Determining Morality.
Why am I talking about morals right now? For me, I see it to be a way of successfully making a bridge point for so many divided but significantly held views on accepted, correct behaviour.
So many times institutions are used to support a rigid rule, with no thought of the consequences. Unfortunately people may hide any feeling of responsibility on the consequences of their action by referring to the collective institution rule as if they have no individual responsibility for the action.
What changes a list of rules, no matter what or who compiled them? It is perhaps only after someone considers the outcome of a particular rule that the term moral can be applied to that same instruction. If you think about it, similar to that of a legal document, it is only binding when both parties agree and confirm on that agreement by a meeting of minds.
In practical terms, a bases or aim may need to be refereed to in order to consider what action is either right or wrong. The main point is accepting the consequences of making a personal choice based on the information that is available at the time. If the situation changes, then it is quiet possible that a different conclusion might arise. This I think is a fair and pragmatic way of determining morals and dealing with life’s complexities.
You might want to take as an example, one of my favourite Aesop's fables, The man, the boy and the donkey. All three were on a journey to market and as they met passers by, each made comments on how they should ideally travel. No matter how they chose to travel, with the man sitting on the donkey, then boy and man sitting on the donkey, or man and boy carrying the donkey, they could not please everybody and ended up pleasing none.
Why is talking about how to reach moral decisions important? It can be a good way of people with widely different ideological views, finding a common point of contact and that could result in an ultimate beneficial cooperation.
It is quite possible that when people talk about determining morals and morality, they may find that they share a common aim in deciding what is the right or wrong moral action to take in a given situation or in a more broader sense of applicable meaning.
I do feel that when it comes to determining morality it is the action that defines a person, rather than any professed philosophy.
So many times institutions are used to support a rigid rule, with no thought of the consequences. Unfortunately people may hide any feeling of responsibility on the consequences of their action by referring to the collective institution rule as if they have no individual responsibility for the action.
What changes a list of rules, no matter what or who compiled them? It is perhaps only after someone considers the outcome of a particular rule that the term moral can be applied to that same instruction. If you think about it, similar to that of a legal document, it is only binding when both parties agree and confirm on that agreement by a meeting of minds.
In practical terms, a bases or aim may need to be refereed to in order to consider what action is either right or wrong. The main point is accepting the consequences of making a personal choice based on the information that is available at the time. If the situation changes, then it is quiet possible that a different conclusion might arise. This I think is a fair and pragmatic way of determining morals and dealing with life’s complexities.
You might want to take as an example, one of my favourite Aesop's fables, The man, the boy and the donkey. All three were on a journey to market and as they met passers by, each made comments on how they should ideally travel. No matter how they chose to travel, with the man sitting on the donkey, then boy and man sitting on the donkey, or man and boy carrying the donkey, they could not please everybody and ended up pleasing none.
Why is talking about how to reach moral decisions important? It can be a good way of people with widely different ideological views, finding a common point of contact and that could result in an ultimate beneficial cooperation.
It is quite possible that when people talk about determining morals and morality, they may find that they share a common aim in deciding what is the right or wrong moral action to take in a given situation or in a more broader sense of applicable meaning.
I do feel that when it comes to determining morality it is the action that defines a person, rather than any professed philosophy.
No comments have been added yet.
