By what standard do you measure right and wrong...or do you?

[tcay584]

Just curious,
Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm an avowed christian. I am genuinely curious as to how those of another thought pattern develop their sense of right and wrong. What standard do you hold yourselves to, and why?

[Corvus]

Moved to the appropriate forum.

[Jose]

This question came up in a prior discussion. I've given some sort of answer here. The short answer is "it feels right." I'd bet that this is how we all do it, regardless of whether we claim that it is our natural instinct or that the Bible tells us to.

[Vianne]

I agree with Jose -- you do what feels right. Please note this is not a license to do as you please, but rather an invitation to use God-given internal morality.

Hitting a child does not feel good, because I know random violence will imprint a feeling of resentment and fear on that child moreso than whatever lesson I was trying to teach. That is harmful. I therefore know it is wrong.

Picking up litter does feel good, because I know I am cleaning up the earth and making it more attractive and healthier. I therefore know it is right.

I personally think this is a better system than having a set of rules to follow, because with a little manipulation, you can twist rules to represent what you wish them to. You can then use the authority of those rules (or whoever wrote them) to coerce others into following you.

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

Vianne

[Jose]

I personally think this is a better system than having a set of rules to follow, because with a little manipulation, you can twist rules to represent what you wish them to. You can then use the authority of those rules (or whoever wrote them) to coerce others into following you.

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

Very profound, Vianne--and welcome to our little group! I agree with your sentiment, but we'll see that there are others who disagree, so we can get into a lively discussion. You are absolutely right that it is possible to use the Authority of The Rules to coerce others into following you. I wonder, though, whether the ability to do so (and the ability to be led so easily) is related to our instinct to bond with our own group, and consider other groups to be "the bad guys." Thousands of years of selection has bred this instinct into us, and it is only with difficulty that we can break out of it individually. The Holocaust, like most genocidal programs, was against a group of "others." I bet it wouldn't have worked so well if they'd tried to motivate people to kill their friends and neighbors at random.

As I think about it, we've got a double-standard for what "feels right," depending on whether we consider the other guy to be part of our own group, or some "other" group. Some of us consider our group to be Humanity, or even Living Things, while others are much more selective (the 6 other members of the cult, or people who look like me, or people of my nationality, for instance). The Authority of The Rules, or devoted following of a Leader, sometimes enforces a restricted view of who the members of the group really are. It would be very interesting to see what laws we'd come up with if we used our internal moral-o-meters, rather than a pre-defined Morality. We might find, for instance, that no one would worry about gay marriage.

[Vianne]

"Very profound, Vianne--and welcome to our little group!"

Thank you!

"I wonder, though, whether the ability to do so (and the ability to be led so easily) is related to our instinct to bond with our own group, and consider other groups to be 'the bad guys.' "

I never thought about that before, but that makes sense.

"We might find, for instance, that no one would worry about gay marriage."

I'd have to agree. If there is no written rule to determine what's right and wrong, and no book to tell us how God intended it to be, there would be no reason not to accept gays.

Vianne[/quote]

[TQWcS]

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

You are assuming the moral-o-meter is the same for every person. This moral-o-meter could be very easily tweaked by outside forces. Then once your moral-o-meter is off how do we tell what real morals are? Most criminals do not see anything wrong with their actions. Should we consider this right because their moral-o-meter is off? Whose moral-o-meter is right mine or theirs? This whole moral-o-meter thing just sounds like another way of saying moral relativism.

[BeHereNow]

With everyone using their own internal moral-o-meter, blind obedience could be eliminated. Things like the Holocaust could have been prevented.

TQWcS answered: You are assuming the moral-o-meter is the same for every person.

I could have written those same words and I would not assume the M-O-M is the same for every person. I would assume the same Source, but that is certainly not the same. The Source allows the free expression of right action.

This moral-o-meter could be very easily tweaked by outside forces. Then once your moral-o-meter is off how do we tell what real morals are?

First, what is the alternative. Won’t any source of authority have the possibility of outside influence? Hasn’t the Bible itself been used by man to commit atrocities?
We seek the best of all possible worlds, which might not be perfection. Mental illness does exist. Just because some M-O-M’s have equipment failure does not mean we need to disregard every one.

Most criminals do not see anything wrong with their actions.

I don’t think this is true. They knew they chose to not listen to their M-O-M, and chose to do the evil thing.

Should we consider this right because their moral-o-meter is off?

Well, there are criminal laws. If they disregard criminal laws, that needs to be recognized. If they broke no law, what concern is it of ours?

Whose moral-o-meter is right mine or theirs?

Right?, Wrong? Black, White. What should we do with those who disagree with us?

This whole moral-o-meter thing just sounds like another way of saying moral relativism.

I don’t see it that way. If there is one Source, whatever that might be, then we have Absolute Morality. You may think that some document contains the Truth. If it has been among us longer that a week I will show you how different people have put a different spin on what that document says. Now that is moral relativism: Interpreting a document to suit one’s desire.

[mrmufin]

I am genuinely curious as to how those of another thought pattern develop their sense of right and wrong. What standard do you hold yourselves to, and why?

I pretty much use Charlie and the Chocolate Factory as a moral barometer. What would Charlie Bucket do?

Sometimes I'll cite Chocolatist scripture...

Regards,
mrmufin

[TQWcS]

We seek the best of all possible worlds, which might not be perfection. Mental illness does exist. Just because some M-O-M’s have equipment failure does not mean we need to disregard every one.

I didn't say equipment failure did I? These people are assuming that morals are 100% inborn which I believe is absurd.

I do not think this is the right forum to debate this in so I will leave it at that.