So, why are people so focused on a moral right....

Moderators: Adder, Adhara

So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 13:09 #50980

There is a socially acceptable status quo in the world that tells people that they need to follow a code that is "acceptable to the masses". No one is the same as the person next to them, so why are people forced to follow the morals and morays of the general public, even if the majority of the public does not believe in them?

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 14:30 #51016

  • Adder
  • Adder's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Knight
  • ID: 7778
There's the ethic of reciprocity, the 'Golden Rule' that you do not treat others how you would not want to be treated yourself, and also to treat others how you want to be treated. That's a good starting point for considering a universal standard of morality.... but even that seems to make a bad assumption that others have comparible health, happiness and capabilities as yourself - and ignores the important point that we do not know what other people might be going through. So if morality means proper behavior, I'd be more inclined to have a more regimented approach based on maximum compassion while not creating vulnerabilities in your own self.

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 14:46 #51026

What is right and what is wrong, that's the question!

I agree with the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do to you" but as Adder points out this only works when we consider the needs of each individual.

Generally I think that a person should be free to do as they wish as long as it does not harm anyone else in any way and in some way they contribute to the well-being of the society they live in if they are able.

The Force will be with you always.

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 15:13 #51030

There are rules to everything. I believe they are designed to bring order and control. Regardless of whether an individual agrees with them these rules represent the moral right.

I would suppose that people focus on them because being unaware and/or non-compliant creates a huge margin for chaos.

Fawks84, what are some specific examples of those moral rights that the majority does not agree with? Maybe we can narrow the scope of this discussion a bit and identify the details.

Humbly,

Jax

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 17:08 #51037

  • Proteus
  • Proteus's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • Apprentice
  • ID: 9105
I think its just part of a society's syndrome of trying to "dominate" itself like it tries to "dominate" the world around it, just part of the sherade of ideas about what "good" and "bad" is, ideas in which we've come to define with our limited perceptions, and we slowly begin to realize just how subjective the ideas of "good" and "bad" really are. What's good for me may certainly not be good for you. It's just our attempt at trying to grasp two polar ends of a reality in which we think good and bad is separate and in which we think one should win over the other. The subjectivity of good and bad, and thus, of moral ideas should come to show that this is and always will be impossible and that both sides are one in the same, interdependent, and that trying to constantly win one side over the other only strengthens the opposition, thus we serve ourselves up another plate of war and politics.
Last Edit: 20 Feb 2012 17:08 by Proteus.

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 20 Feb 2012 23:16 #51051

I seem to remember this conversation taking place somewhere before... strangest case of deja vu. :ohmy:

www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Jedii...3-Good-and-Bad-Exist

Almost positive this question or one very similar comes up on a regular basis. Since we can't form an opinion to have a discussion with based on vague facts, please define some of these morals, or moral forays, that you are referring to Fawks.
Last Edit: 20 Feb 2012 23:17 by Viskhard.

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right 21 Feb 2012 02:09 #51065

  • Macros
  • Macros's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 9552
In "The Book," we learn that there can be no morality with out immorality, for we cannot perceive one without the other. Both extremes are present in all people, and this is where one must make a choice.

The Hermetic principle of polarity states that these two extremes are the same thing differing only in degree, and rate of vibration. Therefore if you focus on increasing your own rate of vibration, you will be moral. If you focus on decreasing it, you will be immoral.

So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 21 Feb 2012 02:25 #51072

  • Reliah
  • Reliah's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Councillor
  • ID: 8859
I've read people speaking of the "golden rule" and have been taught of a higher rule: treat others the way they desire to be treated. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about either of those rules, to be honest.
Intake Officer ~ Youth Officer
Knight of Jediism



Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right.... 21 Feb 2012 02:29 #51076

The fact of the matter remains, the real purpose of duality of that of balance. Everything we say we believe in as Jedi supports that. All that we do is to geared towards negating a polar opposite, the dark side. We know that we can't get rid of the dark side and we shouldn't want to. We need the dark side just as much as we need air to breathe. We do what we do to keep the dark side in check. I would agree that we should look at morality as trying to attune to a higher vibration. That would make the most sense.

Re: So, why are people so focused on a moral right 21 Feb 2012 03:01 #51083

  • Macros
  • Macros's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Member
  • ID: 9552
The higher law is more in keeping with the jedi creed.
Latest Posts Comments Articles
    • What is TOTJO? (Last post by Akkarin)
    • I'm a bit late to this party, but with regards to the defining thing brought up earlier, at TotJO we officially don't ever take any authoritative position on the definition of a Jedi. We say "This is what makes you a Jedi by our standards" and don't take much interest in what other people think, because why should we be beholden to them for our definition? We do not expect them to be beholden to us by our definition (which for TotJO is: "You are a Jedi if you complete the application and take the Simple Oath - which is a demonstration of your acceptance of our doctrine). On the Homepage: www.templeofthejediorder.org/ the text just above the Jedi Believe part was changed specifically to "If you wish to further your understanding of the Jedi Path then you can begin the Initiate Programme", because the training is supplemental to one's understanding of the doctrine which is what makes one a Jedi in our eyes. While the vast majority of members here do undertake the training it is not required. We are a gathering place of like-minded people who have taken on the name of Jedi as an umbrella term for our beliefs. Like-minded means that we will all come here, and stay here (or not), for a variety of different reasons. The Temple offers each of us something different, because it means something different to each of us. If people are worried that TotJO is ever trying to take some kind of authoritative position on what makes someone a Jedi then that person has perhaps missed the numerous instances in which we have always stated that we never do that - especially in official communication with non-Jedi news-people and students.
    • Becoming a member.. (Last post by Kitsu Tails)
    • I had one in 2007 as well. I had submitted a new one for updated information and it for some reason didn't submit....so I did a third one and it finely stuck XD I had Br. John helping me with all that a week back.
    • Virtues or Choices? (Last post by Alexandre Orion)
    • A choice ? Hmmm ... I really like grapes. I mean - really ! I would eat grapes all year 'round if I lived in Southern Italy (and olives too !) ... But I live in Burgundy. To have really good grapes, I have to wait for them to grow on the vines, be cultivated and come to the market. I suppose I choose to be patient ... maybe. But whether I accept that it is February and there are no good grapes at the market or whether I get into a snit about it and have a rant -- that doesn't make the grapes grow faster nor more plentiful. People have seasons too, and at all of the levels of social organisation. There are right and worse times for things to come or for events to transpire. Should something I want to come to pass - perhaps even something that must come to pass - is not in its right season, all the ranting, insisting and manipulating is not going to make it come more quickly nor in the way it would in its own time. In fact, it can ruin the whole crop ... So, is it a choice ? I suppose that in many cases, it may be. Yet, in most cases, it is not. Neither the seasons nor the sunsets hurry, whether I patiently wait or wait with anticipation. All that I can do is the right thing at the right time and be ready for the season when it comes. Thus, patience can be quite active. If it is not the right time for something, at least that something can be prepared for. After all, simply 'waiting' passively for an event is not 'Patience'. Neither is procrastinating when there is a task at hand. Furthermore, I should be very careful about measuring the patience of someone else ... Choice is a nebulous concept : if Patience is doing a thing in that thing's proper time, but one cannot choose the Time, how then could Patience be a choice ? I guess it falls back on 'choosing' not to pitch a rant, but then would that be patience ? More than this being a question to answer, it is more a terrain to explore ... ;)
    • Martial Arts as a metaphor of Personal Behavior? (Last post by Streen)
    • Quote: Is there a certain style of martial art that, when you perform it or watch it, has taught you things in other areas of life such as your social life, school life, job, etc? Absolutely! I'm of the same opinion as steamboat. Jeet Kune Do is a way of life. When it comes to philosophy, as in JKD, you can take what is useful to you, adapt what you can to fit you personally, and reject the rest. But always keep an open mind to new techniques (new ideas). It also speaks of Zen. The quote "I do not hit, it hits all by itself" is very telling in that sense.
    • Further Religious Structure (Last post by Connor L.)
    • All we can be sure of is that nobody knows everything. Carlos was not there when the book was written. So, he can't know what the right answer is, EVEN IF HE GETS IT RIGHT. :O It's a crazy thought, isn't it?
    • Talent (Last post by Connor L.)
    • I LOVE how after she comes out of the arpeggio theme she ritards into the other themes, giving each of them their own tempo... that is SO Rock and Roll. WOW. WOW. WOW!!!
    • The Balance (Last post by Jung Faol)
    • So much time is spent displaying and describing the difference between light and dark. Not only here, to which I am granted a newcomer, but in life in general. There is an inherent need to see the separation between right and wrong, good and bad, light and dark, people who talk at the movies and those who shush them.... The Balance is something that I have revered since I can remember. You can be the clown and the smart kid at the same time. In fact its better that way because you approach humor from a point of intelligence, and you portray your intellect with a laugh. The 6'8 bruiser on the football team that volunteers at the local soup kitchen, the cut throat used car salesperson that signs over part of their check to the local animal shelter, the person who strives endlessly to enhance the income of their recorded artist company through whatever means are necessary and still finds the time to go on ahead and say yes (insert name of a band you cant stand here) we'll sign you on for three more albums. More importantly however is the balance within. Concerning with life necessities like family well being, and the ceaseless job to support them. Time apart and enhanced time together can be rather difficult to maintain no matter the circumstances. Work and Play, Family and Friends, Health (meneal and physical) and Wealth (literal and figurative). Do you go for the loaded mash because you spent 30 minutes on the treadmill? Have you call out sick because you just wanted a day to spend at home with your family? I suppose my overall idea here is that finding balance is something I have always wanted to be a constant in my life regardless of which one of endless categories that may fall under. How often is the balance supported, and how often do people so without even realizing it?
    • American men, American media, and the villificatio... (Last post by Oneiros)
    • Quote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial) Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold. I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited. I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people. This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned. Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point. "While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author. "HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary. If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.
    • chat (Last post by Revan Falton)
    • Had to dip out fast. Work called me in early. It was fun chatting with you all, hope to do it again soon!
    • Is questioning one's faith inevitable? (Last post by Koffee)
    • It's as natural and inevitable as a snake shedding its skin, yo. In other words, humans are intrinsically metaphysical. As consciousness evolves, so must ones beliefs or "faiths" correspond to this evolution. Faith must decay before it can grow anew, and since growth is a a natural property of consciousness, it follows that all faiths must in some sense decay. This sense of "decay" could be elaborated further, but I would generally consider "questioning" one's faith to be either a kind of decay or a symptom of decay, depending on how you want to approach describing the phenomena. What is essential never really dies, however. So one may qualify my original answer with a few other distinctions and terms, etc.

There are 166 visitors, 4 guests and 28 members online (4  are in chat): Akkarin, Br. John, steamboat28, Jon, Shadouness, Jestor, Jedi_Roz, ren, Kitsu Tails, roy1593, Wescli Wardest, Adhara, Darren, Red Lila, Proteus, Alexandre Orion, Rosalyn J, PatrickB, Archon, Kamizu, elizabeth, tzb, Pyrus Erath, benedictveritas, Frost, Jamie Stick, Cabur Senaar, Acheron, Oneiros, Jung Faol, danielhwhite.

Follow Us