FAIR morality stems from _______________?
commitment
a “supposed-Majority” or “popular” opinion is exposed with knowing what each of our realities really are, and if we want a less-than-majority thought process to rule the majority, then let us be sure all thoughts are still of your true self, tabled fairly (as you call ‘fair’).
There are not any WRONG answers here, as we study each other a bit.
I’ll attempt to review simplicity to the reader for understanding and discourse~
~Please, politely asking,
Where does your judgment of fair morality stem from ?
This internal prerequisite discourse regards all of us~
That WE can be asking
1-
is that fair judgment either one person being their own Morality,
or 2-
is that morality ‘Given’ to that one
(or if, even equally ‘Given’ to all persons),
-as morals (fair concepts within mental constructs) ‘Given’
that are simply received other than of oneself, that is a morality received by Another , other than you?
morality really is simple. If it is hurtful to someone then it is immoral at least if the person who finds it hurtful is at all involved.
everything else really is equivocation. You can almost always argue degrees and worth vs cost etc, and most find ways of making their realities fit their perceptions by intellectualizing when their own perception of morality is compromised so that they justify any straying from those precepts.
For instance the issue of public nudity. Being naked is not immoral, being naked around loved ones is not immoral, being naked around someone who is uncomfortable with that nakedness IS immoral. Designated areas like nude beaches can be set aside but there are still those whose sense of “morality” is definitly colored by victorian teachings and false senses of guilt or embarassment. They may never aprove of such beaches but as long as they are not exposed to the nudity themselves they should not be concerned.
Some take this a step further though and claim that someones disapproval of public nudity is THEIR own problem to deal with and, as a few college students have done, basically inflict their nakedness on everyone. This is immoral solely because there is a known intrusion on someone elses “right” to happiness. On the other young naked children are usually not a morality issue simply because they are not knowingly causing discomfort for someone else. I hate to have a hat worn in my house (comes from a father who felt it to be disrespectful) and my friends respect that when they come to my house but I would never dream of asking anyone else to remove their hats at one of their houses. Not exactly a real morality issue but yet it is similar to the nudity issue, and boils down to intentions and awareness of others.
“…teachings and false senses of guilt or embarassment.”
Now we know about where your definition of morality is from:
"...to have a hat worn ~" (or not) is your teaching (or not)
It is you that are your morals. ('fairness' now is of the man's wants is then the rule.)
All until your father if in not telling you about "the hat" noticed you doing~ as he (believing) ~with respect to the hat (or not) shares, 'But know this, son: flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but the Giver of morals did, and on this rock is built together all those called out by such of the Giver's revelation...
And now not so simple,
is it, such that when man sets himself as the 'moral'-giver and his own 'fairness'-definer,
then the next man can simply state "that may be moral for you to call my senses false, but for me your judgement of my morality is false, and not my senses, nor my teachings passed down nearly 3500 years before the victorian era...
Same two views appear:
1) in want ~a person calls false morality within certain senses
what 2) a Giver may have revealed for a person to freely choose and teach to others who freely choose to hear for to believe.
POLITELY ASKING:
Is their more 'right' sense in random chance-cooling of this Earth by rain on a hot mass, solidified with a protein soup of life from non-life goo, to be found as living-goo to-the-zoo and then: you , a person now judging what is morally a false sense of guilt?
Or is there more 'right' in a Giver-of-life's 'rights' by design , if chosen freely to believe and realize...?
You know: Is one's relativity REALLY TRUE, or just not absolutely true?
I think it can not be both, knowing what can be chosen in beliefs.
Morals:
from of macro-evolutionary theories are quitedifferent than from persuasions of belived revelations given to humanity:
ie)
Answer Q’s of human existance like this:
? WHAT ABOUT FETUSES IN TEST TUBES? If a woman discards them, should she be executed?
VS:
Other: been asking~ talk of “fetuses in wombs.” What about fetuses in cold storage?
The baby, human progeny from conception may not FEEL as important to us as a 4-month premi, nor 9 mo. birth.
The weight of censoring (accounting for) this human life is going to fall to a dogmatic penalty in killing it
or majority of voters getting to the poles
maybe allowing legal homicide.
Could you please rephrase your argument to be more understandable? I’m interested in the general topic of absolute vs. relative morality, but honestly, I have no idea what you’re saying.
Could you please rephrase your argument to be more understandable? I’m interested in the general topic of absolute vs. relative morality, but honestly, I have no idea what you’re saying.
Could you please rephrase your argument to be more understandable? I’m interested in the general topic of absolute vs. relative morality, but honestly, I have no idea what you’re saying.
Moral judgment should be guided by one’s general principles, and one’s general principles should have a lot of overlap with “don’t hurt other people” and “if there is no way to avoid hurting people, take the course that hurts the fewest or hurts with the least severity” and “if there is no way to avoid hurting people, take the course that does not take away the freedom or do permanent damage to the people being hurt” and so on.
But moral judgment needs also to be “of the moment”, not a mechanical comparison of situation to existing category within the code of one’s principles followed by an automatic conclusion based on same. One needs to be in the moment, affected by the issues, daring to care, in order to make a fair moral decision.