Kramer
Rising Star
When people discuss what is "right" and what is "wrong", we tend to get lost in the absolute certainty that there is only black and white solutions. We get so caught up in what we personally feel should be and shouldn't be allowed in behavior, ideas, and concepts that we fail to realize that culture and society differs from country to country, region to region, and mind to mind.
Everyone has their set of beliefs, ideals, and feelings when it comes to how people should treat them and treat others, yet we still have those who stand on their pedestals and wagging their ever-judging fingers as a constant reminder that, "You are not like me, therefore, you are different and possibly dangerous to my personal existence." That may seem like a bold statement to pose, but in truth, if you dissect the core message, you will realize that people can and do feel threatened by opposing ideas and beliefs, especially when they are obsessively attached to them. It might help you to realize how shut off you are to change by taking a moment to step back from yourself and place yourself in someone else's shoes from time to time.
Now, to the subject at hand, we are discussing morality and how it changes. Wait a minute, if something is right and something else isn't, how can it ultimately change? This is where we discuss the fact that morality is both subjective and objective. What does this mean? It means that morality can exist both within the mind of one/many as well as outside of the mind of one/many. Again, we're asking you what does that mean? Let's dissect this further.
Examples are really useful to help you understand something that isn't a commonly discussed with something that we can relate to quite easily. In religion, there are many different schools of thought that vary on the concept of what is accepted as right and wrong. This is a basis point in morality. I could use the comparison of monotheistic religions (generally) like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are absolute in their moral standings while polytheistic religions tend to be more circumstantial according to the situation in what they would consider to be the correct course of action to take. I could also explain the differences between Old Testament differences in what God would explain to be immoral and damning and how the New Testament handles what actions would ultimately place your soul into hell. Any of these shows the key point I am trying to make:
The period in which ideas formed originally, the regions and mindset people had in their culture, and generally, the social issues they had faced.
When you follow a moral guideline, you are subjected to how you act, feel, and think in accordance to how you do or don't follow your set of beliefs. The become personalized and alter your perception and views on those who don't share your ideals. At this stage, you are comparing yourself and the "other's" ideology and begin viewing morality objectively. You may be looking at this woman's moral code objectively, but to her, she sees them from a subjective viewpoint.
Does that make your morals or her morals the "right" one to follow? When they conflict, who is the victor is this situation? Who do we agree and disagree with?
This is what makes being human so interesting, albeit difficult. When we try to subjectively take on a stance, it is from the objective scope of society and other conditions that we are to deliberate and discuss with one another to find common and accepted grounds. As much as the rebel warrior who likes to buck with the system may dislike the process, it is a fact that morality is AGREED upon to determine what belongs in the 'taboo' and what is the path to follow.
So what happens when you have opposing factions of agreed schools of thought? What happens when what is right and true for one half of society contradicts the other half?
What should happen is another opening of discussion to come upon an agreement and settle with equal compromises, but we know that humans are filled with clinging behavior and have a very hard time of letting go of what they believe in. This is where, on the mildest of reactions, judgment and personal persecution comes into play. Much larger scales of retaliation have been noted since recorded history.
To end this long-winded thought, I will explain why I am even mentioning this. It is up to us, the people, to change the way we go about the moral dilemma. Instead of being blind and shut-off from new ideas, we must change how we instinctively react to opposing moral codes. We need to open dialogue and debate. We need to discuss what we can do about all of this. WE NEED TO CHANGE.
Speaking of discussing, anyone and everyone is welcome to chime in with their views.
Thank you for reading.
Everyone has their set of beliefs, ideals, and feelings when it comes to how people should treat them and treat others, yet we still have those who stand on their pedestals and wagging their ever-judging fingers as a constant reminder that, "You are not like me, therefore, you are different and possibly dangerous to my personal existence." That may seem like a bold statement to pose, but in truth, if you dissect the core message, you will realize that people can and do feel threatened by opposing ideas and beliefs, especially when they are obsessively attached to them. It might help you to realize how shut off you are to change by taking a moment to step back from yourself and place yourself in someone else's shoes from time to time.
Now, to the subject at hand, we are discussing morality and how it changes. Wait a minute, if something is right and something else isn't, how can it ultimately change? This is where we discuss the fact that morality is both subjective and objective. What does this mean? It means that morality can exist both within the mind of one/many as well as outside of the mind of one/many. Again, we're asking you what does that mean? Let's dissect this further.
Examples are really useful to help you understand something that isn't a commonly discussed with something that we can relate to quite easily. In religion, there are many different schools of thought that vary on the concept of what is accepted as right and wrong. This is a basis point in morality. I could use the comparison of monotheistic religions (generally) like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are absolute in their moral standings while polytheistic religions tend to be more circumstantial according to the situation in what they would consider to be the correct course of action to take. I could also explain the differences between Old Testament differences in what God would explain to be immoral and damning and how the New Testament handles what actions would ultimately place your soul into hell. Any of these shows the key point I am trying to make:
The period in which ideas formed originally, the regions and mindset people had in their culture, and generally, the social issues they had faced.
When you follow a moral guideline, you are subjected to how you act, feel, and think in accordance to how you do or don't follow your set of beliefs. The become personalized and alter your perception and views on those who don't share your ideals. At this stage, you are comparing yourself and the "other's" ideology and begin viewing morality objectively. You may be looking at this woman's moral code objectively, but to her, she sees them from a subjective viewpoint.
Does that make your morals or her morals the "right" one to follow? When they conflict, who is the victor is this situation? Who do we agree and disagree with?
This is what makes being human so interesting, albeit difficult. When we try to subjectively take on a stance, it is from the objective scope of society and other conditions that we are to deliberate and discuss with one another to find common and accepted grounds. As much as the rebel warrior who likes to buck with the system may dislike the process, it is a fact that morality is AGREED upon to determine what belongs in the 'taboo' and what is the path to follow.
So what happens when you have opposing factions of agreed schools of thought? What happens when what is right and true for one half of society contradicts the other half?
What should happen is another opening of discussion to come upon an agreement and settle with equal compromises, but we know that humans are filled with clinging behavior and have a very hard time of letting go of what they believe in. This is where, on the mildest of reactions, judgment and personal persecution comes into play. Much larger scales of retaliation have been noted since recorded history.
To end this long-winded thought, I will explain why I am even mentioning this. It is up to us, the people, to change the way we go about the moral dilemma. Instead of being blind and shut-off from new ideas, we must change how we instinctively react to opposing moral codes. We need to open dialogue and debate. We need to discuss what we can do about all of this. WE NEED TO CHANGE.
Speaking of discussing, anyone and everyone is welcome to chime in with their views.
Thank you for reading.
