" In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. …
" In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this."
yes!
my last essay explores morality as the drug pusher enabler of reason as superstious overload that rationalises all death of the 'other' as undeserving.
I do believe that morality is real. And I don't disregard reason or rationality.
I'm very far removed from Buddhism, which you follow and also criticize (I mean, what is not to criticize in Buddhism right? ;-D).
For me, Jesus gave the solution to the problem of life. But the people have come to reject the solution because it's not their solution.
If I believed in the "ego" or in scolding people for the workings of their "ego" then I would have to say that rejecting the True and Living God is the supreme form of egolatry and a very uncool thing to do, but I won't say that because I don't believe in Freud's lexicon and conceptology, and I really think I'm not the one to evangelize anyone, much less to go recovering lost sheep and bring them to their home in God.
In my (yet incomplete) version of Christian morality, the death of others is sometimes undeserved and sometimes deserved. For example, people who kill children because they have a defect in their bodies, like 107 weird symbols in the skin of the plant of their feet, are murderers and deserve death. Even if they repent they still deserve death.
It has always been immoral, and will never cease to be immoral, the action of killing innocent people because doing so is convenient to one's political/economic ideology.
The so called anxiety is unavoidable, even if one manages to convince herself that morality is not a thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have to kill and roast that bastard before selling ham roast (that's a harsh joke, I'll admit.)
Do Buddhists (of your sort of Buddhism or non-Buddhist Chanism, or of any other type of Buddhism) opine that it's immoral to judge a mass murderer of innocent people?
Now, you may think that's a trick question. But it's not. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to state their opinions or absence of opinion. I would prefer people were more sincere, even though I know they are afraid of repression. But if some group of people think there is nothing immoral about killing the innocent, or another group says that it is a good thing to kill the innocent, then I think I'm better off knowing what their true opinion is, rather than wasting time on rhetorical games.
Why should not there be a political party whose platform is to kill all recipients of welfare money in order to save the finances of the State, and that such party argues for the moral goodness of such genocide? It's probably illegal to create an association of any kind which explicitly advocates for crimes, but I would like to see the reaction of the public. I want to know how many of them would argue against the morality of the proposal of that hypothetical party, and how many would inform them that the real purpose of the welfare State was to bankrupt many Nations in order to establish a Dictatorship. Most people have not realized that yet. To hear that notion causes hurt somewhere between their chest and their gonads, because they have been supporting the enemies of their Nation all their lives.
That's pride, if I'm not mistaken.
On the other hand, I don't see (yet) anyone who would complain about the hypothetical genocide of welfare money recipients doing a moral case against it. They seem to prefer the State to the Nation, even though their words tell a different story.
I think most people use morality wrong in argumentation. But that's not a fault of morality, but of the argumentator.
I just don't think it's okay for Mr. Nameless to run to hide at the feet of Jesus and Mary because Mr. Nameless is afraid of the State, and prefers to endure all its crimes, and simply whistle past the Communist mountain of skulls and bones.
Those people who pretend that reality does not exist, and that morality does not exist, and, at the same time, that they are nonetheless Christians or at least people who believe in moral truths, have a lot of sins to answer to.
But, in my view, the people who don't seek God's Grace, and argue against reality or rationality or morality, live in a much better position than the ones who do seek the Grace of the True and Living God. Or, if you will, that mere Nihilism of any type is much less irrational than acting against God.
Of course, dear M. Duperreault, those are all just my judgements. You can dismiss them with a hand wave if you want. We are just two dudes conversing on a little corner of the internet.
hola, ar23ds.
" In some of these people I've detected the tendency to believe uncritically any order and any piece of legislation. Any action is morally right if it emanates from the hierarchy. To these captives I explain how the concepts of the natural sciences fail to describe reality, and how the people above them know they are lying. It's always a shock. Turns out that a split mind is the norm, not the exception. But it's best to never realize this."
yes!
my last essay explores morality as the drug pusher enabler of reason as superstious overload that rationalises all death of the 'other' as undeserving.
Dear Guy, my comment was more modest than that.
I do believe that morality is real. And I don't disregard reason or rationality.
I'm very far removed from Buddhism, which you follow and also criticize (I mean, what is not to criticize in Buddhism right? ;-D).
For me, Jesus gave the solution to the problem of life. But the people have come to reject the solution because it's not their solution.
If I believed in the "ego" or in scolding people for the workings of their "ego" then I would have to say that rejecting the True and Living God is the supreme form of egolatry and a very uncool thing to do, but I won't say that because I don't believe in Freud's lexicon and conceptology, and I really think I'm not the one to evangelize anyone, much less to go recovering lost sheep and bring them to their home in God.
In my (yet incomplete) version of Christian morality, the death of others is sometimes undeserved and sometimes deserved. For example, people who kill children because they have a defect in their bodies, like 107 weird symbols in the skin of the plant of their feet, are murderers and deserve death. Even if they repent they still deserve death.
It has always been immoral, and will never cease to be immoral, the action of killing innocent people because doing so is convenient to one's political/economic ideology.
The so called anxiety is unavoidable, even if one manages to convince herself that morality is not a thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you still have to kill and roast that bastard before selling ham roast (that's a harsh joke, I'll admit.)
Do Buddhists (of your sort of Buddhism or non-Buddhist Chanism, or of any other type of Buddhism) opine that it's immoral to judge a mass murderer of innocent people?
Now, you may think that's a trick question. But it's not. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to state their opinions or absence of opinion. I would prefer people were more sincere, even though I know they are afraid of repression. But if some group of people think there is nothing immoral about killing the innocent, or another group says that it is a good thing to kill the innocent, then I think I'm better off knowing what their true opinion is, rather than wasting time on rhetorical games.
Why should not there be a political party whose platform is to kill all recipients of welfare money in order to save the finances of the State, and that such party argues for the moral goodness of such genocide? It's probably illegal to create an association of any kind which explicitly advocates for crimes, but I would like to see the reaction of the public. I want to know how many of them would argue against the morality of the proposal of that hypothetical party, and how many would inform them that the real purpose of the welfare State was to bankrupt many Nations in order to establish a Dictatorship. Most people have not realized that yet. To hear that notion causes hurt somewhere between their chest and their gonads, because they have been supporting the enemies of their Nation all their lives.
That's pride, if I'm not mistaken.
On the other hand, I don't see (yet) anyone who would complain about the hypothetical genocide of welfare money recipients doing a moral case against it. They seem to prefer the State to the Nation, even though their words tell a different story.
I think most people use morality wrong in argumentation. But that's not a fault of morality, but of the argumentator.
I just don't think it's okay for Mr. Nameless to run to hide at the feet of Jesus and Mary because Mr. Nameless is afraid of the State, and prefers to endure all its crimes, and simply whistle past the Communist mountain of skulls and bones.
Those people who pretend that reality does not exist, and that morality does not exist, and, at the same time, that they are nonetheless Christians or at least people who believe in moral truths, have a lot of sins to answer to.
But, in my view, the people who don't seek God's Grace, and argue against reality or rationality or morality, live in a much better position than the ones who do seek the Grace of the True and Living God. Or, if you will, that mere Nihilism of any type is much less irrational than acting against God.
Of course, dear M. Duperreault, those are all just my judgements. You can dismiss them with a hand wave if you want. We are just two dudes conversing on a little corner of the internet.