Internet Hate 2...and How To Rise Above

Resticon wrote: At what point does it become wrong to not express how we actually feel for the sake of morality or "right" and "wrong"?

Should we always try to see both sides at the expense of our own morality?

I would say it becomes wrong to stay silent when voicing your opinion could end up helping others. You could watch an adult abuse a child or you could voice your disgust and help the child. Save trying to see the abusers side for later...when no kids are being harmed.

If you can't live with being silent, then don't.

Of course, morality is broad and different cultures have different views, but I think that there are a few that are almost universal. You know, like incest is bad.

Wendaline wrote: Of course, morality is broad and different cultures have different views, but I think that there are a few that are almost universal.

I actually haven't seen one stand against immorality that wasn't moral in another older human civilization yet.

Wendaline wrote: You know, like incest is bad.

Except for cultures like the Ancient Greeks and Romans you mean?

Love history, but I wasn't basing my argument off of it. Yes, incest does happen...but learning from history many many societies have seen that it's just not a good idea.

Also, my comment read almost. As in most but not quite all.

And I don't disagree with any particular point you've made...I''m just curious whether the rise in popularity of those almost universal morals is tied heavily into the rise of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions.

Hmm, never thought of that. I bet a lot have. Excet, and I hate to bring it up again :laugh: , incest. That one I would say would be from the experience of what happens to the children born from it. Though, I wonder how the Abrahamic religions stumbled upon their morals?

Life:
Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.

Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means. A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

Value of life:
In industrial nations, the justice system considers a human life "priceless", thus illegalizing any form of slavery; example, humans cannot be bought for any price. However, with a limited supply of resources or infrastructural capital (e.g. ambulances), or skill at hand, it is impossible to save every life, so some trade-off must be made. Also, this argumentation neglects the statistical context of the term. It is not commonly attached to lives of individuals or used to compare the value of one person's life relative to another person's. It is mainly used in circumstances of saving lives as opposed to taking lives or "producing" lives.

Laws being passed usually have nothing to do with choosing one morality over another. It has to do with people being elected to a position of authority by the majority writing an agreement.

Law:
1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.
a. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.
b. The condition of social order and justice created by adherence to such a system: a breakdown of law and civilized behavior.
3. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system: tax law; criminal law.
4. A piece of enacted legislation.
5.
a. The system of judicial administration giving effect to the laws of a community: All citizens are equal before the law.
b. Legal action or proceedings; litigation: submit a dispute to law.
c. An impromptu or extralegal system of justice substituted for established judicial procedure: frontier law.
6.
a. An agency or agent responsible for enforcing the law. Often used with the: "The law . . . stormed out of the woods as the vessel was being relieved of her cargo" (Sid Moody).
b. Informal A police officer. Often used with the.
7.
a. The science and study of law; jurisprudence.
b. Knowledge of law.
c. The profession of an attorney.
8. Something, such as an order or a dictum, having absolute or unquestioned authority: The commander's word was law.
9. Law
a. The body of principles or precepts held to express the divine will, especially as revealed in the Bible.
b. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.
10. A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature.
11.
a. A rule or custom generally established in a particular domain: the unwritten laws of good sportsmanship.
b. A way of life: the law of the jungle.
12.
a. A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity.
b. A generalization based on consistent experience or results: the law of supply and demand.
13. Mathematics A general principle or rule that is assumed or that has been proven to hold between expressions.
14. A principle of organization, procedure, or technique: the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.

Murder:
Yes, that is the text book definition of murder.
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

Conclusion:
The problem I see is when one life form defines its own life as being greater than another’s in value. This line of thought tends to lead down paths that most cultures throughout civilization have experienced. Prejudice, slavery, mass exoduses and genocide are the end products of this arrogance and history is our teacher.

Perhaps if more laws were written with “morality” as a guide things would be different? Or, would the ethos of one system dominate others into submission and then annihilation. Again, history shows that when morals are at the root of legal matters, or the governing ethos of a populace, the consequences become dire. Examples; the crusades, the inquisition, holocaust and more recently the jihad. These things are in part what makes the “mob mentality” so dangerous. And it is also part of the reason the U.S. founding Fathers were so adamant of the separation of church and state. I feel that a good part of the checks and balances that keep us from tearing each other apart is our differences in opinion. Time and time again throughout history we see how when a large group of people come together under one set of ideals or governing rule it leads to the disaster of others.

Justice by definition is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion or equity. But personally I feel that it’s current representation via the present legal system results in little more than a polite vengeance.

I hold myself to a value system where I value all life. The well-being of all is my primary concern. And any action, or lack of action, is weighed against possible end results. Granted, no one is perfect and I will make mistakes from time to time… but if I do not at least try then what message do I send?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Perhaps if more laws were written with “morality” as a guide things would be different? Or, would the ethos of one system dominate others into submission and then annihilation. Again, history shows that when morals are at the root of legal matters, or the governing ethos of a populace, the consequences become dire. Examples; the crusades, the inquisition, holocaust and more recently the jihad. These things are in part what makes the “mob mentality” so dangerous. And it is also part of the reason the U.S. founding Fathers were so adamant of the separation of church and state. I feel that a good part of the checks and balances that keep us from tearing each other apart is our differences in opinion. Time and time again throughout history we see how when a large group of people come together under one set of ideals or governing rule it leads to the disaster of others.

Justice by definition is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion or equity. But personally I feel that it’s current representation via the present legal system results in little more than a polite vengeance.

I have nothing to add, I just wanted to quote these statements to show support of them. I especially wish to point out the truism of what you said of our current justice system. "Polite vengeance" indeed, and sometimes rather light on the "polite" attribute.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I hold myself to a value system where I value all life. The well-being of all is my primary concern. And any action, or lack of action, is weighed against possible end results. Granted, no one is perfect and I will make mistakes from time to time… but if I do not at least try then what message do I send?

To this, I ask, are you saying that you hold all life as valuable, or did you mean to say all human life? Assuming you intended to include all life, not just human life, do you hold the value of all life as equal, or merely posit that all life has value? I would point out that, if you meant by this statement what I initially took you to mean, I agree that ALL life is not only valuable, but sacred. And while I have been known, in my time, to squash a few bugs (and worse); I typically place no greater value on the lives of humans (including my own children) than I do the lives of insects, trees, or my neighbor's dog. I can't help but look at the various religions in the world who state, effectively, "thou shalt not kill", and not see exceptions listed. This kind of indicates to me that, in the eyes of god/the force/fate/the universe/buddha, or whomever, ALL life is sacred and to be preserved. Of course, the wonderful paradox created here is that life feeds on life, and that while all life is sacred, no life can exist without taking it from another. I feel like this point relates to the OP, but I'm not sure that I can get it there.

Alluvius wrote:

I agree that ALL life is not only valuable, but sacred.

Yes... I agree that ALL life is not only valuable, but sacred. But how can one assign a “value” to that which is priceless?

We have to keep in mind that death is a natural part of life. And I agree (for the most part) with the text book definition of murder…the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide. But if I were to rewrite the definition it would read… “Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide” with emphasis on the highlighted words.

I understand that in keeping the well being of all involved (doing what is best for everything) sometimes things will have to die. And like I said earlier, death is a natural part of life. I try to preserve all life, but sometimes a limb must be pruned to insure the survival or betterment of the plant. This, of course, is the dangerous ground were things can be taken advatange of, or abused, if we are not vigilant. I feel that laws saying when it is right to end another life or not are a bit on the dangerous side.

Even though it is fiction, I love what J. R. R. Tolkien wrote for the wizard Gandalf’s response to Frodo, “Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.”

i was JUST about to come in here and quote gandalf!

dang you, wescli! dang you to heck!

Wescli Wardest wrote: Yes... I agree that ALL life is not only valuable, but sacred. But how can one assign a “value” to that which is priceless?

Don't know, never tried. Seems futile.