"Bob Rudd" <bobrudd@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.22ef27f9bc10e5df98990b@news.albasani.net...
> In article <l9ednc_Ils9ICxnVnZ2dnUVZ_q_inZ2d@comcast.com>,
> newk.indofman@lovesyou.org says...
>> Morality is a complex and gray area once you start talking
>> about real situations.
>>
>
> Only to those who do not have the personal strength and integrity to
> live up to what is moral.
Simple minds demand simple answers. So you find yourself concluding that I'm
a completely amoral and unethical monster -- after you wasted no time
thinking of ways you'd like to self-righteously humiliate and destroy
another human being. You're a weak soul, Blob.
>
> "Complex and grey areas," when mentioned anytime in an argument by
> someone discussing morality is a strong indicator that the absence of
> morality is the real issue being discussed by that person.
Ever try to apply something as simple as the "Golden Rule" to your personal
moral decision-making moments? I didn't think so. If you had, you would have
some inkling about what I said. Try formulating a simple statement about the
nature of forgiveness, for example. Try naming a single moral issue that is
cut-and-dried, and dumbed-down enough for you.
--------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has
three principal meanings.
In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be
authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and
define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.
In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal
code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives
by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in
this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.[1]
In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic
philosophical study of the moral domain.[2]
Ethics seeks to address questions such as how a moral outcome can be
achieved in a specific situation (applied ethics), how moral values should
be determined (normative ethics), what morals people actually abide by
(descriptive ethics), what the fundamental nature of ethics or morality is,
including whether it has any objective justification (meta-ethics), and how
moral capacity or moral agency develops and what its nature is (moral
psychology).[3] In applied ethics, for example, the prohibition against
taking human life is controversial with respect to capital punishment,
abortion and wars of invasion. In normative ethics, a typical question might
be whether a lie told for the sake of protecting someone from harm is
justified. In meta-ethics, a key issue is the meaning of the terms "right"
or "wrong". Moral realism would hold that there are true moral statements
which report objective moral facts, whereas moral anti-realism would hold
that morality is derived from any one of the norms prevalent in society
(cultural relativism); the edicts of a god (divine command theory); is
merely an expression of the speakers' sentiments (emotivism); an implied
imperative (prescriptive); falsely presupposes that there are objective
moral facts (error theory). Some thinkers hold that there is no correct
definition of right behavior, that morality can only be judged with respect
to particular situations, within the standards of particular belief systems
and socio-historical contexts. This position, known as moral relativism,
often cites empirical evidence from anthropology as evidence to support its
claims.[4] The opposite view, that there are universal, eternal moral truths
is known as moral absolutism. Moral absolutists might concede that forces of
social conformity significantly shape moral decisions, but deny that
cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior.
