|
|
Post by MagnetMan on Feb 29, 2008 16:59:30 GMT -5
I don’t agree that people can’t know the difference between “right” and “wrong”. And while I agree that nobody does wrong for wrong’s sake, when someone rapes another human being, for instance, they know that what they are doing isn’t right. You are presumably thinking of what society calls 'right' and 'wrong'. That is, a man rapes someone despite the fact that society tells him that it is wrong. But he may have a different idea of right and wrong. For him the supreme good may be what makes him feel good. Whether or not there is an objective right and wrong, we are still ruled by subjectivity, therefore our idea of right and wrong can vary. There are libraries of law books trying to define right and wrong action from same the social perspective you are promoting. Right and wrong cannot be rationalized.Trespass is an instinctive feelling of dis-ease. For the pure consciousness that feeling is unmistakable and undeniable and immediate heed must be given. Depending on the gross degree of the trespass, there are usally three warnings before the the Law of Cause and Effect reaches out for correction. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent. That is gross trespass. He will pay one way or another. The agrieved woman has paid for her own past trespass. The laws of trespass are in perfect balance If not the universe would have become chaotic long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Trivium515 on Feb 29, 2008 21:30:23 GMT -5
The laws of trespass are in perfect balance If not the universe would have become chaotic long ago. yes, thats what I came too, if everyone had their own definition of good and bad, right and wrong, and there is no unyielding definition, then, to me, the world would turn to chaos You are presumably thinking of what society calls 'right' and 'wrong'. That is, a man rapes someone despite the fact that society tells him that it is wrong. Well I can only say for myself that whenever I do anything wrong, no matter the circumstances there is always a nagging in the back of my mind, telling me that I had better stop. Admittedly I sometimes ignore this voice, but never the less it is still there. Whether or not it would be there, or if it be different had I grown up in an environment with I different standard of good and bad, or if it is built into our psyche's from the start, I can't say. |
|
|
|
Post by rainshine87 on Apr 7, 2008 15:06:10 GMT -5
Time is a way of measuring movement. Is movement relative? Movement requires object + space Object is illusion Therefore: Time + Space + Obect = relative Only consciousness is Truth Truth = Love I don't disagree with you. However, an illusion has being, therefore it is real, just not necessarily the ultimate reality. |
|
|
|
Post by MagnetMan on Apr 9, 2008 12:56:40 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you. However, an illusion has being, therefore it is real, just not necessarily the ultimate reality. In which case all movement is relative and the perceptive options are infinite. No two consciousnesses will ever perceive activity in exactly the same way |
|
nickelfire
Global Steward
slighted and scorned
Posts: 142
|
Post by nickelfire on Apr 11, 2008 18:54:55 GMT -5
Not to get too technical, but perhaps there are indisputable wrongs… unquestionable trespasses against others that everyone knows are unethical and heinous, and then there are others less black and white, such as stealing for survival, or having a “harmless” little affair.
Where is the line drawn? Perhaps it depends on the individual; perhaps something’s aren’t inherent but taught or unlearned. Perceptions of morality might be subjective and based on experiences both good and bad.
Society around the globe is a good reflection of this rule, the amount of taboos for one and common practices for the other as seen world wide is evidence enough for me.
One thing widespread is that murder is generally shunned, but look at the loop holes… killing for honor or vengeance, killing for material or territorial causes… most wars are fought for stupid reasons… and cheered as well.
|
|
