Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is morality the 'enemy' of moral worth?

SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:26:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

Isn't this just a complaint that a world that's generally more moral would be less justifiably exciting? No "big battles" to "prove your worth"? It seems a petty concern--I'd rather the whole world was as moral as possible, even if that means I never get the opportunity to stop a mugging in progress.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:26:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

Isn't this just a complaint that a world that's generally more moral would be less justifiably exciting? No "big battles" to "prove your worth"? It seems a petty concern--I'd rather the whole world was as moral as possible, even if that means I never get the opportunity to stop a mugging in progress.

Of course. Any world with evil, is less moral than a world without it; full stop.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:34:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

When morality prevails, then people do things that have moral worth more often. Having more opportunities to save flood victims is less moral than preventing the floods in the first place, for example. Those actions, boring and mundane as they may be, like building levees and dams, have moral worth.

Sitting on your butt, drinking beer, and waiting for the next storm so you can rush out and play hero is less moral by comparison.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

No, that's amoral.

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

Amoral person, although such an existence is difficult to imagine.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:42:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:26:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Isn't this just a complaint that a world that's generally more moral would be less justifiably exciting? No "big battles" to "prove your worth"? It seems a petty concern--I'd rather the whole world was as moral as possible, even if that means I never get the opportunity to stop a mugging in progress.

The intent is not to complain, or inspire a literal concern. It is to have an academic discussion regarding philosophical debate and understanding of a broader mindset. Like you, I too, like most rational people would like to live in a world absent injustice. For the purpose of this post, however; this idea of what world I would prefer to live in is frivolous to the merit of Saul's philosophical paradox.

Thanks, I do hope you continue to contribute to the discussion I have offered up. Keep in mind, its just brain food.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:50:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:34:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

When morality prevails, then people do things that have moral worth more often. Having more opportunities to save flood victims is less moral than preventing the floods in the first place, for example. Those actions, boring and mundane as they may be, like building levees and dams, have moral worth.

Sitting on your butt, drinking beer, and waiting for the next storm so you can rush out and play hero is less moral by comparison.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

No, that's amoral.

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

Amoral person, although such an existence is difficult to imagine.

Great points wrichciwr, thanks for the clarification, I agree. My first question is amoral and also agree it is probably not possible in reality.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:51:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:50:10 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:34:28 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

When morality prevails, then people do things that have moral worth more often. Having more opportunities to save flood victims is less moral than preventing the floods in the first place, for example. Those actions, boring and mundane as they may be, like building levees and dams, have moral worth.

Sitting on your butt, drinking beer, and waiting for the next storm so you can rush out and play hero is less moral by comparison.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

No, that's amoral.

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

Amoral person, although such an existence is difficult to imagine.

Great points wrichciwr, thanks for the clarification, I agree. My first question is amoral and also agree it is probably not possible in reality.

yw, cheers. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:42:36 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 11/26/2013 11:26:31 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Isn't this just a complaint that a world that's generally more moral would be less justifiably exciting? No "big battles" to "prove your worth"? It seems a petty concern--I'd rather the whole world was as moral as possible, even if that means I never get the opportunity to stop a mugging in progress.

The intent is not to complain, or inspire a literal concern. It is to have an academic discussion regarding philosophical debate and understanding of a broader mindset. Like you, I too, like most rational people would like to live in a world absent injustice. For the purpose of this post, however; this idea of what world I would prefer to live in is frivolous to the merit of Saul's philosophical paradox.

It's not a paradox, though. It's just the question "Is a man still moral if there are no major things for him to be moral about external to himself?"

The answer is yes. Though without the crucible of an actual test, we might not truly "know"--but then, we never do, until the moment of the test, whether a person will pass or fail any moral test.

Unless you're talking about a world without free will, the option to do wrong will always be available, and not exercising that option will always be moral. Sure, a world that's generally moral will have less impressive displays of moral actions--that's the supposed "paradox", but I see no necessity to the impressive displays of morality.

Thanks, I do hope you continue to contribute to the discussion I have offered up. Keep in mind, its just brain food.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Perhaps your right bladerunner. The moral worth of living a good life is no less meritorious because times are better or worse, just more or less obvious.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 1:27:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 10:18:54 AM, SemperVI wrote:
Saul Smilanksy"s paradox #8 summarily states:

When morality prevails, there is less injustice and less suffering, but also less occasion for people to do things that have moral worth. More morality, oddly enough, means less morality.

Is the act of not doing anything of moral worth immoral?

If a person lives a life that does not hurt or help other individuals, is this a moral person?

The flesh of man was made to make man believe in this immoral world. The spirit of man was created as the moral thoughts of God that won't be known to man until this immoral world is destroyed soon.

However, some morality does exist in this immoral world to keep the flesh somewhat contained. Otherwise, the flesh would have killed each other long ago as it exalts itself above other flesh of man. The spirit of man is in the ONE spirit ( invisible thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy ) in the mind of our Creator.

Do you believe all the dreams and visions God has made for us in this age or just the moral ones?
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 1:49:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 1:27:56 PM, bornofgod
However, some morality does exist in this immoral world to keep the flesh somewhat contained. Otherwise, the flesh would have killed each other long ago as it exalts itself above other flesh of man. The spirit of man is in the ONE spirit ( invisible thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy ) in the mind of our Creator.


In your view, is human immorality the exception or the rule. I am trying to understand your point...

Do you believe all the dreams and visions God has made for us in this age or just the moral ones?

I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific. Thanks
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 2:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 1:49:25 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 11/26/2013 1:27:56 PM, bornofgod
However, some morality does exist in this immoral world to keep the flesh somewhat contained. Otherwise, the flesh would have killed each other long ago as it exalts itself above other flesh of man. The spirit of man is in the ONE spirit ( invisible thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy ) in the mind of our Creator.


In your view, is human immorality the exception or the rule. I am trying to understand your point...

Do you believe all the dreams and visions God has made for us in this age or just the moral ones?

I am not sure what you mean. Could you be more specific. Thanks

Our Creator created two ages. The first age, which we're experiencing now, was made for His purpose only. He made two different kinds of thoughts for man to think with so that He could connect with this prophets and saints to teach us who we are within His mind. The thoughts that formed this world, the flesh and the languages that the flesh of man uses in this world ( Satan, or visible Earthly Kingdom ) were meant to deceive man from his created existence as wavelengths of energy ( Christ, or invisible Heavenly Kingdom ) that were spoken into existence by our Creator.

With this contrast of thoughts, our Creator was able to connect with us saints and prophets and get our flesh obedient enough to have us write in our own languages to explain who we are. We have learned that we are created as invisible energy that needs to be processed through each being's brain to give us the illusion of having a flesh and a defined world to live in.

So the thoughts we live with in this world is the symbolic "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" that is written in Genesis. This is the world and the flesh that we see with our eyes and is meant to deceive us of our invisible existence in the mind of our Creator. So the things of this world appear to be immoral ( evil ) or moral ( good ) but neither of these words describe the invisible creation of God. These words "good and evil" are NOT the Truth because each individual human being has a different definition of what is good or evil. This confuses God's people as they see immoral people being treated as moral and moral people being treated badly by immoral people. Who is moral or immoral is the question by most people in this world. This is the delusion we're in called this world. As long as God's people focus on what is good or evil, they are deceived of their true created invisible existence as energy in the mind of our Creator.

God is one very clever Creator.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 2:31:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 2:19:04 PM, SemperVI wrote:
God is one very clever Creator

That He is bornofgod, that He is. :)

Did you know that the retina's of your eyes are like tiny video screens that work much better than Google's latest eyeglasses with tiny video screens in them? If God planned for this to happen, man will learn how to use our retina's to place advertisements on them to make money. God knows how to place various visions on our retina's that are different than the visions of this world.

Have you had different visions to watch on your tiny video screens ( retina's ) other than the visions of this world that are familiar with you?
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 2:48:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I appreciate your insight bornofgod. The the topic of my discussion is going off track.yli I would prefer to stay on point in this thread. I'm sure you understand. :)2
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 10:04:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 2:48:39 PM, SemperVI wrote:
I appreciate your insight bornofgod. The the topic of my discussion is going off track.yli I would prefer to stay on point in this thread. I'm sure you understand. :)2

If you're a true believer, it makes no difference what track you were on. Forget the track you were on and follow the Truth. The Truth is the way to eternal knowledge that no man has ever known in this age. It's beyond what any scientist or religious unbeliever can understand.