Mine is very simple..... ADD MEASURABLE VALUE.
Mine is very simple..... ADD MEASURABLE VALUE.
I wonder how many people maybe just on the average would never even think this way because they’re so preoccupied with what is in it for them?
I see people look out for themselves to the point they hurt themselves.
It breaks my heart.
I also see people that have the ability to add measurable value but they negate the value they offer about doing things that are counterproductive for hurtful to others or the company they work for.
Good post - If someone did that it would pretty much take care of a lot else. They would show up for life.
Providing measurable value is the result of action.... not necessarily a philosophy.
Sigh...
Here we go again...
Our nation was NOT founded on "Christian principles" - more like "universal principles". Indeed, the first people to come here were Christians fleeing other Christians. Christians didn't invent our principles, they mostly came from Plato and he didn't invent them either. And EVERYTHING is relative to something else, NOTHING is absolute - on this plane of existence at least.
I'll be the first to admit that I have significant problems with Christianity, some of its so-called "morals", parts of its theology, most of its doctrines, and virtually all of its dogma - just as I do with ANY form of monotheism. Being completely honest here, and not trying to put Chris, or anyone else, down. It gets tiresome when Christians claim they invented "everything" when they didn't, esp. after 2,000 years of bad history. The principles so often touted as "Christian" have been around since long before Jesus was a gleam in Joseph's eye - i.e. from the dawn of philosophy.
I certainly do NOT want to live in a "Christian Nation", I want to live in an ETHICAL Nation, and that concept flew the coop about 15 minutes after the constitution was signed unfortunately - its been chipped away at from all angles ever since.
Agreed. At the risk of sounding like a semanticist, I don't care for the word "morals", preferring "ethics" instead. All too often "morals" are arbitrary religious rules that are not necessarily "universal" - see the "10 Commandments" for a good example: some are universal, some are peculiar to Abrahamic monotheism. I generally don't care for moralists as they usually carp about their particular religion's rules that don't apply to those outside said religion - but that is exactly what I've come to expect from absolutists.Well said @Zorba!
I get a kick when Christians suggest that "morals" are somehow inherent to Christianity, despite >2000 years of evidence to the contrary. Though, when you think about it, it isn't very surprising; many of the folks that suggest we "put the Christ back in Christmas" don't realize that the majority of the holidays that are celebrated by Christians are nothing more than repackaged holidays anyways (not that I blame them, why reinvent the wheel).
If we made a Venn diagram of all the "morals" by all the world's religions, current and historical, we can easily see that the overwhelming majority of what many would consider to be a modern set of morals has roots as old as civilization itself. Just a few years ago, anthropologists studied 60 cultures around the world and showed that they shared 7 key "moral rules". In summary, they are:
1) help your family2) help your group (aka community)3) return favours4) be brave5) defer to superiors6) divide resources fairly7) respect others’ property
The best part of the study to me is the fact that there wasn't a single culture that they studied that viewed any of the above "morals" as "bad". Although it's been ~20 years since I've taken my last religious studies class, I can still give a few dozen quotes from religious texts that can easily fit into one of the above "boxes". Morals are indeed universal to humanity, though when we study primates and other high functioning mammals, it becomes clear to see that they may not be as exclusive as we think.
EXACTLY! That's why "beliefs" should NOT be codified into laws - I don't want to be forced to obey laws based on other people's opinions. Which is EXACTLY what the Left is doing now! They've got their religion, and have learned from the Right how to shove it down everyone's throats.No one is right… and no one is wrong.. each belief…. Is a belief… which is still a “opinion”… wether your a pagan or a christian.. .. its still a belief. Wether your a Democrat or republican… it’s still a belief… each side has horrible people that makes both sides sound terrible..
.. that’s why it seems that’s it’s people that are usually the pawn or action in each “party” or “religion”… generally people are friendly and caring… don’t believe me… watch a town get flooded.. or a town ripped to shreds by a tornado!!..
Now as to the gyration at the top of this thread… my philosophy is an eye for an eye..or do unto others as you would have them do unto you… I will give you my heart or all my money if it’s necessary… or I will hold both your legs as I pitch you into the river!!
Kinda kidding about the last statement but you understand
No one is right… and no one is wrong.. each belief…. Is a belief… which is still a “opinion”… wether your a pagan or a christian.. .. its still a belief. Wether your a Democrat or republican… it’s still a belief… each side has horrible people that makes both sides sound terrible..
.. that’s why it seems that’s it’s people that are usually the pawn or action in each “party” or “religion”… generally people are friendly and caring… don’t believe me… watch a town get flooded.. or a town ripped to shreds by a tornado!!..
Now as to the gyration at the top of this thread… my philosophy is an eye for an eye..or do unto others as you would have them do unto you… I will give you my heart or all my money if it’s necessary… or I will hold both your legs as I pitch you into the river!!
Kinda kidding about the last statement but you understand
He knows that the best philosophy of life is just to hang out more with me
I think that's what gets me and him in trouble!!!!!!
Agreed. At the risk of sounding like a semanticist, I don't care for the word "morals", preferring "ethics" instead. All too often "morals" are arbitrary religious rules that are not necessarily "universal" - see the "10 Commandments" for a good example: some are universal, some are peculiar to Abrahamic monotheism. I generally don't care for moralists as they usually carp about their particular religion's rules that don't apply to those outside said religion - but that is exactly what I've come to expect from absolutists.
EXACTLY! That's why "beliefs" should NOT be codified into laws - I don't want to be forced to obey laws based on other people's opinions. Which is EXACTLY what the Left is doing now! They've got their religion, and have learned from the Right how to shove it down everyone's throats.
Now I'll confuse the entire board with this statement: The Christ was incarnated on the Earth to bring the concept of Forgiveness, to replace the ancient eye-for-an-eye ideal. Which isn't to say that at times the latter still doesn't have its place!
If that is indeed the case, small wonder I have little truck with moralists. Culture can be a beautiful thing. It can also be VERY ugly - but it very seldom has much connection with ultimate truth. I fly in the face of culture, "norms" and expectations every damn day. There are moralists who would, and do, object to that. Too damn bad. Mrs Grundy can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.My definition of "ethics" is specific to individual actions, behaviors, or choices. Morals on the other hand are more widely-shared beliefs common across community, culture, or societal norms or expectations. Basically, "morals" are the customs of a group/society/culture and "ethics" is the character of the individuals within those groups.
Which shows how something like this is RELATIVE because:Morals are more broadly applicable and could be applied to any situation. Something like "always tell the truth" is applicable (generally) across every situation a person could encounter.
An absolutist wouldn't do this, and also illustrates the importance of Ethics and shows "Morals" as being inadequate.For example, if your wife asks if a dress makes her butt look fat, or if your toddler asks if their drawing of a penguin is pretty, you may chose to ignore your moral compass for a moment and make an ethical decision
And just to reiterate…. You started again with this left and right thing…. They are the same dam people!!!! They just want to be in power and make the rules!!!…if you were in power you would call me a racist for wanting to build a wall … but then you would build a wall and say it to keep the people crossing the border safe from crossing in those areas!!!! either side… doesn’t matter… the shit they “do” while in power effects less then 5 percent of the population…nothing has changed in the past 40 years… we go thru a recession… we come out of a recession… men are trying to get hired on at hooters… trannys are trying to get into sororities….. minorities are repressed… Russia wants to get in a war… we’ve had global warming for 50 years…
Maybe I should have been more clear when I said "culture, norms and expectations" - I was referring to them in the sense of good vs. bad (morals) and right vs. wrong (ethics). Culture, particularly in the broader definition, is an extremely diverse concept that encompases all that it means to be part of humanity (from a larger, societal/communal viewpoint). As you said, culture in this use can be (and is!) extremely beautiful, though there are certainly very ugly corners.If that is indeed the case, small wonder I have little truck with moralists. Culture can be a beautiful thing. It can also be VERY ugly - but it very seldom has much connection with ultimate truth. I fly in the face of culture, "norms" and expectations every damn day. There are moralists who would, and do, object to that. Too damn bad. Mrs Grundy can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
An interesting approach and certainly agree with your assessment that the answers, if answerable, would never be found in a rule book written by humans.Ethics - to my mind - asks "Who gets hurt?" or at least "How can I do the least harm?" Thorny questions that have been debated for millennia, and I certainly don't have the answers. But I do know that the answers aren't to be found in the rule books of moralists, nor in laws, rules or regulations. All such are imperfect attempts to codify the uncodifiable: Ethics!
Good conversation!
It gets particularly bad when people start worshiping their BOOKs instead of their Deity(ies) the BOOK is supposedly inspired by.And to be clear, I agree that "ethics" is more important, fundamentally and from a societal standpoint, that any "morals", published or otherwise.