The Characters of Moral Thought

[MultipleTentacles]

I've come up with four characters of moral thought... I wonder if someone can (and perhaps even challenge someone to) come up with more.

These four characters are as follows:

The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps.

An example would be the moral idea that each step for world peace makes a difference, but no logical steps are available to take at the moment.

The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.

An example would be the question: should I invest in the markets? Either yes because: by investing in morally sound ventures encourages moral thought, and it is analogous to giving a loan to someone--if someone just gives free money, that could engender the idea that one does not have to be responsible to society. Or, no because: the very idea of investment is based on greed--requiring that charity must be reciprocated is a greedy approach. By investing one only creates the cause for bad decisions based on greed.

The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.

An example would be the role of advertising. Is it okay to make people want something? If one has the intention of creating an unhealthy system of dependence on the product in question, it could be bad. However, if one simply capitalizes on desires that are already there, it is just a natural outcome of people's desires and morally neutral.

The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.

An example would be creating a large magazine for a certain medical disorder. If enough people have the disorder, this decision is justified. However, if only one or two people in the world have it, it's probably better for patients to rely on news from their doctors alone.

[jufa]

Hi MultipleTentacles!

Like to say at the beginning of this post I am here not to prove anyone right or wrong, for this is an impossibility from what I've come to comprehend.

I find your assesment of the first step also an impossibility. Should it be true that at some point in your Brick Wall observation The Brick Wall: Where one follows a line of reasoning, and wishes to continue, but there seems to be no logical next step following the end of a sequence of steps. then mankind would never have advanced from the dark age. Thinking never ends, and solutions are always before the question is.

The Difficult Decision: Where two or more separate logical lines of reasoning about the same subject (or moral choice) seem to lead to opposing but equally valid conclusions with reference to their respective lines of reasoning.

There are always different lines of reasoning concerning situations, circumstances, ans conditions because of angles of perception. One should always follow their inner conscious. To do so will not only supply one with true directions which will be not onlybeneficial to them, but who steps into that direction.

The Fine Line: Where a set of moral choices with a high degree of similarity and exceedingly subtle distinctions lead to greatly different and opposed conclusions.

Every man, woman, and child are responsible to themselves. The solution to any choice rest in the individual to be true to themselves. To follow their bliss. Should one follow their bliss, there can be no dilemma. Hard time, and struggling, but one will never look back and say I should have done this, or gone there, etc, etc.

The Empirical Scale: Where a moral choice changes based on the number of empirical observations that fall into different categories.

Is the whole greater than the one when it the one who collectively make up the greater? Is not choice to be left in the hands of the one who seek a solution beyond the belief of the whole who generally accept the "THEY SAY" syndrome?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[MultipleTentacles]

I find your assesment of the first step also an impossibility. Should it be true that at some point in your Brick Wall observation then mankind would never have advanced from the dark age. Thinking never ends, and solutions are always before the question is.

Firstly, I certainly did not intend to indicate these four characters as "steps". It doesn't make sense that one starts with #1 then moves on to #4. Rather, in my experience, these characters arise when one is engaged in deep thought on the moral character of something, and which one arises depends on the question one is trying to answer.

Secondly, I agree: "brick walls" are never ultimate. One never comes to a brick wall in any ultimate sense, because, as you say, "thinking never ends."

There are always different lines of reasoning concerning situations, circumstances, ans conditions because of angles of perception. One should always follow their inner conscious. To do so will not only supply one with true directions which will be not onlybeneficial to them, but who steps into that direction.

Yes, this is also true, to some extent. However, I don't think generally one should abandon one line of reasoning just because one has some subtle instinct to do so. There is usually plenty of time for internal discourse over the nature of a decision.

However, if it can be found that one's instinct is the only thing which would tip the balance of a decision in any direction at all, then there is a good case for following one's instinct. This character of moral thought can only arise when all the knowledge of the decision in question is equally balanced between the options. In other words, if you can't decide what path to choose based on all the conventional reasoning, it is a difficult decision.

Every man, woman, and child are responsible to themselves. The solution to any choice rest in the individual to be true to themselves. To follow their bliss. Should one follow their bliss, there can be no dilemma. Hard time, and struggling, but one will never look back and say I should have done this, or gone there, etc, etc.

Again, this is true. However, it can sometimes be extremely difficult to know what will actually bring "bliss." It may well be the case that the dilemma may not ultimately arise. It's like that one quote of Theodore Roosevelt: "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." I think what he was describing by "moment of decision" is essentially my "fine line" character of moral thought. The dilemma appeared as a dilemma, thus it was a "moment of decision." But Roosevelt's predisposition was to take action, thus the dilemma was not a "real" dilemma.

Is the whole greater than the one when it the one who collectively make up the greater? Is not choice to be left in the hands of the one who seek a solution beyond the belief of the whole who generally accept the "THEY SAY" syndrome?

In some cases it is best to weigh consequences. It may be true, in theory, that the only right decision is the decision that is good for everybody. However, in the real world, one may quickly need to abandon "good for all" or even "good for one" if one is to get by.

[jufa]

Was not speaking upon your intent, was addressing your challenge: I've come up with four characters of moral thought... I wonder if someone can (and perhaps even challenge someone to) come up with more.

These four characters are as follows,:then you proceed to give your presentation in steps, and examples.

Thereafter I addressed each and every disposition you presented in the alignment of order you fronted.

Everyone is different in their approach to expressing their experience. For some it may take deep thought as you have indicated, for other it may just take a quick glance for comprehension. Either way, is right for the one who response by deep thought or quick glance.

Never said one should abandone their line of reasoning. Said one should follow the advise of their inner conscience. When it is stated "let your conscience be your guide" it always gathers in the whole because "no man is an island, entire of themselves." So if one would love themselves properly, they will automatically love others adequately. If one will not lie to ones self, they certainly will not be able to lie to someone else because they have set a stardard of conduct for themselves which they will not break unless they become "penny wise and pound foolish."

The journey of man is filled with shattered dreams. But dream one must, and to attempt to reach that dream is the difficult extreme of interpretation which comes when one does not understand the journey is not in reaching a final destination, but is the journey itself.

Regardless of what is said, there is only one real world for the individual, and that is the world of his thoughts. To However, in the real world, one may quickly need to abandon "good for all" or even "good for one" if one is to get by. is to abandone ones integrity, and disrupt the harmony of ones inner peace. Be true to thyself and one cannot help but be true to their fellow man in the truth of what they are.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[MultipleTentacles]

Was not speaking upon your intent, was addressing your challenge:

Aha. Then there is another character which you presented... I will define that character as the "Mundane Decision." Whenever one is engaged in moral thought and their conscience provides an answer which is obviously reasonable, it falls into this fifth character.

Regardless of what is said, there is only one real world for the individual, and that is the world of his thoughts. To ... is to abandone ones integrity, and disrupt the harmony of ones inner peace. Be true to thyself and one cannot help but be true to their fellow man in the truth of what they are.

Well that's all well and good until you get in your car and drive somewhere, killing hundreds of innocent insects; until you breathe in the air and swallow a bug; until you, living in Australia, are faced with hundreds of rabbits--some of whom must be shot; until you, living in a third world country, are forced to pay money to evil corporations just to get a drink of water; until you, again, living in a third world country, are forced to buy American food, even though you know the people who sell it are driving your brother farmers off the land and into unemployment. What are you going to do, not go to work? Not breathe? Let rabbits destroy your entire ecosystem? Go thirsty? Starve to death? Clearly sometimes we must make sacrifices for the greater good.

That said, my words were probably clumsy. I said:

However, in the real world, one may quickly need to abandon "good for all" or even "good for one" if one is to get by.

Perhaps I implied that it's necessary sometimes to give up "greatest possible good". This ideal is something no one should give up. But I don't think every moment one can directly benefit everybody. Maybe eventually good decisions will benefit everybody, but not right when they're done.

[jufa]

MT, I enjoy you, and I even laugh out loud sometimes upon reading you. For example:

Aha. Then there is another character which you presented... I will define that character as the "Mundane Decision." Whenever one is engaged in moral thought and their conscience provides an answer which is obviously reasonable, it falls into this fifth character.

Laughted because you have saw something that is not there. How could I have spoken upon your intent when I was not a guest to your trend of thought when you began speaking on "THE CHARACTERS OF MORAL THOUGHTS"? and issued your challenged. All I did was tell you I know nothing of your intent, no more, no less.

Well that's all well and good until you get in your car and drive somewhere, killing hundreds of innocent insects; until you breathe in the air and swallow a bug; until you, living in Australia, are faced with hundreds of rabbits--some of whom must be shot; until you, living in a third world country, are forced to pay money to evil corporations just to get a drink of water; until you, again, living in a third world country, are forced to buy American food, even though you know the people who sell it are driving your brother farmers off the land and into unemployment. What are you going to do, not go to work? Not breathe? Let rabbits destroy your entire ecosystem? Go thirsty? Starve to death? Clearly sometimes we must make sacrifices for the greater good.

That said, my words were probably clumsy. I said:

As long as you can convey your position honerably and earnest, you are never clumsy. I can appreciate what you are saying, "but you shall always have the poor with you," and bugs, and poverty, and starvation, and killing, and mistreating mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, friends, and men because these things and entities are just as much a rudiment of the dust of the earth as we are. These things, and entities are the balance of power of repetitiveness the universal human mentality depends upon in individual man until the form of man is no longer need to sustain its Dr. Jekyll, and Mr. Hyde personalities. Death is the discard of the old so the new can have a place of universal human mind continuum.

These things you spoke about happens nowhere else but in the world of man's comprehensive mind of interpretation. Don't feel sorry for mankind, feel angry with individual man for allowing the darkness of the mind to overshadow the light which would eliminate all that you spoke upon should all reach and turn their lights on. Should every man, woman, child, of the living and the dead let their light shine, where could darkness find a home?

[MultipleTentacles]

Do you think I was asking you to fill in the blanks and complete what I had left incomplete? Because if so, you are correct, that is what I was asking for. It seems, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that my "intent" is my own, and your intent is your own. As you can see, I'm continually trying to piece together what you are saying and respond to it.

You say:

Laughted because you have saw something that is not there.

I saw something that was there... a hole in my "order" of objects (what you have called "steps.") Perhaps what you meant to say was that I saw something that was not part of your intent. But I think it's not true that it wasn't there. Notice--every systematic response to my four characters that you gave in some way implied the "Mundane Decision."

Thinking never ends, and solutions are always before the question is. ... One should always follow their inner conscious.

This implies a constant stream of mundane decisionmaking.

Every man, woman, and child are responsible to themselves. The solution to any choice rest in the individual to be true to themselves. To follow their bliss.

Following one's bliss also involves mundane decisionmaking--it implies that one's bliss is something which is present, recognizable, and followable. It implies that "bliss" will always be there, and one can always simply follow it.

Is the whole greater than the one when it the one who collectively make up the greater? Is not choice to be left in the hands of the one who seek a solution beyond the belief of the whole who generally accept the "THEY SAY" syndrome?

This is sort of the negative of saying "follow your bliss." It is saying "don't follow everyone else's non-bliss." Again, this implies a simple decision which can be made by the individual.

Now my other four characters are more esoteric because they don't happen as often. But I contend that they do happen. Every once in a while, one runs into a fine line, or a difficult decision, or a brick wall, or an empirical scale.

Now it could be that when you say "Was not speaking upon your intent, was addressing your challenge..." you were saying essentially "I am talking about your challenge now, but not doing what you intended me to do." (From there you proceeded to say something along the lines of "this challenge is impossible to meet, because of the laws of existentialism.") Is this correct?

Anyway, here is the character of what I wished to say. My four characters are simply things people often come across, and if they reflect any kind of "order," I think it is only the order of this world system (i.e. the universe--in a scientific sense, not in the sense of everything that is.) This is why I issued a challenge. Perhaps I am not very experienced, and there were other characters I have not come across, or perhaps I had come across them and did not remember them.

I guess the danger of saying something like this, i.e. saying "there is X... X exists" is that there isn't much room for discussion. One could simply say "yup." A more interesting question would be, what is the nature of moral thought anyway? Where do morals come from? What makes us so attuned to the ideas of right and wrong? I think when one thinks deep moral thoughts, on any subject, these four characters appear. (And when one does not need to think deep moral thoughts, the fifth one--"Mundane Decision"--comes into play.)

[MultipleTentacles]

Do you think I was asking you to fill in the blanks and complete what I had left incomplete? Because if so, you are correct, that is what I was asking for. It seems, if I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that my "intent" is my own, and your intent is your own. As you can see, I'm continually trying to piece together what you are saying and respond to it.

You say:

Laughted because you have saw something that is not there.

I saw something that was there... a hole in my "order" of objects (what you have called "steps.") Perhaps what you meant to say was that I saw something that was not part of your intent. But I think it's not true that it wasn't there. Notice--every systematic response to my four characters that you gave in some way implied the "Mundane Decision."

Thinking never ends, and solutions are always before the question is. ... One should always follow their inner conscious.

This implies a constant stream of mundane decisionmaking.

Every man, woman, and child are responsible to themselves. The solution to any choice rest in the individual to be true to themselves. To follow their bliss.

Following one's bliss also involves mundane decisionmaking--it implies that one's bliss is something which is present, recognizable, and followable. It implies that "bliss" will always be there, and one can always simply follow it.

Is the whole greater than the one when it the one who collectively make up the greater? Is not choice to be left in the hands of the one who seek a solution beyond the belief of the whole who generally accept the "THEY SAY" syndrome?

This is sort of the negative of saying "follow your bliss." It is saying "don't follow everyone else's non-bliss." Again, this implies a simple decision which can be made by the individual.

Now my other four characters are more esoteric because they don't happen as often. But I contend that they do happen. Every once in a while, one runs into a fine line, or a difficult decision, or a brick wall, or an empirical scale.

Now it could be that when you say "Was not speaking upon your intent, was addressing your challenge..." you were saying essentially "I am talking about your challenge now, but not doing what you intended me to do." (From there you proceeded to say something along the lines of "this challenge is impossible to meet, because of the laws of existentialism.") Is this correct?

Anyway, here is the character of what I wished to say. My four characters are simply things people often come across, and if they reflect any kind of "order," I think it is only the order of this world system (i.e. the universe--in a scientific sense, not in the sense of everything that is.) This is why I issued a challenge. Perhaps I am not very experienced, and there were other characters I have not come across, or perhaps I had come across them and did not remember them.

I guess the danger of saying something like this, i.e. saying "there is X... X exists" is that there isn't much room for discussion. One could simply say "yup." A more interesting question would be, what is the nature of moral thought anyway? Where do morals come from? What makes us so attuned to the ideas of right and wrong? I think when one thinks deep moral thoughts, on any subject, these four characters appear. (And when one does not need to think deep moral thoughts, the fifth one--"Mundane Decision"--comes into play.) This does not, however, necessarily answer the deep questions about morality.

[schrodinger]

I've come up with four characters of moral thought... I wonder if someone can (and perhaps even challenge someone to) come up with more....

Rather than trying to expand on the four characterizations you made, my approach would be to reduce them down into One question: Will more harm than good come from this?

Of course, this is dependent upon the existence of a clear definition or understanding of “harm” and “good”, but for the sake of argument let us suppose such a clear distinction exists.

In that case there is no such thing as a difficult decision or a brick wall and a fine line would have no relevance because we have this clear distinction. I don’t understand your example of an empirical scale, as that seems to me as more of a marketing decision than a moral decision.

[MultipleTentacles]

Rather than trying to expand on the four characterizations you made, my approach would be to reduce them down into One question: Will more harm than good come from this?...

In that case there is no such thing as a difficult decision or a brick wall and a fine line would have no relevance because we have this clear distinction.

Well part of my point is that sometimes a clear distinction is difficult to see. Sometimes, when one looks at a moral dilemma, one may not see the correct answer right away. Hence these characters arise. I am a musician. When I think deeply about "genre tunes," I see a moral hurdle that is difficult to overcome: at what point am I just "selling out?" Is it okay to make music for a specific genre, tailored to people's preconceptions and expectation, or is it "selling out" one's creativity to a predefined institution? That would be an example of the "Fine Line."

I don't think recognizing these moral characters necessarily leads one to abandon good moral choices. But it could be that one could end up distracted by these characters, thinking, "Is this a Fine Line? Is this Brick Wall?" rather than thinking, "What should I do, right now, to solve the problem?"

I guess it would be more helpful if people knew what to do in these situations?

I don’t understand your example of an empirical scale, as that seems to me as more of a marketing decision than a moral decision.

I think it's a moral decision, because the actor is trying to decide whether publishing the magazine would be beneficial or whether it would be a pointless endeavor that causes more harm than benefit.

[jufa]

Hi MT!

Want you to come to you and let you know when you use sematics, and

"Mundane Decision."

to me they are saying you do not understand the words, pictures, link of thought before you. Now please don't get indignant before you read the following:

"Existence is beyond the power of words like

To define.

Terms may be used

But are none of them absolute.

In the beginning of Heaven and earth there were no words.

Words came out of the womb of matter.

And whether a man dispassionately

Sees the core of life

Or passionately

Sees the surface

The core and the surface

Are essentially the same.

Words making them seem different

Only to express appearance

If name be needed, wonder names them both.

From wonder to wonder [From glory to glory]

Existence opens." Laotzu

From my personal experience, I realize I cannot know anything for certain with the exception that I am alive, no more, no less. And in living my life, I have demonstrated a right or wrong way of moral living, and this is where I've found the uncertainty of knowing comes into play. Why? because as long as I based my living on a belief that there was a power equal, in influence, to that which gives power to all, then I myself was the on going dilemma.

I, in and of myself, can never know if I am following the true and right set of beliefs, moral thought, nor moral integrity because my life has been based in dualism, and dualism means I always live and make judgments based upon my split personality.

We all came in this this state of being equipped with the principle of righteousness, for LIFE has structured ITS entire conscious activity in ITS Spirit of righteousness, for there was no other pattern or principle but that which IT lived and demonstrated unconditionally. So because we are the image of that which has no image; only the activity of endless living, then we know the truth regardless of how much we say we are confused. This we prove to ourselves when we speak the truth of righteousness in word, because our actions will not and cannot conflict with dualism except when we follow not our soul integrity, for we become selfish, and give not of ourselves unconditinally regardless of appearance.

[Smurf]

Rather than trying to expand on the four characterizations you made, my approach would be to reduce them down into One question: Will more harm than good come from this?...

In that case there is no such thing as a difficult decision or a brick wall and a fine line would have no relevance because we have this clear distinction.

I doubt that this method is as clear as you would put it. In fact I would argue that it is further confusing the situation of moral will. This is a relativist perspective, simply as everyone's .. taste of good or harm can differ greatly, as the nun said to the sadist...
You see the problem is still that you need to define what good and harm are. While I have no problem with the structure itself, it still comes into conflict with the differences in basic human tastes.