morality menstrual cramp It's the bullshit that keeps the masses in line. 000125 ... silentbob there shouldnt be moral majority. you should have your OWN morals. make up your own rules for yourself, if you feel wrong doing something, dont do it. if it feels right, do it. 000712 ... wee willie winkie All well and good until someone feels good about putting their cigar out in YOUR eye socket. Then you start to wish that people were raised with at least a modicum of morality. No? 010111 ... Etranger IT is the key to utopia. If everyone embraced IT, suffering and hate would disappear, to be replaced by happiness and love. But nobody know what IT is... 010307 ... chanaka she's suffering from a clash of morals--should she conform to the social norms? or keep associating with the man she loves? he is married. she is torn. the morality outweights the emotion. is this the way it should be? 010307 ... kx21 The Grand Master of this subject is none other than Bill Clinton..., who is the best known, if not the only One really knew inside out and ouside in of Morality, its Profound meaning and Practical value... 010307 ... dB Ok, the only morals you need to follow are these: 1) Do not kill or harm others. (verbally or otherwise) 2) Do not take what is not yours. That's it. Forget the rest of the crap. 010307 ... dB Ok, the only morals you need to follow are these: 1) Do not kill or harm others. (verbally or otherwise) 2) Do not take what is not yours. 3) Do not tell that with is not true. That's it. Forget the rest of the crap. 010307 ... nocturnal excellent advice. I think morality is too often taken to mean what the rest of the world thinks is okay. I disagree. And I know that people might say, well if I think killing someone is okay, then that makes it moral, right? Actually, under some extreme circumstances, yes. As revenge, like in that movie Double Jeopardy. I think what she did was okay. If you can do something of questionable moral standing and feel okay with it, then I think you must have some justifiable reason to call whatever it is that you did moral. Well, unless you're sociopathic or something. But if you're mostly mentally stable, then I feel that you can make your own set of moral standards. 010307 ... kx21 Some doubts / questions:- 1) Do not kill or harm others. (verbally or otherwise) Physically, Spiritually,? Others:- Human beings or other beings such as Virus, Insect, Fish, ... etc? 2) Do not take what is not yours. What's your? Air, Water? Nothing or Everything? 3) Do not tell that with is not true. Is it true? The Bible is very word of GOD? 010308 ... dB! Hey, you don't take it so literally. (sigh). Look evolution has made us omnivorous, yes? SO therefore we need to harm some animals and plants in order to survive. Fuck! Why am i explaining this! You know what the fuck I'm talking about and I've had a fucking bad day, so I'm not even going to bother. 010308 ... dB Oh yeah! And another thing! DO NOT talk to me about the word of god! My challenge is still open. IF god exists, let him come down here and face me! He must be held accountable for the atrocities that he has commited since the birth of christinity. I will not believe in any god who will not openly expose himself as being real. SO IF YOU ARE LISTENING, GET DOWN HERE AND LET'S GET IT ON DEATHMATCH STYLE!!! 010308 ... pitch black bird He won't answer you. I've been challenging Him for years. I've said and done things meant to provoke his supposedly almighty hand to stop me if he could. Nothing. His avoidance mocks me. I only acknowledge His existence for the fact that He interfered in my suicides. But the fucker still won't answer my questions. 010308 ... dB Well I doubt he interfered. You probably didn't want to die that badly anyway, otherwise you would have done it properly. And I know he won't answer. for two reasons: 1) He doesn't exist (most likely) 2) he is scared. (No so likely) But oh well. The challenge is always open. 010308 ... kx21 m1) Responsibility of GOD Shall GOD be held resposible for those Shit(s) from our fellow Holy MEN and Pretty WOMEN, especially YOU in Morality? 010308 ... dB Yes. If he has the power to stop something from happening that endangers someone else. It is what is called a "Moral Obligation". He did nothing, he is accountable. The same as any human. 010308 ... Etranger If God exists. Is he worthy of worship? Why should we worship him? There are only two reasons I can think of: 1) He is almighty. And will punish you if you don't follow His commands. 2) He is Good. And if we obey him we will be Good too. I don't see why we should worship God because we're scared of Hell. Anybody who worships God for that reason is admitting that Might makes Right. If He is Good how do we know He really is Good? In order to see if He is Good, we have to pass a moral judgement on Him...Humans have judging God... 010308 ... kx21 If GOD is responsible for any shit(s) created / generated by follow Holy MEN, Pretty Women and other sentient beings or non-sentient Beings, Do you want to be God? Why / Why not? 010308 ... Etranger People shouldn't go around following their OWN moral standards, that would be CHAOS. Doing what you feel is right using your own moral standards reduces morality to personal taste. Where is the line between sociopath and just being a bad person? The Nazis did what they thought was right, people who had slaves in the past felt that was right too. In alot of societies people feel it's right to beat up their women. Are we going to say that all those people are crazy, or are we going to say that they are immoral and should be stopped? I say ONE morality should be followed by ALL. But then again that would be asking too much... 010308 ... mikey the golden rule. the most simple idea that if even half the people in the world lived by it 99% of all problems would cease. "do unto others as you would have done unto you" (basically) 010308 ... kx21 "do unto others as you would have done unto you" (basically) It's the state of Perfect Enlightment... which is porbably much more difficult than Supreme_Englightment... as Nothing is Perfect in U.... 010309 ... kx21 do unto others as you would have done unto you" (basically) It's the state of Perfect Enlightenment... which is porbably much more difficult than Supreme_Enlightenment... as Nothing is Perfect in U.... 010309 ... kx21 m2) Moral Standard Who should be its Authority? Who should be its Owner? Invididual? Race? Religion? Country? Iraq, China, US? Community? Country Clubs, Professional Bodies,..., UN? 010309 ... kx21 Individual? Bill Clinton.... 010309 ... kx21 m3) The Economics of Morality Given that Change is the only constant in U, so as Morality is subject to changes... Morality is like Stock Markets and e_Bubble, with the mother nature of bull & Bear, boom and doom... 010314 ... kx21 Given that Money is the SINs of Everything... What are the possible relationships / connections between Money & Morality? 010314 ... kx21 Searched the web for Money & Morality. Results 1 - 10 of about 328,000. Searched the web for Economics of Morality. Results 1 - 10 of about 76,500. My next TOE... 010314 ... kx21 Does Money govern our morality? 010314 ... kx21 Does Money govern our morality? 010314 ... kx21 Is Money a primary tenant to Morality? 010314 ... kx21 Money is the wise man's religion. Euripides 010314 ... kx21 Money is like a sixth sense without which you cannot make a complete use of the other five. W. Somerset Maugham 010314 ... kx21 Can Money and Morality coexist? 010314 ... kx21 Can we have morality without God? 010318 ... kx21 What is the relationship beteen Love & Morality? 010318 ... kx21 m4) The Evil / Sin Is contraception a gravely morally evil for husband and wife? 010319 ... kx21 Is birth control a venial Sin between husband and wife? 010319 ... vampers i lack at times, at times when its needed most 010325 ... kx21 Is the use of condoms. birth control pills, etc. a gravely morally evil for Men / Women? 010325 ... kx21 Love is SIN? 010325 ... chaotic_poet Constanly question what is right and what is worng. It is a malleable concept, changes with situation... person. Who is the finally say? Can anyone judge? 010511 ... Sam Vaknin Moral values, rules, principles, and judgements are often thought of as beliefs or as true beliefs. Those who hold them to be true beliefs also annex to them a warrant or a justification (from the "real world"). Yet, it is far more reasonable to conceive of morality (ethics) as a state of mind, a mental state. It entails belief, but not necessarily true belief, or justification. As a mental state, morality cannot admit the "world" (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results) into its logical formal definition. The world is never part of the definition of a mental state. Another way of looking at it, though, is that morality cannot be defined in terms of goals and results - because these goals and results ARE morality itself. Such a definition would be tautological. There is no guarantee that we know when we are in a certain mental state. Morality is no exception. An analysis based on the schemata and arguments proposed by Timothy Williamson follows. Moral Mental State - A Synopsis Morality is the mental state that comprises a series of attitudes to propositions. There are four classes of moral propositions: "It is wrong to...", "It is right to...", (You should) do this...", "(You should) not do this...". The most common moral state of mind is: one adheres to p. Adhering to p has a non-trivial analysis in the more basic terms of (a component of) believing and (a component of) knowing, to be conceptually and metaphysically analysed later. Its conceptual status is questionable because we need to decompose it to obtain the necessary and sufficient conditions for its possession (Peacocke, 1992). It may be a complex (secondary) concept. See here for a more detailed analysis. Adhering to proposition p is not merely believing that p and knowing that p but also that something should be so, if and only if p (moral law). Morality is not a factive attitude. One believes p to be true - but knows p to be contingently true (dependent on epoch, place, and culture). Since knowing is a factive attitude, the truth it relates to is the contingently true nature of moral propositions. Morality relates objects to moral propositions and it is a mental state (for every p, having a moral mental relation to p is a mental state). Adhering to p entails believing p (involves the mental state of belief). In other words, one cannot adhere without believing. Being in a moral mental state is both necessary and sufficient for adhering to p. Since no "truth" is involved - there is no non-mental component of adhering to p. Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p. One doesn't always know if one adheres to p. Many moral rules are generated "on the fly", as a reaction to circumstances and moral dilemmas. It is possible to adhere to p falsely (and behave differently when faced with the harsh test of reality). A sceptic would say that for any moral proposition p - one is in the position to know that one doesn't believe p. Admittedly, it is possible for a moral agent to adhere to p without being in the position to know that one adheres to p, as we illustrated above. One can also fail to adhere to p without knowing that one fails to adhere to p. As Williamson says "transparency (to be in the position to know one's mental state) is false". Naturally, one knows one's mental state better than one knows other people's. There is an observational asymmetry involved. We have non-observational (privileged) access to our mental state and observational access to other people's mental states. Thus, we can say that we know our morality non-observationally (directly) - while we are only able to observe other people's morality. One believes moral propositions and knows moral propositions. Whether the belief itself is rational or not, is debatable. But the moral mental state strongly imitates rational belief (which relies on reasoning). In other words, the moral mental state masquerades as a factive attitude, though it is not. The confusion arises from the normative nature of knowing and being rational. Normative elements exist in belief attributions, too, but, for some reason, are considered "outside the realm of belief". Belief, for instance, entails the grasping of mental content, its rational processing and manipulation, defeasible reaction to new information. We will not go here into the distinction offered by Williamson between "believing truly" (not a mental state, according to him) and "believing". Suffice it to say that adhering to p is a mental state, metaphysically speaking - and that "adheres to p" is a (complex or secondary) mental concept. The structure of adheres to p is such that the non-mental concepts are the content clause of the attitude ascription and, thus do not render the concept thus expressed non-mental: adheres to (right and wrong, evidence, goals, or results). Williamson's Mental State Operator calculus is applied. Origin is essential when we strive to fully understand the relations between adhering that p and other moral concepts (right, wrong, justified, etc.). To be in the moral state requires the adoption of specific paths, causes, and behaviour modes. Moral justification and moral judgement are such paths. Knowing, Believing and Their Conjunction We said above that: "Adhering to p is a conjunction with each of the conjuncts (believing p and knowing p) a necessary condition - and the conjunction is necessary and sufficient for adhering to p." Williamson suggests that one believes p if and only if one has an attitude to proposition p indiscriminable from knowing p. Another idea is that to believe p is to treat p as if one knew p. Thus, knowing is central to believing though by no means does it account for the entire spectrum of belief (example: someone who chooses to believe in God even though he doesn't know if God exists). Knowledge does determine what is and is not appropriate to believe, though ("standard of appropriateness"). Evidence helps justify belief. But knowing as a mental state is possible without having a concept of knowing. One can treat propositions in the same way one treats propositions that one knows - even if one lacks concept of knowing. It is possible (and practical) to rely on a proposition as a premise if one has a factive propositional attitude to it. In other words, to treat the proposition as though it is known and then to believe in it. As Williamson says, "believing is a kind of a botched knowing". Knowledge is the aim of belief, its goal. 031014 ... a thimble in time This conversation reminds me of something Nietzsche said: "Morality is the herd instinct of the people." 031014 ... Death of a Rose it remindes me I have a steel rod that I was going to put through my brain.... 031014 ... stork daddy when two people take advantage of each other, is it still sinning? 040317 ... stork daddy who has the bravery to take it on themself? 040317 what's it to you? who go blather from