Calvin: Do you think our morality is defined by our actions or by what's in our hearts? Hobbes: I think our actions show what's in our hearts.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Morality in the absolute sense does not have a right and wrong. Camus once asked, "If there were no god, is everyhing permissible?" (implication of no absolute morality).
The answer is still "No", such that even if there were no god, NOT everything is permissible: morality is judged based on a social understanding. What is considered moral (or not) could be a totally different thing centuries ago.
Who is to say (I'm anti-bible) what is right or wrong. Who is mortally and morally upright enough to decide what is a right thing to do; not everything in the world is a clear-cut matter. Some involve decision among a lesser evil--What is evil?
Social norms becomes slowly absorbed into absolute morality. In Europe, homosexuality is not considered a taboo, are the any less moral than us? I for one, think it's okay, but doesn't mean I follow it. Am I then, immoral?
If morality is based on what the social decides, then I guess it would waiver like the light on the candle wick. Uncertain and unsure. What then counts for the goodness and the righteous and integrity? If the society decides that sexual immorality, impurity, debauchey, withcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, drunkenness, orgies, murder, homosexuality and the like are OK, does the standard of morally good means being lowered? Morrie said "One would have a better life if he is brave enough to be out of the world's culture" Instaed of debating on who is morally correct and who is wrong, wouldn't it better to put what morally correct into action? Instead of the fighting of the tongue, let it be a proven action. - by the way, Calvin's mom and dad's name are mom and dad.
3 comments:
Morality in the absolute sense does not have a right and wrong. Camus once asked, "If there were no god, is everyhing permissible?" (implication of no absolute morality).
The answer is still "No", such that even if there were no god, NOT everything is permissible: morality is judged based on a social understanding. What is considered moral (or not) could be a totally different thing centuries ago.
Who is to say (I'm anti-bible) what is right or wrong. Who is mortally and morally upright enough to decide what is a right thing to do; not everything in the world is a clear-cut matter. Some involve decision among a lesser evil--What is evil?
Social norms becomes slowly absorbed into absolute morality. In Europe, homosexuality is not considered a taboo, are the any less moral than us? I for one, think it's okay, but doesn't mean I follow it. Am I then, immoral?
-- What's Calvin's Dad and Mom's names anyway?
If morality is based on what the social decides, then I guess it would waiver like the light on the candle wick. Uncertain and unsure. What then counts for the goodness and the righteous and integrity? If the society decides that sexual immorality, impurity, debauchey, withcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, rage, drunkenness, orgies, murder, homosexuality and the like are OK, does the standard of morally good means being lowered? Morrie said "One would have a better life if he is brave enough to be out of the world's culture" Instaed of debating on who is morally correct and who is wrong, wouldn't it better to put what morally correct into action? Instead of the fighting of the tongue, let it be a proven action.
- by the way, Calvin's mom and dad's name are mom and dad.
Post a Comment