Are Your Morals The Same As When You Were A Witness? (page 6)

FlipThis

Are Your Morals The Same As When You Were A Witness?

NO, they are on a MUCH MUCH higher level now, than when I was a witness...

KW13

I'm not sure, to be honest i wasnt 100% Moral and neither are all Witnesses...

AK - Jeff

What I'm taken with is how no one wants to accept that morality can be defined through a group's understanding. Most seem to believe that morality is an individual matter.

That is, to me, called 'situational ethics'. Not that I judge that 'situational ethics' are not appropriate. I don't know. It seems that the foundational base for concluding 'moral' or 'immoral' must be the result of negotiation between those with the 'power' to control others. In western lands it has by tradition been established by 'biblical standards' hasn't it? In Islam, the Quaran? In communist lands, what is the 'standard'?

But based on my Jw background, and in honest answer to your 'intended query' I believe, I am no more moral or immoral than I was as a JW. I don't steal, lie, or have sex outside my marriage. Until I adopt a differing standard by which to judge my own conduct, I can only use the measurements that I always have used. I do see that likely that measuring stick will change over time. Still I don't know if it will be the 'right' one.

Confusing, but good thread, Min.

Jeff

hillary_step

Minimus,

Our laws on morality are based on Judeo-Christian standards. Of course certain countries that do not believe in God and they may very well be considered moral individuals.
What I'm taken with is how no one wants to accept that morality can be defined through a group's understanding. Most seem to believe that morality is an individual matter. If 2 consenting adults agree to do something that hurts no one else but perhaps themselves, then who are we to judge?.......Did you feel this way when a German man, a couple of years ago agreed to literally eat another man thru cannibalism? Both men agreed that one would be eaten and no coercion or force was involved.It was a decision by 2 consenting adults. The public uproar that resulted was phenomonal! People were greatly disturbed because what occured to THEM was immoral. But based upon what I read here, most would not characterize these 2 men as being immoral at all.

Blimey, I think that you have actually become a Board contributor! Not just an interesting thread but an interesting comment.

Welcome to the world of, how did you describe it, 'Board Intellectuals'.

Best regards - HS

under_believer

Did you feel this way when a German man, a couple of years ago agreed to literally eat another man thru cannibalism? Both men agreed that one would be eaten and no coercion or force was involved.It was a decision by 2 consenting adults. The public uproar that resulted was phenomonal! People were greatly disturbed because what occured to THEM was immoral.

Umm.... minimus, I don't think the uproar was because they thought the act was immoral. I think the uproar was because of IT'S DISGUSTING TO EAT A DUDE.

the dreamer dreaming

jW morality is based on their read of a fantasy document giving fantasy ideals as the only morality, so obviously, now living in a different world, I have a different view of morality.

my current morality is based on empathy. what I find harmful, I assume harms others, who I see as part of my extended self and would not inflict upon them. what I find pleasant I seek to share with others.

IP_SEC

I have one moral.

Do no harm. I try to live by it strictly.

That will be all.

Thanks

undercover

I think that you have actually become a Board contributor! Not just an interesting thread but an interesting comment.
Welcome to the world of, how did you describe it, 'Board Intellectuals'.

And to think...it only took 21657 posts

cognizant dissident

Did you feel this way when a German man, a couple of years ago agreed to literally eat another man thru cannibalism? Both men agreed that one would be eaten and no coercion or force was involved.It was a decision by 2 consenting adults. The public uproar that resulted was phenomonal! People were greatly disturbed because what occured to THEM was immoral.

Minimus: A great definition of morality has been thrown out there a number of times on this thread "do no harm to yourself or others". You seem to be being deliberately obtuse and refusing to see it. You keep throwing out outrageous examples of consenting adults getting together to make decisions and implying that most people are arguing that because there is group consensus that makes the action moral. The problem is that in all the examples you are throwning out there (war, female genital mutilation, cannibalism, etc) the basic moral principle of "do no harm" IS being violated even if by group consensus. There can be collective immorality also where the collective bands together to commit harm. In the case of the cannibals, both men were consenting to act immorally and this is why society was outraged! One man consented to harm another and the other man consented to harm himself or allow another to harm him. The morality does not lie in consensus or non-consensus it lies in whether an action is harmful or beneficial to OTHERS or OURSELVES. If we harm ourselves then we are not acting morally towards ourselves.

In the case of unmarried sex, it can not be demonstrably proven that this is ALWAYS harmful to the parties concerned. Sometimes it may be but that is to be decided on a case by case basis by the two parties most concerned (assuming they are adults). In the case of prostitution, it has been demonstrated that prostitution is harmful to the prostitute physically and psychologically. Therefore she is harming herself by engaging in it and johns who use her (services?) are also engaging in harm to another and possible themselves and their families. Harmful or beneficial is the key factor to ask oneself when contemplating any action.

Cog

wednesday

A person would not need religion or any holy book to have morals. People know murder is wrong, it is just understood. The same with most of the laws in the 10 commandments, most people accept these as "moral" whether they believe in the Bible or not.

Are Your Morals The Same As When You Were A Witness?

Share this