I would propose that the following statement may be true: "Taking responsibility for the suffering we inspire in both ourselves and in others allows us to determine right from wrong - a state of empathy" Explanation: From birth we are developing a conscience. From birth we are starting to take responsibility for our impact on others. From birth we exercise our innate vanity in the pursuit of self esteem and self confidence. As we develop a responsibility for the suffereing we inspire [ note the distinction betweeen inspire and "cause" ] we acheive greater independance and in doing so build a portfolio of "rights and wrongs" which form the basis of our ongoing conditioning and pre-conceptions. Genesis: So the genesis of our conscience choices regarding right and wrong is in our quest fro self determination or independance, an ability that can only be acheievd by taking responsibility fro our actrions and again, the suffering that we insoire because of those actions. Relativity: As a persons conscience is primarilly determined by the societal conditions he is brought up in the issue of right and wrong is subjective according to those societal conditions. That meaning: "right and wrong is in the eye of the chooser" a relative concept and floating depending on the society. The ability to seek self determination is innate and a fundamental driver globally. it si only when developing a coscience of wright and wrong do we learn how to succeed in the longer term with in our society. care to discuss?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree with this, to the extent of "right and wrong is in the eye of the chooser". But surely it cannot be that simple as we have many influences throughout the whole of our lives. In some circumstances we are driven by the desire to fit in with a crowd, so we will do as they do so as not to be different or seem different. Say your friends are throwing rocks at windows or something. You know that it's wrong but you do it anyway due to peer pressure. (Not every one will abide by this but in general a lot will.) Who is to say whether your morals can become clouded, or even altered? If someone steals on compulsion do they see it as wrong? If it's a compulsive habit they may know its wrong but can't stop themselves from doing it. Another case would be for a successful man/woman to lose everything they have. Money, Security, their Home for example. Their life is torn apart and they have to resort to stealing to feed themselves. While they were successful it was wrong to steal, but now they have no choice. Will this make them see things differently, so that it's moral to steal as they have no other way of feeding themselves?
Thanks for your interest... I guess the OP statement is a "root" statement in that it attempts to look at the fundamental nature and or "root" cause of decisions of conscience. It is often surmised that the ability to determine "right from wrong" is genetically hardwired or God given at birth. However I would like to add another altrenative solution [ not a new one either I bet] in that it is a learned behaviour from difficult and sometimes traumatic experience from the first moment of our conscious lives. Even the need to conform to peer preasure is due to our sense of suffering if we do not "fit in" therefore surrendering to the group is declared a right thing to do rather than a wrong thing to do. Society at large is a peer group and of course there are smaller peer groups as you mention. We have for example the peer group called nation USA and the peer group called nation Australia or United Kingdom etc etc, but we also have a peer group called "humanity" which ties in with "global" self consciousness. This is obviously promoted by the peer group leadership of the United Nations and has led to various charters such as the charter of Human rights 1948, and prior to the estabishment of the UN, the Geneva Conventions 1925 and the Magna Carta 1215 and many others no doubt. I woud suggest that all have been established on the basis of what is globally considered as "right and wrong" determined by the collective experience of thousands of years [ global consciousness ] Assuming the lack of socio-pathic behavour the man/woman in question will still recognise that what they are doing is wrong however as we know when it comes to survival, priorities can change. "right for individual survival however wrong for societal welfare thus societies survival." And of course society will take what ever measures it can to protect it's welfare. [prisons, psychiatric hospitals and if wealthy enough a social welfare system etc etc]
Where did you dig this up ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Human nature adlibitium (sp?). Sort of like saying, "this is how we are." "All people experience suffering in the manner proposed." I would guess this to be a true statement, given that all individuals as you've said strive towards this pursuit. We're forced to 'take responsibility, others as well as I, for the suffering we ' Ah!!! Headache, pardon. Would one entitle this virtue universal value? suffering achieve independence Eeek! I suppose this is true. This sounds about right. This is about how people are. Imo Ignore me please.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
