To use an example from Mencius, a child is getting ready to fall in a well. What happens next determines our morality. Therefore, what would we do/not do and what would our actions/non-actions say about our morals?

Nox

I think that the majority of amoral activities are acts of non-acting.
example:
non-thinking
non-caring
non-living (or, in better words, not trying to stay alive)

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 07-23-2002).]

In such a case, morality is mostly useless. In my eyes, morals are a learned and accepted system of behavior, determined among others by religion. If you tend to disagree, here's a situation for you:

In india's past (surely occasionally nowadays but I am not sure) it would have been perfectly moral for a member of the Brahman caste to reject the endangered kid (lets assume the kid belonged to the worker's caste or anything else than the Brahmans), to let it die consciously, because it is the religious and traditional moral system that establishes such views. Had he even so much as touched it, he might have been expelled of his family and caste.

This is where morals will lead. The opposite is the buddhist principle (or general common sense!) of MINDfulness. You see that a child is in danger, your mind, your own brain tells you that help is needed, it tells you that it is only natural to help, casting away any religious 'contamination'.

What I am trying to say is that what we see as morals are sometimes something completely different.

Peace

egocentric morals are the only way to go.

And for both of your responses, this is exactly the point I think Mencius was trying to make. The way I read it, Mencius felt that the "heart" dictated correct morals and that the "Gods" determined/favored correct action. Here comes the dilemma as I see it. That Brahman could have been absolutely correct. And as long as the Gods didn't interfere with the Brahman in any way, they (the Gods) were giving tacit approval to the Brahman's action/lack thereof.

This brings up the major point: it appears that in Chinese religious philosophy the individual is always at the mercy of the Gods. They (the Gods) either give or withhold their favor/s to the individual without specifically giving mandates for specific behavioral conduct by the individual. Curious.

Nox

I prefer morals of the mind to morals of the "heart"

Morals are based on the concepts of good and evil/bad, which are in my opinion illusions of the mind. We should do whatever we feel is the right thing to do in any given situation, even if that means rejecting laws or codes of conduct.

We've now finished lap one. How do you define "what is right"? By definition right implies wrong. Right/Wrong, a different way of saying Good/Evil.

Nox

"Right" is that which is "Good" for me. "Good" is that which doesn't harm me, directly and indirectly. Like I said, egocentric morals are the only way to go.

Please consider this:

Adolf, Benito, Uncle Joe, Mao, et al had what could be described as egocentric morals. If that is true (egocentric morals) then are the above mentioned individuals to be described as moral men?

Nox

"Adolf, Benito, Uncle Joe, Mao, et al had what could be described as egocentric morals. If that is true (egocentric morals) then are the above mentioned individuals to be described as moral men?"

If you compare theirs to yours you may not think them as moral. But im pretty sure they thought what they were doing was the right thing. But then one of them might think the same about you. There is no universal code of morals, just like their are no universal beliefs.

I believe that what you believe is right or wrong is reinforced by your time/enviroment/upbringing. This is the time when your actions/reactions are trained. So in a sense it boils down to pain/pleasure.

""Right" is that which is "Good" for me. "Good" is that which doesn't harm me, directly and indirectly. Like I said, egocentric morals are the only way to go."
- Bogey Man

Is it fair to make morality comparisions when they are subjective to begin with?

Yes.

I don't believe in egocentric morals.

Here comes the tough part...what are the correct morals, and this I think is what Mencius was talking about.

Nox

With that particular scenario, wouldn't your reaction be instinctive rather than based on moral judgement?

My first answer would have been yes and then it occured to me that the two people could be an Arab and a Jew. This complicates the issue by interjecting religion but that was not my intent. My intent is to interject folks who don't particularly like each other. Now instincts would be affected by other considerations, complicating the morality further.

Nox

Do whatever you want to do. Its only human to think about what is right or wrong but i wont hold it against anyone. After all, I am human too. (i think)

If someone murders my father, you can be sure I will kill the murderer and not feel bad about it. Some people would say thats "wrong" but i really dont care. Everything in the material realm is based on perspective.

But thats just my perspective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fatal Syntax:
If someone murders my father, you can be sure I will kill the murderer and not feel bad about it.

---

And this action/reaction is precisely how blood feuds begin and continue. Now how does one break the cycle? What is the motivation to break the cycle? What will be the conditions to break the cycle?

We approach the end of lap two.

Nox

here is the quote that makes me decide on egocentrical morals
"I swear by my life and my love it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 07-25-2002).]

We could run laps all day Nox. The point I am trying to get at is why does it matter? In the whole scheme of things, nothing we do here really matters. Look at the expanse of the universe and ask yourself honestly, do I matter? Live as you will live, in a way that feels right to you.

Fatal, we are not ants, don't try to live as one.

What you say is true on a macro level. As you indicated, we as individuals live and interact on a micro level. I cannot envision a scenario on a macro level (assuming free will) where there ever would be a moral guide or moral conciousness. On a micro level I think that a moral structure needs to exist, especially in an organized society. When you talked about retribution for the murder of your father, this would only work under conditions of anarchy. An organized society could not function under those rules. The blood feud would be the order of the day and clanism/tribalism would be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

Nox

nox, i think different people would do very different things in that situation, some arabs might push the jews down, vice versa, some might save them raise them and love them, vice versa, i think thats the point, everyone would act differently, and those who did not listen to thier heart, would be in agnoy later by thier own subconsious and dreams...

why is everyone always listening to their heart and never their mind?

They're both parts of one whole, one shouldn't be used more than the other,

[This message has been edited by evolove (edited 07-29-2002).]