Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Our Moral Identity

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2015 10:54:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/6/2015 10:03:12 PM, s-anthony wrote:
No one, at least no one I know, would ever question someone fighting to secure his, or her, material possessions. In fact, a person who puts no effort in securing his, or her, belongings is seen as foolish.

However, as a person fights for his, or her, moral values even as they lose favor with popular opinion, the individual is seen as someone who has lost touch with reality and either must conform to the new morality or is ostracized by society.

Notwithstanding, I believe, for the most part, society fails to realize the significance of one's "old-fashioned values". Just as one's wealth defines the individual, in most cases, one's morality holds greater meaning. For, not only does it define the individual, temporarily, but transcends the individual and connects one with his, or her, ancestry. In denying his, or her, values, the individual not only betrays himself, or herself, but, also, one's lineage. He, or she, was born into a collective and in turn came to depend, greatly, on the collective for his, or her, emotional, spiritual, and philosophical growth. In attacking the individual's values, society attacks the worth of his, or her, heritage, a heritage that not only speaks of one's origins but, also, the foundation on which his, or her, identity was born.

I would say that one who walks about wearing Victorian style clothing will get odd looks, and those who attempt to force his clothing choices on another is treated harshly as that's inappropriate. The same can be said of one's ideals. If your ideals, tools, clothing, etc. are considered outdated people will treat them as such and react negatively to any attempt of aggressive expansion of them among those who don't want them.

Also, I find it interesting that you seem to equate the old with the moral, when that is clearly not the case.

I, personally, find my heritage in the Aedui Tribe of the Gauls invigorating, exciting, and it supplies me with a good measure for my own life. That doesn't mean I'm about to strip naked and run at mine enemies wITH THE WISDOM AND STRENGTH OF BRIGINDO GUIDING MY SPEAR TO SPLIT THE HEADS OF SUCH ROMAN DOGS
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2015 11:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would say that one who walks about wearing Victorian style clothing will get odd looks, and those who attempt to force his clothing choices on another is treated harshly as that's inappropriate. The same can be said of one's ideals. If your ideals, tools, clothing, etc. are considered outdated people will treat them as such and react negatively to any attempt of aggressive expansion of them among those who don't want them.

That's all fine and good, except I'm not talking about Victorian style clothing but clothing that was worn in the sixties, seventies, and eighties. I personally know people who wear outdated clothing; they are for the most part older people. If they tried to force me to wear their clothing, I would kindly say, "No. Thank you." If they criticized my style, I would quickly remind them style is made of personal tastes. If they insisted, I'd move on.

In our society, people are allowed and hopefully encouraged to have different points of view. If we pass laws to silence dissent, we are only behaving in the same manner as they did towards us. Even though I believe in marriage equality, I don't have a problem with those who don't. I'm not going to lie; it saddens me to see the way some people treat others who are different, but it doesn't surprise me; in fact, I would be completely dumbfounded to see a Christian fundamentalist sanction gay marriage just because the Supreme Court made it legal.

Also, I find it interesting that you seem to equate the old with the moral, when that is clearly not the case.

I, personally, find my heritage in the Aedui Tribe of the Gauls invigorating, exciting, and it supplies me with a good measure for my own life. That doesn't mean I'm about to strip naked and run at mine enemies wITH THE WISDOM AND STRENGTH OF BRIGINDO GUIDING MY SPEAR TO SPLIT THE HEADS OF SUCH ROMAN DOGS

Where in the OP do I equate that which is old with that which is morally good? I simply said there are people who have old-fashioned values, and the attack on their values is taken personally because their identity is in part wrapped up in those values.