Do you have a moral standard?

[RJDiogenes]

^And what about actions that cause pain or harm in the short term, but are beneficial in the long term; for example, surgery or amputations in the days before anesthesia?

As I said, common sense is more useful than splitting hairs or legalistic digressions.

 

[Galactus]

I definitely don't see a treat other how you want to be treated.

If I was being a dick, i'd want people to call me a dick so I could stop being a dick.

Therefore, if I think somebody is a dick, I must call them a dick. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

What if you don't think you are doing anything wrong? What then? What if you simply say what you mean?

We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

 

[Miss Chicken]

In essence, if it hurts someone, it's immoral, and if it helps someone, it's moral.

In the interests of philosophical discussion, what does it mean to hurt or help? How do we measure these factors? Who gets to define what hurting or helping is?

What if someone tried to tell you that you were hurting them, even though you could not see that you were?

This something that I covered in my first post. I said

My morals are simple - I think it is immoral to hurt another living thing unless there is a compelling and neccessary reason to do so.

For example - I think it is immoral to inflict pain on a child unless it is the child's best interest. Therefore it is immoral to stick a pin into a child's arm but it isn't immoral to inflict the same amount of pain to vaccinate a child.

 

[Kestra]

We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

I really don't think anyone here is being direspectful, and honestly, not everything deserves the same level of respect. Also, questioning and being respectful can go together. I'm still not seeing your point here. No one's attacking anyone.

 

[Galactus]

Isn't that the point of the thread. I think it is and you think it is not. Now what?

 

[Kestra]

The point of the thread is whether or not you have a moral standard, not what you believe constitutes being respectful ...

 

[Jadzia]

This something that I covered in my first post. I said

My morals are simple - I think it is immoral to hurt another living thing unless there is a compelling and neccessary reason to do so.

For example - I think it is immoral to inflict pain on a child unless it is the child's best interest. Therefore it is immoral to stick a pin into a child's arm but it isn't immoral to inflict the same amount of pain to vaccinate a child.

No action is necessary in itself. Necessity is always relative to a specified goal.

In your example, the goal (presumably) is to offset a risk of disease, at the cost of violating the child's body with a needle and an unnatural substance, inflicting some pain, and perhaps also introducing other minor risks associated with the vaccine.

A parent following the social trend that is vaccinating children, might weigh this lot up this as 'helping', but individuals are free to weigh up those risks and that pain and that bodily violation differently. A child might weigh it up as 'hurting' if it happens against their will.

One counter-argument is that the parent's opinion is better than the child's. Or that the child doesn't understand what is for the best.


Stepping back from this specific example, isn't this the problem with most moral conflicts? That one person arrogantly believes they know better than another? So they are happy to disregard the other's feelings, and act in what they believe is the good choice.

In warfare, no side believes they are the baddies; everybody believes they are fighting on the side of good.

 

[I'm Kirk]

My moral standards come from the Bible because I'm a born again Christian. Plus I'm very happy.

 

[AstroSmurf]

We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

I really don't think anyone here is being direspectful, and honestly, not everything deserves the same level of respect. Also, questioning and being respectful can go together. I'm still not seeing your point here. No one's attacking anyone.

No, some of us were not being disrespectful. To be honest I have had very little interaction with Michael and don't have a clue what his religious beliefs are. As I said before, no offense was intended. I was genuinely curious... or at least I was.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Let me think... should I fall for an obvious TLS bait thread? Mmmh, I don't think so!

[
We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

When you claim you have the answer, people are going to ask why. That's pretty simple. But noooooo, that's persecuting those pooooow Christians.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Regarding the "Which standard?" question, I think I answered that. I believe there is indeed one standard, held by God, outside of myself and objective in that anything I do or say can be measured against it. It is an immutable standard, and there are definite right or wrong answers. The only thing is that I realize I must attempt to interpret the best I can, and act the best I can, which due to my nature as human means I WILL err and I WILL interpret incorrectly. This is why when I pray for forgiveness, I also pray to be forgiven for any case in which I truly thought I acted correctly but where I may have been wrong, and to be instructed wherever I have messed up without meaning to. You CAN believe in a single, objective standard. You simply have to do it with humility, remembering your nature as human and as a result, not being arrogant towards others.

 

[StarryEyed]

Regarding the "Which standard?" question, I think I answered that. I believe there is indeed one standard, held by God, outside of myself and objective in that anything I do or say can be measured against it. It is an immutable standard, and there are definite right or wrong answers. The only thing is that I realize I must attempt to interpret the best I can, and act the best I can, which due to my nature as human means I WILL err and I WILL interpret incorrectly.

If this divine moral blueprint needs to be interpreted, it is useless. You will interpret it through your own moral filter. Faced with a vague, self-contradictory text, what else can you do? In the end, you decide your own morality - just like the rest of us.

 

[Galactus]

Let me think... should I fall for an obvious TLS bait thread? Mmmh, I don't think so!

[
We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

When you claim you have the answer, people are going to ask why. That's pretty simple. But noooooo, that's persecuting those pooooow Christians.

You know very well what Michael views are, yet you think it is funny to disregard them because they are not the same views that you have. Please tell me how this fits into any sort of moral standard. You are flat out laughing at his beliefs.

 

[Amaris]

We all know Michael and what he believes, yet it took about two seconds for people to attack him and begin to prove him wrong. That does not seem very respectful to me in the slightest. It is those little shots that clearly show that the do unto others is not followed.

I really don't think anyone here is being direspectful, and honestly, not everything deserves the same level of respect. Also, questioning and being respectful can go together. I'm still not seeing your point here. No one's attacking anyone.

No, some of us were not being disrespectful. To be honest I have had very little interaction with Michael and don't have a clue what his religious beliefs are. As I said before, no offense was intended. I was genuinely curious... or at least I was.

I hope I didn't knock the curiosity out of ya. That comment was more geared toward me getting ready for pages of "do not" and "do so" which is quite common in TNZ. This being Miscellaneous, I'm not used to that feeling of non-imminent attack. So please don't take anything I said in that comment as a reprimand or admonishment, it wasn't, I promise you.

J.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Regarding the "Which standard?" question, I think I answered that. I believe there is indeed one standard, held by God, outside of myself and objective in that anything I do or say can be measured against it. It is an immutable standard, and there are definite right or wrong answers. The only thing is that I realize I must attempt to interpret the best I can, and act the best I can, which due to my nature as human means I WILL err and I WILL interpret incorrectly.

If this divine moral blueprint needs to be interpreted, it is useless. You will interpret it through your own moral filter. Faced with a vague, self-contradictory text, what else can you do? In the end, you decide your own morality - just like the rest of us.

The problem lies, rather, in human nature...given that we are of finite mind and subject to error, most anything we engage in excepting hard mathematics (as opposed to statistics, especially statistics on human nature) will require interpretation...and in my belief, prayer and meditation. Again, though, this is why humility is so important, because we do not simply attain a state of perfection because we say we are Christian--we're always growing and have to be ready to accept correction in the process of learning.

I realize we will not agree on this, but I felt I should provide an alternate viewpoint given that the preponderance of views on a Trek board tend to lean in one direction.

 

[iguana_tonante]

When you claim you have the answer, people are going to ask why. That's pretty simple. But noooooo, that's persecuting those pooooow Christians.

You know very well what Michael views are, yet you think it is funny to disregard them because they are not the same views that you have. Please tell me how this fits into any sort of moral standard. You are flat out laughing at his beliefs.

No, actually I was laughing at your oversensitivity over the issue. You don't like your beliefs challenged? Don't bring them at the dinner table. My moral standard is: "if you don't like the heat, don't come in the kitchen".

I also believe that "it is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money", but that's matter for another thread.

 

[RandyS]

Some people might think it's right to sleep around with 20 partners a night while other people think it's wrong. It really depends on how you look at the situation.

Sleeping with people has nothing to do with morals.

In that situation morals would involve how you deal with each of those people. If you're honest with each of them and so forth. And I tend to think that most everyone would agree that telling them all the truth is good and lying to them all about it is wrong.

I could be wrong, does anyone here feel otherwise?

Yes, because if you're married, sleeping with somebody other than your wife (or husband) becomes a moral wrong.

At least, in my view. I also think that one man's morality is another man's bullshit.

 

[Galactus]

Why is it being overly sensitive when it is a Christian, but when it is someone else it is those overbearing Christians forcing their ideas on me.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Why is it being overly sensitive when it is a Christian, but when it is someone else it is those overbearing Christians forcing their ideas on me.

First of all, since Christians are the vast, vast majority of population, so it's a little silly for them behaving like they are an oppressed minority.

Then again, I have no problem with Christians trying to convert me. I just respond in kind. Usually it ends with them storming off with a look of shock on their face, never to come again.

 

[Galactus]

So you can offend the majority because it is ok? What kind of morals are those?