You impose that decision on everyone that you interact with directly and indirectly. And you do it every day.
You decide, you act. Then people react. Society changes as a result.
I don’t know what you expect to be different.
Because they deviate from the norm.
Society seems awfully decadent to me. I see some imposition of morality, but not much practicing.
There is a song that goes “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”
Sniped for brevity.
You do what you do for your own sense of duty to your fellow man and the honor you feel that allows you to hold your head high.
" The bad part of holding yourself to high standards is being in judgement of those who don’t."
Yet if those like you did not, the rest would never improve.
“Those who know, don’t speak; those who speak, don’t know.”
If one is in the know and does not speak, then one does not love or care about his fellow man.
I quote few word out of the scriptures for their moral value, because they are few but do quote this one.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
I do not love near as well or as much as I should, and likely never will, but duty forces me to try to correct which at the same time would correct myself if I were wrong thanks to whatever wisdom I would learn from my interlocutors.
Imagine if no one bothered to correct poor thinking or actions. We would still be living in caves and trees.
Remember that when a love bias is formed, it’s counterpart, a hate bias is formed against whatever goes against your love bias. IOW, hate is born of love and should be embraced as it will act to reduce hateful actions and thoiughts.
We should work both our love and hate biases to their limits.
Like a newscast though, people will see more evil than good.
Regards
DL
I agree. That seems to be the case except when a country is religious. Stats are showing that the more religiosity there is in a country, the less peaceful and internally coherent it is.
Religion is not our friend, even though I am one of those who follows a religious ideology. Gnostic Christianity. We tend to be peaceful though as we are thought to be closer to agnosticism than theism.
Regards
DL
No, I’ve been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I’ve not said a peep until now and only because it’s an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y’all’s.
Do I put myself above you? Maybe, but I couldn’t do what y’all do because I view it as inconsiderate. I just don’t feel right about it and I never have. The only way I can leave anyone hanging is just to leave to site altogether. So are you superhuman or am I? How can we tell? Is the drunk drinking 30 beers per night superhuman? Or the one who wouldn’t notice if beer fell off the earth? Who has the advantage?
Morality is obviously a disadvantage:
Survival was a moral as well as a physical struggle. A woman doctor wrote to a friend in June 1933 that she had not yet become a cannibal, but was “not sure that I shall not be one by the time my letter reaches you.” The good people died first. Those who refused to steal or to prostitute themselves died. Those who gave food to others died. Those who refused to eat corpses died. Those who refused to kill their fellow man died. Parents who resisted cannibalism died before their children did.[52] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
Morality seems a high-brow game among gentlemen to feel superior to everyone else while in competition with each other.
“The fact that you possess a sense of morality, and we do not, gives us an evolutionary advantage.”
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm_06apWsRg[/youtube]
Serendipper,
Exactly, but putting laws aside, what defines what the norm is? Memes, the zeitgeist, sub-cultures? Or is it something deeper / more intrinsic to the human-condition like conscience or the need for survival? I’m not sure?
Things can seem that way I agree, but is that necessarily the case? I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, which has sometimes been advantageous.
From my limited perspective, society seems to be stagnant in terms of morality, although when I look through the history books and the things that have occurred, I think that morality is on an upward curve, which (I think) is evident, as we’ve had a few paradigmatic shifts. So I think there is change for the better in terms of morality, but we may not experience the changes in our lifetimes.
Its a maxim that a lot of people use. Basically I think its about having principles and whether we are willing to compromise them or not. I’ve stuck to principles in the past, but it came up turtles. I’m not so sure I wouldn’t compromise if faced with the same situations again, would compromising imply that I have fallen for something?
It’s not so much a sense of duty but sense of consideration. If we agree to meet at 5, I will be there because I’m considerate of you, not because it’s my duty to arrive. And because I’ve extended the consideration, if you do not show, then I’ll be mad because the consideration I’ve shown was not reciprocated.
Well, it’s not working because ever since smartphones came along, people took a dive off the moral ladder. For every example I am, there are 1 billion opposites.
I suppose it’s because he doesn’t have a puzzle to solve because it’s already solved, so no reason to chat about it. The ones who talk are the ones who haven’t solved their own problems. “The empty can rattles the most.”
Yes but then there are the plagues he dispensed which didn’t produce correction, but made the people dig in more in their ways.
Revelation 16:11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.
Where does the sense of duty originate?
Yes but knowledge progresses one funeral at a time. People don’t like to be corrected.
Yes exactly. You must hate that which threatens what you love.
A coincidental agreement defines the norm. Just ask a group of people what they feel is right and there you have a norm and the deviants.
Morality could be cyclical rather than steadily progressing one way or the other. We now have gay marriage, transgenderism, undermining the sanctity of marriage in general and family values, rejection of 10 commandments from schools, and 100s of other subtleties that contribute to an overall decline in having anything to stand for.
Like the Garden of Allah song by Don Henley:
[i]It was pretty big year for predators
The marketplace was on a roll
And the land of opportunity
Spawned a whole new breed of men without souls
This year, notoriety got all confused with fame
And the devil is downhearted babe, cause
There’s nothing left for him to claim
He said it’s just like home
It’s so low-down I can’t stand it
I guess my work around here has all been done [/i]
Y’know I remember when things were a lot more fun around here
When good was good and evil was evil
Before things got so fuzzy
azlyrics.com/lyrics/donhenl … allah.html
Maybe
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
I’m guessing either you built your principle on the sand and it fell or you built it upon a rock and then was lured away. So I suppose either it fell or you fell. The same things happened to me too.
GIA,
I agree. The seemingly “outdated” nature of religion can have the effect of causing a society to be non-progressive or worse. I believe the correct term is anachronistic.
That’s all good. I think that religion can have benefits for the individual, but it’s imposing nature hasn’t really worked for any of the societies where it is very prevalent. But that’s my Western perspective.
Serendipper,
That’s right. Although I would query whether the agreement is coincidental. People from the same culture / sub-culture may well share the same perspectives.
Very interesting. I agree, morality could be cyclical rather than progressive. But still, I think that there would be an upward curve, even if we look at a period of time of just 100 years, but there would be some “dips” along the curve. As for there being anything to stand for, I guess we have to choose our own reasons, rather than any cause being inherently worthy. And even if we think that something is inherently worthy of standing for, there are norms, values and dare I say political correctness to be considered.
Very good. With hindsight, my case was surely one of sand and it fell. Although at the time I was sure it was rock 
.
Okay, I understand what you expect.
You expect to have control over other people, how they react, how they interpret your actions - you can’t have that. You only have control over your own decisions, your own actions and your own interpretations.
If you think that you are above me, then it’s your thought and I can’t do anything about it.
If you think that I’m inconsiderate then that’s your evaluation of me. I can’t do anything about it. If you tell me,then I will consider the merit of your statement and I may do something to change my behavior or maybe not - It’s my decision, not yours.
Ignores all the instances when people have helped each other.
If morality was an evolutionary disadvantage then it would no longer exist except in perhaps small isolated cases. The advantageous adaptation would have been amorality. That’s not the current situation.
Sure but one environment selects for the next. We’ve had good weather for the last so many 1000s of years which caused culture to be one way rather than another and ultimately it just so happened. Prosperity engenders decadence since when times are good there is no selection force determining objectively why one way is better than another, so people abandon traditions thinking this time is different or perhaps not remembering the hardships of previous generations.
You think we’re more moral now than 100 yrs ago?
I think it’s a function of the number of people and general prosperity. When yahoo IM was the thing, people said goodnight, goodbye, TTYL. They had to wait until they got home to talk and was very excited to do so, but now we carry people around in our pocket, we don’t say goodnight or bye or go to hell because, who cares? People are of abundance so there is nothing selecting for considerate behavior. If someone protests, block him and pick from the multitude that remains.
We are raising a generation of deluded narcissists
Sometimes sandy clay can seem like a rock, until it rains 
Maybe you misread “No, I’ve been unceremoniously replying to everyone and every point for the last 4 months while quietly watching every single person here eventually fail to reciprocate and I’ve not said a peep until now and only because it’s an example of my morality affecting my decision, but not y’all’s.”
How could I expect to control other people when I never let them know? It’s a hopeless situation. I can’t change 8 billion people, so I gave up on them and if someone replies, fine; if not, fine. But that easy-going attitude comes with consequences since if I don’t regard humans above animals, or even on par, then I have no sympathy for them and if I see someone plotting destruction, I’m minding my own business rather than burdening myself with the obligation of protecting people who can’t display consideration for anyone else.
As I said before, I’ve gotten to the point that I’d rather throw things in the garbage than sell on craigslist because I can’t handle one more person breaking their word to me. “I’ll be there tomorrow at 6 to buy the widget you’re selling” and I take time out of my schedule to be available at 6 only to find they don’t show or call to let me know that they’ve changed their mind. I’ve transformed from the most considerate and helpful person you’d ever be lucky enough to know to a genuine misanthrope with no respect for humanity whatsoever.
In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes a misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: “Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable … and when it happens to someone often … he ends up … hating everyone.”[9] Misanthropy, then, is presented as a potential result of thwarted expectations or even excessively naïve optimism, since Plato argues that “art” would have allowed the potential misanthrope to recognize that the majority of men are to be found in between good and evil. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy
It’s not over yet and morality is declining… if we measure morality as consideration for others.
I read between the lines. If you really had no expectations then you would not be upset about their responses(or lack of responses).
That would be irrational.
Sounds like you are angry and resentful.
Notice that Plato says that the misanthrope’s solution of “hating everyone” can and should be avoided.
Morality is measured by consideration for others?
I’m not sure about that.
If it is a correct measure, then is consideration on the decline? How does one actually measure consideration?
Consider the possibility that at least one of those people experienced some of those responses you made in every instance not as examples of reciprocity. The act of answering with words is not necessarily responding. If you grasped at any possible point even if it contradicted previous ones, there is no reciprocity. Ah, they left me again. Well, sure, they found themselves alone, and so left. The noble victim tone seems out of place to me.
I did. I specifically addressed that in two ways, one based on what one is doing when stealing and how this differed from what was happening in the scenario and then I did it in relation to the definition you provided, by pointing out that one does in fact have a legal right to take weapons away from terrorists and so it is not considered, under the law, stealing.
Not relevant. I worked with YOUR definition.
Right laws can be immoral, as I have said elsewhere. But you are just shifting around. As it happens in the example given, the law, according to both you and me, is fine. It allows one to prevent a terrorist act by taking a bomb from the terrorists. It is not morally or legally an act of stealing.
That some other scenario in some other place might be is not relevant.
And you have a pattern of not responding to points or perhaps not even reading them, just jumping somewhere else and trying some other way to defend your position, rather than addressing particular points made. It ends up with one kind of rudeness where you respond that I have not addressed something when I have and then mounting arguments that have already be countered - if they have not been countered well, then demonstrate it, but is as if they never happened. That is rudeness two. It happened in the thread about moderation and it has happened in other places. It comes off like it is just too hard for you to admit you might be wrong, but I don’t know if that’s what it is.
No you have some hangups about Alan and didn’t want to talk anymore, but at least you told me. And this one has been hanging 12 days viewtopic.php?f=7&t=193363&start=225#p2698252
There may be others but I haven’t been keeping track. Maybe I shouldn’t include you, but it just it seems a ubiquitous trend. I don’t want to obligate anyone because I’d feel bad about that, but I’m just pointing out the trend of lack of consideration for others in general, whether it be on here, text, traffic, their promises. And the standards I hold have no influence on anyone else.
I told you my reasons for stopping, but you ‘know’ what my real reasons for stopping are: my hang ups. What I said my motivation was, I was incorrect about. You can mind read here and tell me what my motivations were. And that post will keep on hanging, despite how impressed I am with your psychic ability.
It is not even possible that I might have been in error about your arguments but honest about my motivations for stopping. Nor that I was right about your arguments. No, I was wrong about my motivations, period, Jeez.
I found your responses to have a lack of consideration for this reader. I explained that in that post. This is clearly not remotely a possibility to you. You keep producing words, so you must be the one being considerate. I don’t think that is necessarily the case, nor do I think it is the case in this instance.
Now you are presenting yourself as the lone honorable person, victimized by people who do not live up to a contract that I do not remember signing. I signed no contract that I must continue to respond to someone who does not seem to me to be being respectful to what he himself has said or to the work I am putting in, since, as I said in my last post in that thread, your arguments contradicted themselves and not subtly, so it felt like you would simply say anything to win or not lose your estimation of Watts. Amongst other things. If something is sufficiently disingenuous, I have feel no obligation to keep responding. Now, I am not saying you are a disingenuous person, but what was happening there, at that time seemed disingenuous to me. That possibility is just not there for you. So you know what my problem was: my hang ups.
Well, good luck with your imperviousness to feedback and your sense of victimization.
I wasn’t considering the legal aspects of stealing because I think that it’s a separate issue from the ethics of stealing.
My definition didn’t involve any legality(“Since I would define 'stealing” as taking somebody’s property without his/her permission, then it is stealing whatever the motives or intent."). My mistake was using the dictionary definition without editing it. I didn’t realize that you would fixate on the “legal rights” phrase. I didn’t want to discuss laws. But apparently that’s the most important factor for you.
I still don’t want to discuss law.
I’m sorry that you don’t like my posting style.
I was wrong to post that dictionary definition but I was not wrong in the other aspects of my posts.
These complaints of yours have grown tiresome very quickly.
Let it hang. I stand by my abilities.
That’s only your interpretation, which I don’t agree with. How am I inconsiderate?
Should I keep it a secret? Would you feel better if you didn’t know? Should I repress my emotions?
Evaluation is not a contract.
Then don’t. Did you sign a contract not to lie? So why not lie too? Shit man, take the plunge! To hell with everyone; we’re all pricks, weren’t you paying attention: misanthrope. No one can live up to my standards and I’m a judgmental hypocrite, so we’re all bad therefore you have no moral obligation, so why not just embody what I’m bitching about? Own it!
That’s entirely possible, but I’ve no clue what you’re referring to.
If you have to work at this, you shouldn’t do it. It should be fun.
I said I fixed your misunderstanding that they contradicted. No contradiction. You didn’t reply.
That’s the wrong impression. I’d love to find some good objections.
Thanks