Book of Rules.
How the world is viewed, is an important step to later conclusion, on how we perceive things as the way they are.
As a little boy I puzzled over why treating other people in the right way had to conform to a set of rules, usually ones backed by a teacher, authority or particular code of ethics. It posed a dilemma of sorts for me, as I thought to myself if you see somebody who needs your help, do you respond or check first if your doing the right thing as laid down by a book of rules?
Involved in deciding whether to act or not or to behave based on empathy when observing suffering or harm to others can be instinctive or more rationalised.
In a much wider point, many various animals display empathy and maternal care for not just their own species but other types of life. Particular examples of animals have shown grief and mourned those that have passed away. Certain animals appear to clearly remember acts of kindness. Without over stating the obvious, no books were involved in behaving in a humane way even though they are not Homo sapiens.
Having distinct views of the world is all well and good, but sometimes straight forward emotional responses to coming to the assistance of those in trouble, can raise intriguing philosophical and even moral questions.
Most definitely as people we do not usually poses a king Solomon's ability to always come to the right conclusion, but we have a fantastic tool with which to reason, query and even philosophise about what defines our responses to epic and less significant but potentially life enhancing moments. Is there a definitive book of rules for this kind of individual means of moral depiction, or do we in a sense utilise many different chapters from differing books which all subsequently apply to what we do and how we think or feel about it.
As a little boy I puzzled over why treating other people in the right way had to conform to a set of rules, usually ones backed by a teacher, authority or particular code of ethics. It posed a dilemma of sorts for me, as I thought to myself if you see somebody who needs your help, do you respond or check first if your doing the right thing as laid down by a book of rules?
Involved in deciding whether to act or not or to behave based on empathy when observing suffering or harm to others can be instinctive or more rationalised.
In a much wider point, many various animals display empathy and maternal care for not just their own species but other types of life. Particular examples of animals have shown grief and mourned those that have passed away. Certain animals appear to clearly remember acts of kindness. Without over stating the obvious, no books were involved in behaving in a humane way even though they are not Homo sapiens.
Having distinct views of the world is all well and good, but sometimes straight forward emotional responses to coming to the assistance of those in trouble, can raise intriguing philosophical and even moral questions.
Most definitely as people we do not usually poses a king Solomon's ability to always come to the right conclusion, but we have a fantastic tool with which to reason, query and even philosophise about what defines our responses to epic and less significant but potentially life enhancing moments. Is there a definitive book of rules for this kind of individual means of moral depiction, or do we in a sense utilise many different chapters from differing books which all subsequently apply to what we do and how we think or feel about it.
No comments have been added yet.
