Rush to Judgement

[Quahom1]

True, but that brings us around to codified morality. There is a distinction.

I'll have to get back, gotta take of something...

What is codified about being moral? Either we are, or we are not, or we are somewhere in between.

I suspect most are moral but in between concerning the code. Which means, we have no right to judge another...(oh oh) but that has nothing to do with making society work within its machinations...which this thread started with...

 

[cyberpi]

The simple fact that you are still here to continue goading about an event that took place more than a year ago should serve as ample evidence to the contrary, that I am not like the distorted picture you paint.

Is this forum not for goading about an event that occured 2000 years ago? Or is it to discuss the OP, born from your imagination this month.

Anyone familiar with the case in question, or who should choose to look and consider for themselves, would realize that I too am human, just like Silas and Niranjan. Sometimes choices must be made for the benefit of the whole, and maybe those choices are not the ideal because the situation is not ideal. I fail to see how you can continue to fault someone for doing what he felt was in the best interests of the whole at the time.

If you don't see and have nothing to repent then there is nothing there to forgive.

Can't argue with a deaf mute, especially if he is blind...

Good point... impossible to argue with Silas and Niranjan now.

 

[juantoo3]

There is no "we". animals have nothing on man. It is Us, and us alone. No matter what an animal does, it does no wrong. Man on the otherhand is not so fortunate to have that ace in the hand...

The attitude of "us" automatically sets up a "them" to leave outside of the moral circle.

All life is interconnected, there is no "outside" to the circle of life. Which is why I suggest we need to begin to look at things from the point of "we" instead of "us."

This is probably going around my elbow to get to my tail, but judgement, animal nature, morals, codified moral laws, and experiential religion all are related to each other, and all come together. How we relate and associate inside any one of these impacts on how we relate and associate in all of these.

 

[juantoo3]

What is codified about being moral? Either we are, or we are not, or we are somewhere in between.

Codified basically means written, which means writing must exist, which means codified morality (aka moral "codes") are by definition limited to humans. The Code of Hammurabi was one of the earliest, the Ten Commandments being another early codified morality set.

Animals do not have the Ten Commandments, and they cannot read the Code of Hammurabi. Even the Noachide laws are meaningless to creatures other than humans. Written laws mean nothing to any animals other than humans. Yet, allowing for the possible risk of anthropomorphizing the situation, there does seem to be some real evidence of moral behavior among herding and pack animals. There are examples of moral treatment from human to human even in prehistory, before humans had writing. So this is no chicken and egg question, definitively it is evident morality existed long before writing and codified morality. We were moral before we had religious institutions.

I suspect most are moral but in between concerning the code. Which means, we have no right to judge another...(oh oh) but that has nothing to do with making society work within its machinations...which this thread started with...

Ah! So there are limitations to the ideal?