by onacruse 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
ethics are not moral craig...afterall, there are things that are ethical, yet may not be moral..wrap your head around this illustration freak boy and see if you can't find some things that fit...and some that don't perhaps..
Sincerely,
District Iverbeer of the "Immoral Amoral" class
Are babies blank slates? There are at least a few behaviors hard-wired in. Not all that is in a baby's field of vision is treated equally. Young babies show a strong preference for face-objects.
I have been thinking deep thoughts about the balance between Individuality and Community. I think now that these two human needs are not either/or in value, but rather two needs that need to be balanced against each other, like insulin and sugar. We need both, but not too much of either.
Valis, you anticipate me! (LOL, now there's a comment that can be spun to mean many things )
I agree with that pictorial, except to pull the "moral" off to the side. There is no overlap, because "moral" exists only for the individual. An "ethic" is nothing more than a diplomatic concensus of a society of moral beings, each of whom may or may not personally agree with that ethic. For example, American ethic allows for abortion; my moral disagrees, but I accede (not concede) to the ethic. American ethic also allows for the court to take jurisdiction of minors (including JWs who need blood); my moral agrees, so I concede to the ethic. The ethic is, in and of itself, amoral.
This is not a specious distinction, a mere word-game. It plays right into what we thought as JWs. The moral we utilized was spelled out in the Bible (and the WTS interpretation thereof), and we felt justified (moralized) by reason of that "source" to make people suffer incredible pain (imprisonment instead of soldiering, death instead of transfusion). So, here now we step away from those arbitrary standards; on what basis do we proceed? The basis is the individual, self-determination. Whatever we decide for ourselves is moral, and that's the end of morality. And no matter how brain-dead, uninformed, or mis-informed we may think an adult JW is, it's likewise their, and only their, moral decision to accept or not accept a transfusion.
Do you see my point, or will Katie and I have to fly down there and pound on your skull?
Craig (of the freak-boy class)
well ona...I don't agee...there are some things that are universally immoral...Now I'm not one to espouse morals per se...it gets out of hand when you let people have too many of them really...*LOL* Now then...some things like murder, incest, rape, and racism, could be called things that fall under universal morals IMO...I should have been more specific...BTW...send Katie down...you can stay home...*LOL*
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
And no matter how brain-dead, uninformed, or mis-informed we may think an adult JW is, it's likewise their, and only their, moral decision to accept or not accept a transfusion.
... and no one has questioned that from the very start. The question is what each our's individual morality will prompt us to do when given a chance to save a life. Most of us won't get into the semantics of moral vs ethical, we'll just do the right thing , selfish bastards that we are.
Must agree with you Craig, I too have slowly been realising this same epiphany. Morals are self determined by what we intuitively accept as being "RIGHT". Our morals come from the morals of others around us, from what we have been taught. If society in general condems something (ethics) then we are more likely to take a moral stance against that thing (murder).
So when we 'Lose our religion' we need to develop a whole new moral code, since the former one can no longer stand up to our new reality.
Its a long slow process developing new morals isn't it. I have found it often challenging and confusing. I have always felt I had higher moral standards than my husband, but now that I have let go of my JW morals and allowed myself to be me, I find we are on a similar plane. In fact I believe this has happened because it allows a more harmonious relationship. So I have determined my morals now in order to fit in with my social environment.
Great thought provoking thread Craig! Satisfying. lol.
I would just like to take a bow for your epiphany, Craig. Seriously, I'm happy that the "blood thread" was so helpful!!!
Valis: Let's get down in the mud together, eh?
some things like murder, incest, rape, and racism, could be called things that fall under universal morals IMO
Now, don't take me wrong; my own morals would prevent me from ever doing any of the above. But you classify these things as universal morals. Based on what rules? what unequivocal and objective standard? If you have a demonstrably authoritative "manual" that defines these actions as right or wrong, I'd love to see it.
Barring such a "manual," we face the prospect that the acts you list are determined to be unacceptable only as per an ethic (For the sake of clarity, I ask any and all to review the definition of "ethical" given on page 1). One society may collectively decide that executing criminals or aborting babies is not murder; another society that incest is a natural part of the human life cycle; another society that rape or spousal abuse is survival of the strongest; another society that racism is survival of the fittest. For example, pure Darwinism would allow for all of these acts.
On the other hand, #1 and #2 of this thread give universal and fundamental precedence to the right and value of the individual, and thereby forbid any such violations against the individual. At the same time, they require that we respect the inviolability of the individual insofar as including their right to choose death at such time, in such manner, and for such reasons, as they decide for themselves (including a JW refusal of blood transfusions, or AlanF dressing up as Superman and jumping off a building).
Six:
Most of us won't get into the semantics of moral vs ethical, we'll just do the right thing
Now I'm banging my head against the concrete wall!
selfish bastards that we are.
Ahhhh, now I feel better. Selfish is not bad...it's just selfish. It may not, and need not, mean anything to anybody else; but for me, to just say straight out "I'm going to do this simply and only because I'm selfish" is a fulcrum by which I can balance my soul.
blackout:
we need to develop a whole new moral code
Exactly! Exactly! And a moral code that applies across the board, equally and without reservation or qualification to all people and all times. That's what I find so personally inspiring about #1 and #2 (as poorly as I've expressed the ideas). It doesn't depend on some written code, or on some theory about life. It's all about what we are.
minimus:
Dear sir, I bow back to you, and to all the others that are participating in my experience.
Craig
Actually, you'll be hard-pressed to convince me that action taken, at personal cost, to save anothers life, is an act of pure selfishness.
Philosophical mumbo jumbo piled high, it still just does-not-compute.
but for me, to just say straight out "I'm going to do this simply and only because I'm selfish" is a fulcrum by which I can balance my soul.
Now then, if you're talking about a bubble bath and painting your toes after a hard, sweaty day at the construction site, I concur fully...er... uh... never mind
