WHERE DO YOU MORALS COME FROM? Religion/Philosopher’s text: This is the 1st thought. The Bible, the Koran, The Torrah, Etc. The provide a frame work for a moral philosophy. It is a framework which is fairly consistently. This is why it is fairly a BIG ISSUE to ‘UPDATE’ these texts. I think of the ‘BIG THREE’ the Bible has had to most changing. Which may account for both . . its followers progressiveness as well as their divisiveness The Law: This one intrigues me because this one changes very often and is very hard to keep up with. Those that utilize this as their moral basis . . . I wonder how they stay on top of it. Interpretation changes almost daily Internal Moral: These are usually garnered through life experiences. The only problem with these is they rarely shared among people. The overall inconsistency from person to person would make a society hard to exist in. The commonality of morality on some level is necessary for society to form. This source is highly volatile and mutable. Morality IMO should not change moment to moment. And overall moral philosophy is based loosely on several or all of these. So . . .where is your moral center based Rocket River
Ditto. Although I didn't learn it from Ducktales. From Ducktales I learned to, "Work smarter, not harder."
Morals come from society and civilization. So do social norms. Our morals seperate us from the apemen who killed each other for apewomen and food. Whatever system works the best, so, IMO, morality does change from moment to moment. If a civ started off and lived well from plants, then they might take a greater interest in the value animal life. Since it's deemed as necessary, less consideration is given. We're all think we're the best of what we can do.
How about God? I believe that God defined moral absolutes. Things are right or wrong independent of man's opinions on them, be they passed as law, written as religion, or just thought of by individuals.
I define God as Supreme Morality, but since there's no sure or guaranteed way of know what God does or does not approve, we are each defined by our own literal interpretation of what to do. What I mean is that one order could be given to seperate people and each of them do seperate things while believing that each is carrying out that same order. I don't believe that ambiguity can be solved definitely. Those who try to follow God's morality (or Word) still do the best they can do, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're carrying out God's wishes.
Yes all great wisdom comes from the bill of Scrooge McDuck. Besides Scrooge McDuck is sexy.. Seriously though that is very similar to the law of Karma under which Morality isn't a fixed concept but is instead based upon affects of actions. If you steal from someone its likely that then someone will steal from you so you learn that stealing is wrong because it could happen to you.
I believe there's a Golden Rule in Buddhism that uses the corollary of the one most of us knows: Don't treat others as you don't want to be treated.
Most moralities can be co-opted by the basest aspects of human nature at any given point - and that's where one figures out if one really has a commitment to one's morality.
The concept of Karma is broader than just the Golden Rule because it applies to more than just human societal relations but to one's relationship to the whole of existence. For instance the Golden Rule wouldn't apply to how you treated nonhuman animals or objects while the concept of Karma does.
^^^I think that aspect gets largely ignored in Western Cultures. Without taking all things into the harmony of Nature, there can't be Oneness of Being. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Most people can be content with community networks to find their place in the world. Personally, I find the concept of Oneness an explicit acceptance to the nature of death, and I don't enjoy wrangling with that paradox. There might not be a finality in death, but many of us with our breathing bodies here would believe and encounter it as so in the form of fear or terror. To elaborate some more on this: Many people here believe in something close to a Big Picture. Yet later they would see it as how the Picture unfolds or unravels. I believe that it could very well be a Big Picture to a God-like power. Since we see it unraveling, to us it's more like a movie, a 2 dimensional plane that changes with time. Whoever's directing is up to interpretation.... This is the difference of scale and dimension between two vantage points. Whereas God can see events like a ball, we would only see a slice of the ball, a circle. With the movie analogy in mind, much like a villain who reforms during the end or a hero who is actually a double agent, absolute or God-defined morality is something I don't really want to get into. We all play our roles...hopefully the best of our abilities.
Invisible Fan; I think I follow what you're saying and agree with it. The concept of "Oneness" is a way of dealing with death by recognizing that death doesn't exist on the universal scale and it is only from an individualistic standpoint that we perceive death. This is a very Buddhist concept and relates to understanding that our perception of ourselves is an illusion as much as its an illusion to perceive a single wave as being a seperate thing from the ocean. Mr. Meowgi could comment on this a lot better than I can.
Confucius said: "Don't treat others as you don't want to be treated. " Finally a real quote by Confucius.
Perhaps I'm too deluded by desire to live by the concept. Thanks for the correction. Buddhists...Confucians...what's the diff? They were all lumped together when I was growing up.
Can't blame you for that. There's people in China who use Confucianism to interpret Buddhism. It's been done for hundreds of years.
