Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your discussing competency and you did the best you could. I think that is different from moral situations. Were these teachers ever a danger to the students?
That wasn't my point. My point was that there is a "best one can do" scenario/decision, without necessarily being "the best" possibility.
Ah. Okay. At least I understand now where you're coming from.
Well here's the problem with your addled way of thinking:
There are two types of people in this world (at least in regard to this sense of the meaning) -- those who find purpose and satisfaction in life extrinsically, and those who find purpose and satisfaction in life intrinsically.
When I first graduated from high school, I just didn't want to do four years of college, so I got a community college degree in computer programming. But deep inside of myself I wanted to "make a difference" through teaching, so I went on and got my first two degrees in education/science. I never once connected my desire to make a difference with any external force (god). I did it because my family (for all their faults) always instilled in me the belief that people should "do right" and help others...and they did that without bringing religion into it. After thirteen years of notably successful teaching, I thought I could help more students and teachers by becoming a school administrator. Nobody like an external god whispered that in my ear. It came from within. And again, I made a difference. I made my own purpose in life. And tomorrow, if suddenly it were proven that there was no god, I would still be perfectly content with my role in life.
On the other hand, since you apparently believe that "there is no purpose for...existence" without god, if tomorrow it was suddenly proven that there was no god, your purpose for existence would crumble and your life would be meaningless.
People who deal with life intrinsically, without a god, are generally strong. People who deal with life requiring extrinsic satisfaction through god, are generally weak...akin to being "mama's boys (and girls)".
I will ignore your implied insulting provocations and deal with your premises. Individual purposes derived from personal desires exist but they do not address the macro question of existence itself. We all operate with some sense of purpose regardless of what we believe about the purpose of existence itself. Like so many of those who oppose my philosophical views, you eschew the kind of thinking necessary to derive absolutes. If existence itself is purposeless (cosmic accident, random outcomes from meaningless processes, whatever), then whatever ANY existing entity does or does not do is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That makes any individual purposes or choices meaningless and pure caprice. That includes any inferences about strong or weak individuals.
Moral dilemma: a man is married. He wants to sleep with other women. He also wants to stay married. He wants what he wants when he wants it. He rejects the morality of monogamy while demanding the benefits of matrimony.
That is an example. Of a mindset that typically rejects the notion of being expected to follow moral guidelines. Because it challenges their preoccupation with self-indulgence.
What is the role of higher intelligence in this? Don't blame God for a person choosing to stay stuck in self indulgence.
Self-indulgence that harms others is immoral by practically all moral standards, and I suspect that even an objective "science of morality" would agree. What might be morally ambiguous would be self-indulgence that is not generally known to be harmful, but which might be harmful for certain types of people in certain types of situations. In your example, there are variations of non-monogamy that are not particularly harmful for many people, but there are some forms of non-monogamy (and some cases of monogamy) that can be harmful.
The grey area where moral ambiguity could apply would involve situations where there is uncertainty about the potential for harm. Example: A married couple mutually agree that they would like to try a "triad" or a "quad". All involved are in agreement. On this basis, most people who do not have a particular religious text to condemn them, would say this option is not immoral. But what if the couple has children? Here things start to get less clear. What effect would this particular unconventional living arrangement have on these particular children? Arguments can be given for and against the possible good or bad effects on the children. Unless the world is fully deterministic, the overall benefit/harm to the children (or the adults, for that matter) is unknown and unknowable. If that is true, then the morality of the choice might be ambiguous.
In an indeterministic universe, there could be (and probably would be) no objectively correct answer, in the moment, as to whether or not the arrangement will eventually be helpful or harmful or balanced equally between positive and negative results (net=0). This could be a case where the "destination" is indeterminate, so it is really the journey itself that matters. Maybe for some people, monogamy is the only moral choice; for other people non-monogamy might be the better choice; and for other people, the choice might be morally neutral. The key point is that, from an overall societal point of view, the choice of monogamy/non-monogamy would be morally ambiguous because, overall, there is no objective "one-size-fits-all" solution.
Self-indulgence that harms others is immoral by practically all moral standards, and I suspect that even an objective "science of morality" would agree. What might be morally ambiguous would be self-indulgence that is not generally known to be harmful, but which might be harmful for certain types of people in certain types of situations. In your example, there are variations of non-monogamy that are not particularly harmful for many people, but there are some forms of non-monogamy (and some cases of monogamy) that can be harmful.
The grey area where moral ambiguity could apply would involve situations where there is uncertainty about the potential for harm. Example: A married couple mutually agree that they would like to try a "triad" or a "quad". All involved are in agreement. On this basis, most people who do not have a particular religious text to condemn them, would say this option is not immoral. But what if the couple has children? Here things start to get less clear. What effect would this particular unconventional living arrangement have on these particular children? Arguments can be given for and against the possible good or bad effects on the children. Unless the world is fully deterministic, the overall benefit/harm to the children (or the adults, for that matter) is unknown and unknowable. If that is true, then the morality of the choice might be ambiguous.
In an indeterministic universe, there could be (and probably would be) no objectively correct answer, in the moment, as to whether or not the arrangement will eventually be helpful or harmful or balanced equally between positive and negative results (net=0). This could be a case where the "destination" is indeterminate, so it is really the journey itself that matters. Maybe for some people, monogamy is the only moral choice; for other people non-monogamy might be the better choice; and for other people, the choice might be morally neutral. The key point is that, from an overall societal point of view, the choice of monogamy/non-monogamy would be morally ambiguous because, overall, there is no objective "one-size-fits-all" solution.
this thread however is not talking about from an "overall society point of view."
It is in the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum, and the opening post specifically seeks to address the guidance given within a holy path or a holy book.
"overall society point of view" is secular.
the secular is not the same as the sacred.
the sacred seeks to honor that which is sacred and holy
my observation is that for someone with self-indulgence "driving the bus" in their decision making, they will always find a way to rationalize and justify whatever choice they make.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2019 at 03:28 PM..
my observation is that people who are so accustomed to dismissing and rejecting that which is sacred and holy, have a really hard time seeing anything at all except from a secular viewpoint. (Morals in this case. And clarity about making decisions regarding morality.)
post #44 above is an example of that. There is no mention whatsoever of anything related to "religion and spirituality" or a holy path or a holy book, or spirit or soul or God or higher intelligence or a person's relationship with the Creator. Those are some of the key elements that distinguish the sacred from the secular.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-04-2019 at 03:40 PM..
well, when we can burn a holy book without malice, just a private showing to yourself, then you have outgrown it. In fact, when it can be done, there is no need for it to be done.
well, when we can burn a holy book without malice, just a private showing to yourself, then you have outgrown it. In fact, when it can be done, there is no need for it to be done.
this thread however is not talking about from an "overall society point of view."
It is in the Religion and Spirituality section of the forum, and the opening post specifically seeks to address the guidance given within a holy path or a holy book.
This need not go around and around forever. I have a fairly straight-forward question that I hope you and others will be willing to answer in a reasonably clear and concise way. As you understand reality and morality, do you think that there can be any situations in which someone might confront a moral decision for which there is no ultimate "one-and-only-one correct moral answer"? In theistic terms, does God present or allow "multiple choice" moral questions where God would accept more than one answer as morally permissible (even tho the answers are conflicting - e.g., lie/don't lie, abort/don't abort, etc.).
Some of you might wish to break the issue into two aspects:
(1) Could there be more than one correct answer for a particular individual. (E.g., If John chooses to tell a lie in a certain situation, God would accept his lie as morally permissible, but - for various sorts of divine reasons of his own, God might have accepted the "don't lie" option as well, depending how John approached the decision-making process.)
(2) Different answers for different people in situations that are otherwise identical. (E.g., the situation might be one in which the "correct" answer is to be "true to one's authentic self" and, in this situation, for John to be true to himself, he would have to lie, whereas for George to be true to himself in the same situation, he'd have to tell the truth.)
Basically, do you think God allows moral ambiguity (1) Within the boundaries of an individual choice or (2) within the bounds of a social group (or the human species as a whole) such that people can reach opposite conclusion and both be acceptable to God. Or both (1) and (2)?
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-04-2019 at 05:59 PM..
If something is not clear a person prays for clarity.
And talks it over with God. And asks for guidance to do the right thing, to make the best choice.
A person seeks to differentiate between what is "my will" and what is God's will in the situation. This requires a willingness to look within with self honesty regarding our own motive intention desires. "I want to get back at them" is a different motive than "I want to act with integrity."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
