MORALITY: what is it really? (page 2)

myelaine

Logansrun,

Doesn't the AWAKE mag. pander to those who no longer question their "reasoning" abilities?

All their reasoning is prepackaged and tied up with a nice bow, they no longer have to use that ability, and the results are devastating.

michelle

However, "works" and "doesn't work" are debatable terms, are they not? What constitutes a "working" action versus a "non-working action". After all, almost any action works in the short term, and given human mortality, almost every action is non-workable in the long term.

For instance, killing a beggar solves the "problem" of him constantly asking for cash, stealing, being drunk on the sidewalk, selling awakes and watchtowers, etc. In the long-term, killing him has the same effect as doing nothing, for we all die and are forgotten.

Define Workable, please.

CZAR

czarofmischief

Wanted to add that such an action is almost universally considered wrong - but why? Society benefits in the short term, in the long term it is meaningless on an individual level, and in a long term on a societal level it is also virtually meaningless.

CZAR

Terry

CZARof mischief says:

However, "works" and "doesn't work" are debatable terms, are they not? What constitutes a "working" action versus a "non-working action". After all, almost any action works in the short term, and given human mortality, almost every action is non-workable in the long term.

For instance, killing a beggar solves the "problem" of him constantly asking for cash, stealing, being drunk on the sidewalk, selling awakes and watchtowers, etc. In the long-term, killing him has the same effect as doing nothing, for we all die and are forgotten.

Define Workable, please.

CZAR

**************************************************************************************************************

I suspect you are kidding. Killing a beggar solves the "problem" of him constantly asking for cash? Ha ha ha. It is hyperbole, surely.

A beggar does not understand that his status is the EFFECT of his thinking. His thinking is the CAUSE of his poverty. By not taking self-sustaining action he assures his state. He views his poverty as the "cause". He views "society" as the cause. He views everything but himself as the "cause". He lives at the effect end of live and is helpless as a consequence.

The person approached by a beggar makes a moral choice by holding the beggar accountable for the condition he is in. If you give money to a non earning member of society you reward them for their failure to provide for themselves. That is immoral. What you aid and abet you enable.

Chines proverb: If you GIVE a man a fish; you feed him for a day. If you TEACH a man to fish; you feed him for a lifetime.

The beggar can be educated. He can self-improve. The teacher can be the man approached for coin. The choice is a moral one.

The inability to see moral choices leaves us seeing only disconnected possibilities (such as killing the beggar!) without weighing moral effect (going to jail).

I know you jest.

But, when I say "what works" is good; I mean what is effective in pushing us forward is the right action. If we are hungry and we don't get up off our butt and find work; we guarantee starvation or a life of beggary.

Is it difficult to know which is right and wrong? Without a goal or purpose: yes. With a goal and purpose: no.

We measure the good and the bad by means of our standard. Our standard (if we are rational) is that which improves our life and brings us happiness. Thinking is a skill and not a gift of god.

When you say :"After all, almost any action works in the short term, and given human mortality, almost every action is non-workable in the long term." I cannot imagine what you mean.

Everything has context. Context determines action. By generalizing choice we cripple it. Specificity is the keynote of intelligent thinking. There are no GENERAL choices.

The goal of a life well lived is the long term overall measure of its success. Theft is a short-term solution that destroys the long term prospects. Saving for the future is a long term solution that doesn't harm the present prospect.

Examine your premises. All conclusions flow from our premises. A false premise always leads to a false conclusion.

czarofmischief

pushing us forward

Define "forward."

The "moral" choice is, according to you, to refuse to give money to the beggar, thereby refusing to aid and abet his lifestyle of poverty. I concur. But that is merely instinctual on my part. I have no logical basis for it. I trust my instincts, of course, but you must prove to me that there is a logical basis for morality.

Now, hypothetical situation, based on real-life experiences. A man is an alcoholic. He stands outside of my Starbucks begging for change. Occasionally, he tries to act like a superfluous "traffic director" and make coins that way. He is an annoyance, because he smells, he vomits on the sidewalk, and becomes verbally aggressive when denied money. He also infringes on my rights, personally, because he is in the way when I carry out the garbage, I am afraid he might rob the weaker female employees, and he steals from my tips and from my store's stock of merchandise. The man is a detriment both to my society and and to me personally.

Now, what actions can I take to ensure that my rights are not infringed? What is the moral thing to do?

I pass the ball to you and wait to see what you come up with.

CZAR

czarofmischief

You seem to be saying that logically, morality is universal. Am I correct in assuming that?

CZAR

Terry

The point is that you determine what moves you forward. You determine what makes you happy and improves your life. Your choice of actions set in motion the consequences to you.

I know people pefectly happy with a small life with few possessions and good friends. That is their goal and they reach it by choice. Others want more and must work harder to achieve their goal.

But, regardless of particular people and particular choices it is the GOAL that is set by the individual that is their STANDARD. There is no UNIVERSAL morality. There are only individuals pursuing personal goals. The lie of society is that there is an __outside__source of standards exterior to the individual.

The question arises: "What if one person's goals interfere with another person's goals?"

Remember: it is the long term, well-lived total life that trumps the short term profit. Actions have consequences. The rational man weighs carefully the repercussions of his actions on others.

O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife. He lost the civil suit. The life he had before the murder and the life he has now do not compare for quality and long-term excellence. Before the murder he had a good reputation and extraordinary opportunities for employment and revenue. The repercussions of his actions he will be reaping until he dies. He caused his own losses by his actions. He could not escape the law of Cause and Effect.

Each of us weighs and measures and each of us sets in motion the life that follows the consequences of our actions. We interfere with others at our own peril.

Now as to your particular question about the alcoholic who is damaging your business through obnoxious behavior.

The Bum has no moral right to benefit from the fruits of the labor of others. He is a parasite. He is a symptom of the disease of evasion. He has evaded his moral duty to his own life. He has evaded cause and effect by pretending his actions are causeless and the effects on his life come from "fate", "society", "the political system." He preys on the goodwill of others and disdains the impact of his sloth. He deserves no mercy.

You have three choices.

1.File a complaint and get a restraining order that limits him from coming within 100 yards of your storefront.

2.Hire a couple of "friends" to escort the bum off premises with a friendly reminder that he isn't wanted.

3.Have him escorted outside the city limits for a long walk elsewhere.

I can assume you don't want to hear the 4th and 5th alternatives. :)

garybuss

Moral means honest.

`

Terry

Yep!

villastu

Bloody hell thats a bit harsh, have you ever considered the possibility that your one of the lucky ones that is strong enough to cope with what life throws at him? I know beggars can be a pain but to be totally unsympathetic to another human being in trouble and at the bottom of society smacks of arrogance, have you any idea what that person's live has been like? i doubt it, just because you seem to be o.k and able to look after yourself doesn't make it ok to look down on others, ok don't give him money if u think thats best, personnally i wouldn't either but i'd give them a drink and some food if they needed it, just like i hope someone would help me if i was at my lowest ebb. To me thats the moral thing to do, help another human if you can.

MORALITY: what is it really?

Share this