ive been thinking a bit about what the basis is for peoples individual moralities, i mean what is the ground on which they build their oppinions of what is right and wrong.
So far ive come up with three possible frame works.
1. "divine right" : Many people believe in the existance of a supreme being who decides what is right and wrong, and they believe that this being has communicated with them or their leaders and thus given them true and unquestionable knowledge of right and wrong, as well as the right and duty to impose this knowledge on others. Similar are those who believe that they are so intelligent or enlightend that they themselves fill the role of the supreme being, able to decide for the world as a whole what should and should not be acceptable. Any person who bases right and wrong on a religious book or the supposed word of god fits into this category.
2. "majority Rule" : this seems to be the basis that many non religious types follow, as well as the basis for society. It is no longer acceptable (politically correct) to say that God made something right or wrong, so in order to make our laws it seems to me we simply go based on consensus, or majority rule. If the majority of people in your community wear suits and ties, work a 9-5, vote conservative etc than this is the 'right' thing to do. In other words this morality is based entirely on conforming to the group as a whole and 'trying to fit in'...
a good example is the homosexual kid, who even if he is not religious believes his nature is wrong because thats the message he gets from the majority.
3. "logical Morality" : this final method of determining right from wrong is so far the one i think works best, and operates on the principle of "if it harm none do as thou will" . this morality is based on compassion, or understanding and empathy with the needs of others. A follower of this morality believes that if an action is harming others, causing them pain or fear or loss, it is wrong or bad, and if it helps them or makes them happy it is "good' or 'right'. Things that only harm the self may be called unwise, but not unethical, and thus something like drinking in a safe enviroment or marijuana use would not be called wrong as they only harm the user himself (unless you buy those 'i helped torture a cop' propagangdha commercials)
Now, the way i see it this is the only morality that really makes sense. The first morality, divine right, would say that it is ok to kill, maim torture or tyranize, because our god told us to, or because you arent following are god, and history is full of these kinds of incidents.
the second morality, consensus, tends to pander to the richer classes, and ends up with situations where pot smokers are imprisoned and homosexuals shunned or abused. It can also result in situations like in nazi germany, where the overwhelming consensus pressure would have left people little choice but to jump on the bandwagon or conscript into the army.
in my oppinion, only the third morality truly offers a positive way to interact with our world, adress the problems of human suffering and form a compassionate basis for society. In some (rare) cases divine right morality may overlap with this, such as when jesus told us to "do ontu others as we would have them do ontu us" and thats great, but as soon as such common sense goodness becomes 'religionized' it will invariably be perverted, such as when the spanish conquistadors commited brutal genocide while carrying the cross.
I think anyone who feels that they KNOW what is right based on what there god, bible, president or mommy told them should stop and think for a minuite. If you Must follow a prophet or god, check first to see that his commandments dont interfere with the simple maxims of "if it harm none do what thou wilt" and "do ontu others as you would have them do onto you"
and finally, unless someone else's beliefs violate those 2 maxims, and they are hurting people, you have no right to try to change there beliefs.
Thus pot smokers, sodomists and cross dressers are out of bounds, and only rapists, murderers and the like are subject to the state or moral majorities wrath.
Of course, if you ascribe to one of the first two moral stances, all of this is nothing but the rantings of a heathen, heretic or pot smoking queer, so feel free to disregard.
PEACE
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Moonshoe 
Source 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
deafpanda
Autonomous
silversoul7