|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 11:16:48 GMT
I think it's wrong to moralize in general.
"Moralize" does not refer to "making any judgment on morality." I'm not saying that it's wrong for someone to say that it's wrong to commit murders or anything like that.
"Moralize," rather, refers to:
* "to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way,"
* "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority."
Moralizing involves being negatively judgmental, most often about relatively petty events. They're not relatively petty events to the moralizer, of course. But that's part of the problem.
As I wrote recently in another post on another thread, my approach is basically the following.
Did the person in question:
(1) Do something that put someone in the hospital or that requires long-term medical care for an injury?
(2) Steal or vandalize significant property? (So not something like a drug store pen.)
(3) Do something that significantly interferes with a person's ability to make a reasonable living (for their skills and education level, and this includes their opportunity to gain skills and an education)?
If the answer to any of those questions is "no," then chill the fuck out and leave the person in question alone. Otherwise you're probably moralizing, with all of the negative connotations of that term. And definitely don't do (3) yourself in response to whatever the person did that you should basically be ignoring instead.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 11:31:46 GMT
A shorter way to put it, and a good rule of thumb is this:
Your default should be to not judge others and to just leave people alone in that regard. The test for whether you should take the default is this: "If I leave this alone and don't judge it, will the actions and events in question have any long-term negative practical effect on anyone's daily life?" And you need to be able to specify just what the long-term negative practical effect would be.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 12:18:59 GMT
It's easier to be able to pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing when that's what you're taught to do from the start and that's what society expects and you'll get plenty of support. It's harder to break away from doing the wrong thing or call people out on it when it's not regarded by the masses as the wrong thing. It takes more bravery to speak out against it when what you're saying isn't popular.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 16:08:32 GMT
I think it's wrong to moralize in general. "Moralize" does not refer to "making any judgment on morality." I'm not saying that it's wrong for someone to say that it's wrong to commit murders or anything like that. "Moralize," rather, refers to: * "to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way," * "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority." Moralizing involves being negatively judgmental, most often about relatively petty events. They're not relatively petty events to the moralizer, of course. But that's part of the problem. As I wrote recently in another post on another thread, my approach is basically the following. Did the person in question: (1) Do something that put someone in the hospital or that requires long-term medical care for an injury? (2) Steal or vandalize significant property? (So not something like a drug store pen.) (3) Do something that significantly interferes with a person's ability to make a reasonable living (for their skills and education level, and this includes their opportunity to gain skills and an education)? If the answer to any of those questions is "no," then chill the fuck out and leave the person in question alone. Otherwise you're probably moralizing, with all of the negative connotations of that term. And definitely don't do (3) yourself in response to whatever the person did that you should basically be ignoring instead. Most would probably agree with your sentiments. ("Moralize" is by connotation, and practically by definition, negative and involves self-righteousness.)
But I am more interested here in thinking about how to evaluate the behavior of people in the past for deciding whether their behavior should be used as a guidepost for how to behave in general. As in, "this is how they dealt with these issues, and maybe we should follow their lead" vs "this is how they dealt with these issues, and we definitely should not follow their lead."
Besides, there are still a lot of gaps that are not covered by your prescription. What if John beats his wife, but never so severely that she needs to be in a hospital or requires long-term medical care for an injury?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 16:11:17 GMT
It's easier to be able to pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing when that's what you're taught to do from the start and that's what society expects and you'll get plenty of support. It's harder to break away from doing the wrong thing or call people out on it when it's not regarded by the masses as the wrong thing. It takes more bravery to speak out against it when what you're saying isn't popular. Does the fact that the masses regard something as "the right thing" make it the right thing?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 6, 2018 16:16:11 GMT
Depends on what you mean by 'Christian'. Do you consider yourself a person who follows or belongs to a religion based on the worship of one God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 19:29:53 GMT
I think it's wrong to moralize in general. "Moralize" does not refer to "making any judgment on morality." I'm not saying that it's wrong for someone to say that it's wrong to commit murders or anything like that. "Moralize," rather, refers to: * "to reflect on or express opinions about something in terms of right and wrong, especially in a self-righteous or tiresome way," * "comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority." Moralizing involves being negatively judgmental, most often about relatively petty events. They're not relatively petty events to the moralizer, of course. But that's part of the problem. As I wrote recently in another post on another thread, my approach is basically the following. Did the person in question: (1) Do something that put someone in the hospital or that requires long-term medical care for an injury? (2) Steal or vandalize significant property? (So not something like a drug store pen.) (3) Do something that significantly interferes with a person's ability to make a reasonable living (for their skills and education level, and this includes their opportunity to gain skills and an education)? If the answer to any of those questions is "no," then chill the fuck out and leave the person in question alone. Otherwise you're probably moralizing, with all of the negative connotations of that term. And definitely don't do (3) yourself in response to whatever the person did that you should basically be ignoring instead. Most would probably agree with your sentiments. ("Moralize" is by connotation, and practically by definition, negative and involves self-righteousness.)
But I am more interested here in thinking about how to evaluate the behavior of people in the past for deciding whether their behavior should be used as a guidepost for how to behave in general. As in, "this is how they dealt with these issues, and maybe we should follow their lead" vs "this is how they dealt with these issues, and we definitely should not follow their lead."
Besides, there are still a lot of gaps that are not covered by your prescription. What if John beats his wife, but never so severely that she needs to be in a hospital or requires long-term medical care for an injury? We're not talking about much of a "beating" if a person doesn't need medical care.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 19:32:07 GMT
Most would probably agree with your sentiments. ("Moralize" is by connotation, and practically by definition, negative and involves self-righteousness.)
But I am more interested here in thinking about how to evaluate the behavior of people in the past for deciding whether their behavior should be used as a guidepost for how to behave in general. As in, "this is how they dealt with these issues, and maybe we should follow their lead" vs "this is how they dealt with these issues, and we definitely should not follow their lead."
Besides, there are still a lot of gaps that are not covered by your prescription. What if John beats his wife, but never so severely that she needs to be in a hospital or requires long-term medical care for an injury? We're not talking about much of a "beating" if a person doesn't need medical care. That's besides the point. We don't need to accept walking around being beat upon or physically attacked by someone else just as long as he or she stops before medical care is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 19:38:00 GMT
We're not talking about much of a "beating" if a person doesn't need medical care. That's besides the point. We don't need to accept walking around being beat upon or physically attacked by someone else just as long as he or she stops before medical care is needed. I think we do. We don't need someone causing a problem just because someone stepped on their foot or tapped their arm or whatever. It's a matter of using common sense re the degree of "assault."
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 19:39:45 GMT
That's besides the point. We don't need to accept walking around being beat upon or physically attacked by someone else just as long as he or she stops before medical care is needed. I think we do. We don't need someone causing a problem just because someone stepped on their foot or tapped their arm or whatever. What did I write that came across as talking about tapping an arm or stepping on a foot?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 19:44:00 GMT
I think we do. We don't need someone causing a problem just because someone stepped on their foot or tapped their arm or whatever. What did I write that came across as talking about tapping an arm or stepping on a foot? We're talking about "assaults" that do not require medical attention. Those are the sorts of assaults that do not require medical attention, that do not leave any traces past a very short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 19:50:27 GMT
What did I write that came across as talking about tapping an arm or stepping on a foot? We're talking about "assaults" that do not require medical attention. Those are the sorts of assaults that do not require medical attention, that do not leave any traces past a very short period of time. Are you saying it would be okay to punch me so long as it's not so bad that it needs treatment (and I don't bruise too badly)?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 20:13:46 GMT
We're talking about "assaults" that do not require medical attention. Those are the sorts of assaults that do not require medical attention, that do not leave any traces past a very short period of time. Are you saying it would be okay to punch me so long as it's not so bad that it needs treatment (and I don't bruise too badly)? Yes, the sort of punch that wouldn't require any medical attention and that there would be no sign of a few days later. (Which wouldn't be much of a punch.)
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 20:20:57 GMT
Are you saying it would be okay to punch me so long as it's not so bad that it needs treatment (and I don't bruise too badly)? Yes, the sort of punch that wouldn't require any medical attention and that there would be no sign of a few days later. (Which wouldn't be much of a punch.) With all due respect who in the world are you to decide for me if I have to put up with that?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 20:26:22 GMT
Yes, the sort of punch that wouldn't require any medical attention and that there would be no sign of a few days later. (Which wouldn't be much of a punch.) With all due respect who in the world are you to decide for me if I have to put up with that? Who do you think decides anything about anything re laws, morality, etc.?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 20:27:47 GMT
With all due respect who in the world are you to decide for me if I have to put up with that? Who do you think decides anything about anything re laws, morality, etc.? Not you when it comes to if you can have physical contact and play around with me. I'm not a little boy or teenager who is into horseplay. If I say not okay it's not okay.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 6, 2018 20:42:45 GMT
Who do you think decides anything about anything re laws, morality, etc.? Not you when it comes to if you can have physical contact and play around with me. I'm not a little boy or teenager who is into horseplay. If I say not okay it's not okay. Well, who, and why that person?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 6, 2018 20:51:14 GMT
Not you when it comes to if you can have physical contact and play around with me. I'm not a little boy or teenager who is into horseplay. If I say not okay it's not okay. Well, who, and why that person? Who else is supposed to decide what I'll accept? I don't even understand your question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2018 21:25:27 GMT
I'm especially interested in how Christians feel about this. I know a lot of Christians who are well versed in situation morality, so they would be able to offer a lot of advice.
Then again, a lot of people are good with situation morality, not just Christians.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 6, 2018 21:30:54 GMT
What about other cultures and periods throughout history? Should be 'judge' cannibals? Should we judge Sth Americans in past centuries who did child sacrifices? Egyptians who married their close relatives? Surely if you believe in a God given set of absolute objective morals, we should do so? I in no way said that there is only one set of absolute morals. I literally said in the statement you quoted that there are a few moral standards. The OP made it clear that there are differing moral standards, so not sure why you even wasted time bringing it up. YOU claimed that there were a few moral standards in 1st century Christians that are the same today. Presumably you live by those still and would they be the 10 commandments?
|
|