Moral Values?

[RC]

GC, I'm not telling.

Serenity, I was either being too subtle or not subtle enough.

I haven't difinitively prioritized my values because priorities change but there are a few that remain in the top three or four perpetually.

Accepting the truth of human nature in myself and others is pretty important to me. That is not the same as tolerance.

Humans make mistakes. Life itself is the result of a series of "mistakes" and natural experimentation. Mistakes and experiments are natural.

If you can accept this, you have to accept the fact that you are wrong more often than right.

Your own life is an experiment of, hopefully, 60 to 100 years long. When the experiment is over, you probably are not rewarded with all the answers to all the question. (If you believe in God and believe that you would be awarded all the answers upon your death, you could become God himself, so you can see the context of my thoughts here regardless of your religious views. Having all the answers is unlikely except maybe to those that espouse reincarnation).

If you can accept that you will never have the answers, then the search itself contains value. OR, you can or must be satisfied with obtaining food and shelter and everything else becomes a dangerous preoccupation.

So, it may seem like a strange set of "values" to be in my top priorities, but patience, perseverance, and thought remain in the top regardless of the situation.

Now, with patience, perseverance, and thought, I can truly understand and practice tolerance, compassion, empathy, realizing that some can search and question, some can not because they must thrive first, some can not simply because they just aren't on the same path.

Now, there is room for unconditional love.

Now, possibly most importantly, there is room for humility and humbleness.

[RC]

I didn't quite tie that up did I?
How I am intolerant and why intolerance is an issue in morality;

I have low tolerance for people who are happy with what they accept as the answers and then want to make ME or anyone else accept it as well. It is illogical to me.
It is totally upside down to me.
I can't get around it - it is unnatural, a prison. So, I guess I'm intolerant in that respect.

My ideas may seem illogical to someone else but MY philosophy does not generally effect anyone else. In fact, it would be a bad thing IMO to interfere with anothers search/progress and a good thing to allow it.

Applied to my own children, I believe it is my responsibility to ensure that they learn how to learn but not what to learn. I protect them from harm but not all harm. Remember, I believe mistakes are OK. I do not believe a good grade is equivalent to a good education or intelligence. I believe that I should otherwise stay out of the way of progress. I do not believe in corporal punishment.

Nearly everything else has come naturally as I thought it would. They get good grades AND they think. They get into trouble and come to me for help as soon as their pride allows it and that seems to prevent serious screw ups. They are more compassionate by nature than most folks I know. I think I'm doing pretty good just staying out of the way. They will watch and learn just like they are by nature, prone to do.

I used to be afraid that they would choose to stop searching and I would have to accept that. Now I realize that is unlikely. They've figured out that learning is always better.

Because of what I believe, it is a GOOD thing to question and communicate and not a good thing to dictate.

My entire philosophy is in direct conflict with a lot of religions, christianity among them. That makes me a minority. It does NOT make me immoral or amoral. (I am neither lacking in morals nor against generally accepted moral values).

All of the sudden, I discover that being in THIS minority is particularly dangerous now days. Tolerance is suddenly at the top of my moral priorities but something I find I lack.

It's quite a quandry.

[Serenity]

We have similar ways of thinking about things. I consider your girls lucky to have such an empathetic mother.

I do not think your philosophy conflicts with a lot of religions. People who question everything around them are necessary to strengthen what is good and bring down what is wrong. If any system of philosophy cannot accomodate and explain successfully legitimate, honest questions then something is flawed.

Some people are happy with having faith in authority. I need answers before I can respect someone's authority. The differences between individuals is the reason authority is subdivided into factions; conservative vs liberal, orthodox vs unorthodox, mahayana vs hinayana, etc.

[barfle]

I believe I'm pretty tolerant of just about anything except intolerance. This could degenerate into a tounge-twister thread if we let it.

I've noted that there are things I don't do because, to me, they are simply too icky. Piq, your consumption of anchovies, and my wife's consumption of beef liver, are things I simply can't participate in. Some people go to churches I find totally beyond any reasonable scope, some people participate in practices I find distasteful, but as long as there's no involuntary victims I can perceive, I make it a point to butt out.

But I do see a significant current of intolerance flowing in this country these days. I can't say for sure if this "gay marraige" ban that seems to be in vogue these days is a "Wag the Dog" issue or not, but I personally feel that anyone who would deny anyone the right to declare themselves a family is snooping in places they don't have any reason to be, and their only reason can be their own intolerance. If someone has another reason for such snooping, let me know and I'll be willing to discuss it. I'd like to be proven wrong - that's how I learn new things.

[RC]

So does this morality issue (which is also apparently conservative vs. liberal, if I may go that far), boil down to tolerance?

Even in regard to radical Islam?

I can tolerate Islam and Christianity although I subscribe to neither.
I can not, like funkeymike, tolerate those who would attempt to force a belief on me.

For me today, this is what perplexes me and concerns me. Part of the faction that mobilized to push Bush over the top in the recent election are equally intolerable to me as would be rule of the Taliban. Thankfully, as Haggis points out in other threads, we still have a democracy and 4 years to go. During that 4 years, I hope we see the light. Bush is not the culprit, just the conduit.

I do not believe Islamism (yes, Islam-ISM), is responsible for 9-11 any more than I believe a gun is responsible for shooting or a penis is responsible for rape. It merely describes a side effect of limited and twisted reasoning. The blame lies there alone. It is the fault of non-questioning, non-thinking, mob mentality. Paint it whatever color suits the day.

[RC]

If that is true, then the question of how to defend yourself against terrorism is really how to defend against that limited and twisted thought.

Is it OK to practice hegimony in such an instance where limited/twisted thought IS the culture?

In my opinion, yes. But a natural hegimony by example. It is literally impossible to force free thought it is only possible to allow it. And if you're going to lead by example, you'd better set the right example.

That is not to say you can not defend yourself by force in the process!

<small>[ 11-22-2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by RC:
Thankfully, as Haggis points out in other threads, we still have a democracy and 4 years to go. During that 4 years, I hope we see the light. Bush is not the culprit, just the conduit.

It's been my recent experience that Haggis, and others have gone to great lengths to point out to me and a couple of other posters that we live in a representative republic, not a democracy(check out all the Electoral College discussions). It's also funny that, in all my recollections, I've never heard any goverment official refer to this "wonderful republic" we live in, it's always been this "wonderful democracy". I guess they all had bad civics teachers, too.

I think we have a lot to be concerned about.

[RC]

Me too OT. Just because Bush can't run again doesn't mean there is nothing to fear. We've opened Pandora's box and what oozes out is difficult to re-contain.

If using religious extremists was a ploy to get re-elcted, it is the most dangerous and successful ploy I've seen. It is counterproductive to EVERY OPENLY stated agenda yet fits perfectly into the more sinister, quieter agenda's that people keep telling me are consipiracy theories.

Why hasn't this worked before? Extremists have always been a ripe target in a campaign but have been such a minority that they didn't matter. Bush found common ground and that was fear of terrorism.
The same common ground was used to start chipping away at liberties.
The same common ground was used to fertilize constitutional changes.
The same common ground, most importantly, was used to promote LESS tolerance, greater division and lay the groundwork for the cycle to continue long after he is out of office.

[OperaTenor]

Very eloquent, once again.

What strikes me is the agenda is relatively transparent, yet the majority of Americans have gone for it. "Why's our oil under their soil?" Is this really what our country is about now? I feel like asking, "Who are you people, and what have you done with the country I was raised in?"

Fearmongering for profit.

[RC]

I feel like asking, "Who are you people, and what have you done with the country I was raised in?"

ditto

[RC]

And another remarked, "I think he just speaks the truth. I think he speaks from the heart, speaks the truth through experiences, through life. I think that people want to hear the truth."

I think that people want to hear the truth

Not to look for the truth, find the truth, know the truth, only to have someone tell them the truth and certainly it must be true if so many believe it to be so.

web page

I'm really glad I'm not having to physically run for cover on this one.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by RC:
I'm really glad I'm not having to physically run for cover on this one.

No, but you may wish to borrow the FRS (Flame Retardant Suit). I think I'm acclimated enough to the heat now I can do without it for awhile. I patched the vent holes Shap put in it, so it should work just fine for you.....

[RC]

check out my new profile.

[RC]

I hate doing this because if you're reading it should be obvious, BUT let me say it before anyone gets bent out of shape;

Christ's teachings are exemplary IMO.

I prefer what has become of Christianity to what has become of Islam - but that is just my opinion - it is not a truth, it isn't "right".

Buddhism and Hinduism also have beautiful teachings and I prefer Buddhism because it is simpler IMO.

I admire some of the pagan philosophies of many American Indians.

I do not feel there is anything wrong with choosing one religion or set of values over another and believing that it is the best and only. "CHOOSING" to avow such is a big step that should be preceeded by careful consideration.

However, I also believe that religion comes from morals not the other way around.

So don't think that I'm slamming a particular religion in general just because the radical group in my sites currently, happens to avow Chrisianity.

It isn't the religion I'm concerned about.

I almost forgot Humanists - if you can get around the limitation of life being a total dead end, the basic philosophies are fantastic! In my top ten list.

<small>[ 11-22-2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[barfle]

Originally posted by RC:
check out my new profile.

At least it's peach colored!

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
Arthur C. Clarke

Excellent point. Morality does not need religion. It can stand alone. thanks for the quotation.

[hal 9000]

Originally posted by The Great Carouser:
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion."
Arthur C. Clarke

Nice quote. But where exactly did religion want to take morality? Cuba?

[Serenity]

Where are the initial pages to this thread? Is a "morality hacker" eliminating what they disagree with? If I click on page 1, the header reads page 0.