So, why are people so focused on a moral right....
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I seem to remember this conversation taking place somewhere before... strangest case of deja vu.
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.
- id: 0
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.
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.
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.
- id: 0