wallsofsilence.com

Childhood trauma and its consequences
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:55 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:46 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
Shelley asked me this in another thread and I had to think about this. At first I assumed I know what's wrong and what's right but where it comes from is another question. From experience I guess. But it has changed over the years, what I considered right turned wrong and vice versa. Now it comes more from within me, and I try to look more at the whole picture, how something would affect me and the people or environment around me, on the short and long term.

I tend to prefer natural laws above legal laws but both are open for interpretation.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:50 pm 
Thanks for thinking about it, Dennis.

Intellectually, I balk at the whole concept of right and wrong. In a truly universal sense, I don't think there is such a thing.

But as a practical matter, it feels like ethical considerations are important. It is something I "sense." I wonder if it's one of those feelings that's necessary for the survival of the species, but doesn't really represent the truth of anything other than the feeling itself. I think lots of feelings are like that.

Anyway, at the core of my sense of right and wrong is a desire for myself, my loved ones, and everyone else to live as fully, contentedly, and harmoniously as we can. We don't have anything better to do. <smile>

Sam Harris talks about the possiblity of a science of ethics. Someday, he hopes that further knowledge about the science of emotions, and especially happiness, will help to shape an intelligent consensus among humans about what is right and wrong. Even now, intelligent conversations about the subject are possible, especially if we drop the edicts of religious morality from the conversation and begin to look at it from the perspective of what all humans need.

Shelley


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:35 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:06 am
Posts: 486
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Intellectually, I balk at the whole concept of right and wrong. In a truly universal sense, I don't think there is such a thing.


Do you mean the whole concept of right and wrong in religious terms is wrong? Not the concept on itself? Imagine being in traffic when you reject the concept.

When I look at harmonious people I seldom see the influence of science there. The old Hopi Indians or the tribes described in Jean Liedloff’s book The Continuum Concept, didn’t have modern science interfering. So why would science take up the task to correct the methods of ethics and morals? I understand that the religious have a lot to say in the US, but what about countries where the influence of religion is nearly gone? They still have similar problems.

Dennis


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:19 am 
Quote:
Quote:
Intellectually, I balk at the whole concept of right and wrong. In a truly universal sense, I don't think there is such a thing.


Do you mean the whole concept of right and wrong in religious terms is wrong? Not the concept on itself? Imagine being in traffic when you reject the concept.


As a practical matter, it's easier for all of us to live together if we come to some consensus about right and wrong. I don't dispute that, and, as I said, I am well aware of feelings within me of a sense of right and wrong.

When I say that I balk at the whole concept, it's a philosophical statement. I see no reason to believe that right and wrong exist outside of the expediency of daily human life. I don't mean to minimize the importance of that expediency to all of us, but at the same time, I think it helps me to view right and wrong as flexible concepts we use to make our lives better rather than universal absolutes.

Quote:
So why would science take up the task to correct the methods of ethics and morals?


Science just provides information. Should we choose not to know things that we are able to learn?


Report this post
Top
  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group