i really enjoyed reading your thoughts. they make sense and i can see your thought process, but it seems like you refuse to see the gray in these situations.
for instance, that accepting the beliefs of one religion morality somehow means that you disagree with others. pretty much every established religion has a very similar definition and advocates selflessness. or the fact that in the midst of the "lawlessness" created by these tragedies, there are also stories of great heroism and commraderie. i just think you've made sense of something so abstract by comparing or contrasting it with certain situations and forgotten the gray areas in which true morality (lessoning of evil or harm as its goal) does prevail.
it's really easy to build an agrument against humanity and it's disappointing ways, but without that free will to fail, we would never triumph.
i have to take myself aback whenever i think about morality because the whole thing is corrupted. There is no homogenized morality, its just sparse and between and among certain people. Maybe everyone does have morality, its just that some people's morality is so fundamentally different than everyone else's that they are considered not to have it at all. Insofar as religions, they contradict eachother enough that if the choice were present, they would all have the other religions wiped out. but religion itself is the basis for many peoples thought systems and sense of morality. long, long ago, that may have been the main point of religion: to keep the 'masses' from doing bad things, rioting, abiding to government rules, not killing, things that we today consdier to be absurd, just because its so ingrained into our moral code
( ... )
values work for self interest the majority of the time. they are flexible and capricious.
true morality is like math, it is not relative. it transcends relativeness. there is a right and a wrong.
take for example the law. not all laws have been moral in history but they are codes of conduct within a society that stand for specific values that may change.
morality is a code of conduct, unlike: law, self-interest, religion, aesthetics
that is true justice.
our greatest heroes have challenged flawed value systems of law. because law and self interest must ultimately answer to morality. that is the ideal at least. they are the civil disobedient, not the common criminal who break the law for self interest purposes alone. these people stand for principles.
Comments 15
Reply
Reply
it's really easy to build an agrument against humanity and it's disappointing ways, but without that free will to fail, we would never triumph.
Reply
Reply
Reply
actually i take it back. i dont think ill ever see you in sb in reality
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
one thing we all must hold as truth
values work for self interest the majority of the time. they are flexible and capricious.
true morality is like math, it is not relative. it transcends relativeness. there is a right and a wrong.
take for example the law. not all laws have been moral in history but they are codes of conduct within a society that stand for specific values that may change.
morality is a code of conduct, unlike:
law, self-interest, religion, aesthetics
that is true justice.
our greatest heroes have challenged flawed value systems of law. because law and self interest must ultimately answer to morality. that is the ideal at least. they are the civil disobedient, not the common criminal who break the law for self interest purposes alone. these people stand for principles.
Reply
Leave a comment