involved with someone else, or the kind to take advantage of others. There are a lot of non-drinking control freaks out there who would not hesitate to screw someone over simply because they are arrogant jerks who think they are better than anyone, and have the right to live by a different set of rules.

Here is a key. Forgiveness is the greatest of virtues. Learn to forgive others, and then you can begin to forgive yourself.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



In the case of most feeling humans, the satisfaction and peace from overcoming a moral challenge outweighs the transitory satisfaction of an easy lay.

In my own experience, I can verify this. I have both succumbed, and done things too embarrassing to mention, and I have conquered those things by not doing them again.


Good for you, you made the journey and came out a better man, or not.

I don't remember saying anything about an easy lay. I responded about a moment of passion, but a night of passion is much better. It feels great to do what is right, but a night of passion is a whole different league.

There is nothing morally wrong about enjoying life.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





I don't remember saying anything about an easy lay.


A moment of passions occurs in what I termed "an easy lay".




but a night of passion is much better.


So I take it you're not averse to prostitution?



It feels great to do what is right, but a night of passion is a whole different league.


A night of passion is fine, in a certain context.

My contention is that a night of passion with someone who is married is a bad and evil thing to do.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Personally, I see nothing wrong with drunks or prostitutes


These are my views.

Prostitution exists and has existed for a very long time. It might not ever go away. However, there is no industry where woman are more exploited, where drugs, alcohol are more indulged, and where Mafia interests are more involved, than in prostitution.

Where I live - Toronto - Chinese, Russian and Italian mobs run the prostitution rings. Thousands of girls are drugged up - mostly foreign, but also local - and sold for $200, sometimes as little as $80, to sexually frustrated men. It is a dirty, dirty business. And it's a business where girls are almost always exploited.

It's been suggested that maybe prostitution should be fully legalized and protected by law. Places of business could be established where incall or outcall services could be offered to interested parties. This exists in many places, however, there aren't any laws in place to protect the escort from being exploited by her employer. Thus, even 'legitimate' escort services fleece their escorts. And it's not the police who intervene when the escort get's spurned of payment, but the mob; hired thugs who make you give her money.

Problem, is, prostitution is a horribly unhealthy menace to a society. It is the lowest form of human sexuality. Sexuality, ideally, should be between persons, hence, we look down upon prostitution.

When two people love each other, they relate to each other first as persons. It's this intimately personal, and emotional interaction which sublimates the physical act of sex with greater meaning (and also orgasmic pleasure). Then there's the psychological aspect of sex. Someone who wants to 'talk', and get to 'know' the other person, to perhaps increase the thrill of the sexual act, is one level up from the more base form of sexual meeting: when one person treats another person as a senseless object. Prostitution is often nothing more than masturbating on another object. All you care for is to release that pent up energy on something which attracts you. That's it.




Charlie Sheen


Well, first, I didn't know anything about that. Besides, it was besides my point. Charlie Sheen's attitude toward his drug addition is one of "oh, I can change it". All around him people are suffering for his intransigence, but he's going to do it when "he feels like it".

He's immature.




all I was doing was discussing morally ambiguous situations.


I'm not angry or anything. I just don't quite agree with the logic you're using.

You talk as if those situations you mentioned are irredeemable, that none of the courses I suggested were morally valid, or translucent enough in their logic to be taken seriously.




Forgiveness is the greatest of virtues


Forgiveness happens after something 'evil' has been done. BEFORE the action is what were talking about. This is the area of morality we are discussing. If something is understood to lead to something else, and we act ignoring knowledge of the probable consequences, we are morally culpable. And frankly, someone who continues to commit the same mistakes over and over and over again, who doesn't seem to try to act differently, or even agree that he should act differently, taxes the patience to 'forgive' of those around him.

Just as drug addicts need to be reformed and rehabilitated, so do such people need moral rehabilitation.

Of course, it would 'authoritarian' to force such rehabilitation on people. Since we can't force people to hold constructive values. But, it would nevertheless be wise for them to change their ways.
edit on 8-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



My contention is that a night of passion with someone who is married is a bad and evil thing to do.


Where did I claim being with someone married is not wrong? Or being married and being with someone other than your spouse?

Dude, sounds like you are the one walking around with a major guilt trip. See my comment about forgiveness.

The Romans considered celebration to be a virtue. They engaged in orgies. But then Again they enjoyed watching slaves fight to the death.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 




Dude, sounds like you are the one walking around with a major guilt trip.


huh?



The Romans considered celebration to be a virtue. They engaged in orgies. But then Again they enjoyed watching slaves fight to the death.


Which tells you what about the Romans?

You and I clearly see things from different perspectives. Mutually opposed. Where you see relativism and confusion, I see clarity and responsibility to act.

I try to look for moral solutions, whereas you play around with a casuistic game of potential moral problems. And through such gaming, nothing happens. No insight is made.

Even now, you have only pointed out 'tricky' moral situations, without acknowledging that those situations have definite solutions.

Since you and I have different values, you seem to incline to the hedonistic perspective, while I prefer the more moderate considerate perspective, we've bashed heads (ideologically. I have nothing against you personally).

There can and should be no question that it's not right to meddle in other peoples relationships, because it is inconsiderate and uncaring to the reality of their relationship. If one party is unhappy - and you happen to be someone she wants to sleep with - it's still not right, because the other party, the one unknowing of his partners feelings, is still very involved in the relationship.

I know it's a drag, and annoying, and uncool, and perhaps unpleasurable, but morality is good and right and sensible.
edit on 8-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Wow, you like to make a lot of assumtions so that you can make a lot of accusations.

You make me wonder, if you had been there when JC said "let he who is without sin throw the first stone," if you would have started pelting away.

By the way, there are far worse ways to exploit people than prostitution.

Not all acts that need to be forgiven rise to the level of evil, but hey, if you don't believe in forgiveness, then hey, I guess that is your choice.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





You make me wonder, if you had been there when JC said "let he who is without sin throw the first stone," if you would have started pelting away.


lol, why are you being so defensive?

I'm just trying to discuss the merit and demerit of moral action, and you're acting as If I'm some sort of moral zealot or something.

Look at how much I revealed about myself in my opening post. I'm not an angel. But if I do something wrong, I have the humility to accept it and move on.

If, for example, two people enter a relationship with the understanding that it would be 'open', than inter-marital affairs wouldn't be "immoral", in the normal sense of the term, since both parties are under no false understanding of the nature of the relationship.




By the way, there are far worse ways to exploit people than prostitution.


I'm just telling you how it is. I know there are many other types of exploitation.




Not all acts that need to be forgiven rise to the level of evil


lol, you are incredible. I mentioned in my original post 'tolerating someone because you understand the reason for their behavior", yet, I'm not a forgiving person.

Funny that in the beginning of your post you complain about me making assumptions and accusations, whereas you are doing this to me right now, despite all that I have said.

Frankly, I think my moral viewpoint annoys you, which is why you're now 'projecting' your annoyance into this false construct of me attacking you.
edit on 8-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally


If you were so rational and clear about things, you wouldn't be the one freaking out, making up a bunch of stuff.

And by the way, the Romans were the height of civilization in their day. If you think the religions with all the sexual hang ups were any better, then you know nothing about history, and you have far too many sexual hang ups.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yeah, ok. I have sexual hangups because I find something wrong with having sex with someone who's in a committed relationship; or, because I think prostitution is something that should be generally discouraged.

You are a basket case of projection, poet1b.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Well, you could always start by explaining this.


Forgiveness happens after something 'evil' has been done.


And the the person doing the cheating is the person in the relationship, but even in relationships, there can be exploitation.

My effort was to discuss morality. Where it seems your goal is to dictate morality.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


My moral barrier is broken when I see someone taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable for fun or for profit.




So there's no infraction in your mind against the concept of ownership? If something is "his", and I understand it as his, what gives me the right to ignore that and take it? I would expect the same understanding from anyone else with regard to what is mine.


To me, the concept of ownership doesn't belong in alignment with morality. Ownership and greed go hand and hand. Greed is the root of, dare I say it, all evil.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I will not ever be 'cruel' to someone. I can't even believe that people have the ability to say such intentionally hurtful things to others. When I was going through my divorce, my ex made some intentionally low blows, (actually, he did through the entire course of our marriage, but i digress...) and I could never bring it in myself to do the same back. It's just not right to hurt someone so deeply, on that emotional level.

Occasionally I'll see an obese woman shopping in a grocery store, and her cart will be filled with junk food - and the thought crosses my mind "You should NOT be eating that" but I immediately get rid of the thought, and I usually feel like a horrible person for the rest of the day for even just HAVING a thought like that.

So, I guess my moral barrier is on the emotional level.

Interesting thread.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





My effort was to discuss morality. Where it seems your goal is to dictate morality.


Do you get how any assertion of any kind is 'dictation' of morality? When you don't pass judgement, that's a moral judgement. Your not acting is the same as acting. So I'm not doing anything essentially different from what you're doing.



And the the person doing the cheating is the person in the relationship, but even in relationships, there can be exploitation.


Ok. Heres my final point as this conversation is going nowhere.

My general thesis with regard to morality was that every moral action has to be understood in terms of context, the immediacy of the person, and the golden rule.

So theres:

  • context
  • the immediacy of the person
  • golden rule

    These are the basic conditions I see as relevant in determining how one should act in any situation.
    edit on 8-11-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)





  • new topics
    top topics
     
    5
    << 1  2    4 >>

    log in

    join