A Pondering Question..................

[Whistler]

I think most of us can point to things we experienced that deflected our path. Tragedies, epiphanies, unexpected results, environment, life influences, etc.

We know many of these things about historical figures, serial killers, even some entertainers.

If one or more of those moments hadn't occurred to influence their path would they choose that path absent those events?

 

[Vaquero]

Be not afraid.

 

[Younggun]

If you’re doing the right thing the reason is irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

The right thing to do, is always the right thing to do. Regardless of why or who it helps or hurts.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[seeker_two]

But different people from different backgrounds and influences may have different moral foundations.

Here's one to ponder on. Purely a hypothetical because it's impossible.

IF you had the opportunity to go back in time, and kill Hitler before he came to power in Germany, being the only person knowing the future, and what Hitler would do, but it would be out-right murder, and you would be prosecuted for murdering Hitler, would you kill him or not?

Murder is defined as "killing with evil intent." What is your intent in killing Hitler? Is it to save lives? Or is it to not have to deal with Hitler in the future?

Now....let's substitute another name for Hitler.....someone who is in the current news cycle who you feel is doing evil (you pick). Would the same moral stance apply to that person? Would you be justified in taking that action now? If so, why haven't you? And, based on history, when has that action resulted in a better world?

....And that's why it's important to have a moral belief system that transcends the current situation.

 

[cycleguy2300]

17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Yes. Faith without works is dead and likewise works without faith is dead. They must be together, hand in hand.

Its like arguing if good trigger control is more important than good ammo... to get a good hit you have to have both.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

But different people from different backgrounds and influences may have different moral foundations.

Here's one to ponder on. Purely a hypothetical because it's impossible.

IF you had the opportunity to go back in time, and kill Hitler before he came to power in Germany, being the only person knowing the future, and what Hitler would do, but it would be out-right murder, and you would be prosecuted for murdering Hitler, would you kill him or not?

To answer the first part:
People with different backgrounds may have different opinions as to morals, but if morals are real, there must be one that is correct or more correct when there is a conflict between them. I believe that foundation to be Judeo-Christian as revealed in the Bible and our ideas of right-wrong/good-bad to be based on what God has said is right-wrong and the principles He revealed.

If every group, or every person got to choose their own morals and they are all equally valid, then how can another be justified in imposing their particular version of "my truth" on another individual or group?


For the last part simplified:
Would you go back in time and kill an innocent man?

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Let me lay this out in another scenario for everyone.

Your wife asks you, "Do you think I'm getting fat?"
(Which most people would think her added wight might be considered getting fat.)

One reply could be done out of spite towards her, telling her the truth, "Sure looks like you added some weight there."

Or, another reply, done with her feelings in mind, "No honey, you look just fine."

First reply, you told the truth, which most would think is the right thing to do, but with spite in his heart towards his wife, for all the wrong reasons, he told the truth.

The second reply, you tell a lie, in order not hurt her feelings, and her self-esteem. Telling a lie isn't right, but to not hurt another person's feeling's, the right reason for telling the lie.

 

[Axxe55]

Or simplified:
Would you go back in time and kill an innocent man?

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

Exactly. There lies the moral or ethical part. Killing another person before they had the chance to do evil, or before they became evil, would be killing an innocent person.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Exactly. There lies the moral or ethical part. Killing another person before they had the chance to do evil, or before they became evil, would be killing an innocent person.

And carrying out the act is just as wrong as the thing you are supposedly stopping.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[seeker_two]

Let me lay this out in another scenario for everyone.

Your wife asks you, "Do you think I'm getting fat?"
(Which most people would think her added wight might be considered getting fat.)

One reply could be done out of spite towards her, telling her the truth, "Sure looks like you added some weight there."

Or, another reply, done with her feelings in mind, "No honey, you look just fine."

First reply, you told the truth, which most would think is the right thing to do, but with spite in his heart towards his wife, for all the wrong reasons, he told the truth.

The second reply, you tell a lie, in order not hurt her feelings, and her self-esteem. Telling a lie isn't right, but to not hurt another person's feeling's, the right reason for telling the lie.

Or you go with the third option....."Why would you think that, Honey?" Then you can both understand the situation better and find a better resolution that deals with her insecurity and reaffirms your love without dishonesty.

There are usually more than two options....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

 

[Sam7sf]

Let me lay this out in another scenario for everyone.

Your wife asks you, "Do you think I'm getting fat?"
(Which most people would think her added wight might be considered getting fat.)

One reply could be done out of spite towards her, telling her the truth, "Sure looks like you added some weight there."

Or, another reply, done with her feelings in mind, "No honey, you look just fine."

First reply, you told the truth, which most would think is the right thing to do, but with spite in his heart towards his wife, for all the wrong reasons, he told the truth.

The second reply, you tell a lie, in order not hurt her feelings, and her self-esteem. Telling a lie isn't right, but to not hurt another person's feeling's, the right reason for telling the lie.

Lol. If she thinks she’s fat but really isn’t just say: “Stop bothering me devil woman”. For those of you that are still new to marriage and don’t think this is funny I feel sorry for you and your marriage not having a sense of humor.

I don’t believe in belittling others from physical appearance. If she’s fat she knows it. If she’s asking it’s a trap. If she’s healthy don’t worry about it. If she has an eating problem or isn’t active enough, she’s not busy enough.

 

[benenglish]

Next you will want to discuss predestination doctrine.

Predestined is a dodge answer (true or not).

That is an interesting perspective. Could you expand on that thought?

How about we don't?

This thread could easily devolve into purely a discussion of religious doctrine. If it does, it will have to be removed.

Maybe some posters don't remember the flame wars about religion that once happened on TGT but they proved that even the most reasonable people can't remain civil when dancing on the head of a pin, hashing out doctrinal subtleties. That's why there's a board rule against religious discussion, a rule that will be enforced.

Make no mistake; I like this thread. Interesting stuff is here. But if it goes off the rails, it goes into the trash.

 

[Axxe55]

I think most of us can point to things we experienced that deflected our path. Tragedies, epiphanies, unexpected results, environment, life influences, etc.

We know many of these things about historical figures, serial killers, even some entertainers.

If one or more of those moments hadn't occurred to influence their path would they choose that path absent those events?

How about we don't?

This thread could easily devolve into purely a discussion of religious doctrine. If it does, it will have to be removed.

Maybe some posters don't remember the flame wars about religion that once happened on TGT but they proved that even the most reasonable people can't remain civil when dancing on the head of a pin, hashing out doctrinal subtleties. That's why there's a board rule against religious discussion, a rule that will be enforced.

Make no mistake; I like this thread. Interesting stuff is here. But if it goes off the rails, it goes into the trash.

Actually @Whistler expanded on the part of his answer that I was looking for. Not the predestined part. Personally, I don't like to discuss predestination because it's a very complex subject, and one I'm not comfortable discussing.

I fully understand the rule about religion, and I am trying to keep away from that. This discussion is more a philosophical discussion about morals, ethics, principles, and about right and wrong.

 

[Whistler]

100% agree

Mentioned purely for exclusion of that rabbit hole.

 

[msharley]

Exactly. There lies the moral or ethical part. Killing another person before they had the chance to do evil, or before they became evil, would be killing an innocent person.

Brother Paul was writing to his friends in Rome...

(chapter 3;10)

New King James Version
As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;

However vile Mssrs. Hitler, Stalin, Mao were....(and vile they were)

compared to the Assyrians? That Jonah was assigned to preach to?

Them folk? They played POLO with the heads of unborn infants, ripped from the wombs of the wimmenfolk they conquered...after slaughtering the men folk...in like brutal fashion....

Seems to me? Always a portion of the human race willing to wreak mayhem...in earnest...

Later, Mark

 

[msharley]

Hey Ben,

Kindly do not shut down the thread.

The Assyrians are a matter of historical record...they do make Hitler, Stalin & Mao seem to be pikers in their villainy........

Later, Mark

 

[Bozz10mm]

Here's a question to ponder on.

Is it better to do the right thing, for the wrong reasons, or to do the wrong thing, for the right reasons?

Hmm. It matters not if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, because it was the right thing to do regardless of the reasons. You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and it will still be the wrong thing...unless it turns out to be the right thing.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Hmm. It matters not if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, because it was the right thing to do regardless of the reasons. You can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and it will still be the wrong thing...unless it turns out to be the right thing.

To some extent, but think about the mark it leaves on the actor.

If a person partakes in attempting evil against another yet it ends up working in targeted person's favor and does them good. The act left no better a mark on the soul of the actor than had it succeeded in causing harm.

Doing actual harm does not need to be done for a person to recognize wrong.

To paraphrase CS Lewis again:

Lewis gives the example of a man who takes another's seat on a train while the other's back was turned, compared to a man who sat in the seat not knowing it had been taken. Both are equally inconvenient, and equally harmful, but our attitude towards them is different.

He then goes on :
I may be upset for a short time if a man trips me up by accident, but I may be very angry at the man who tries to trip me up, bit fails. In one there was harm and in the other there was none.

His point was that there is a basis for right and wrong that goes beyond what benefits me personally or "society" as a whole.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[FireInTheWire]

Most folks going to call BS on this.... But humans don't know WTF is going on. You will never figure anything out with human nature. Right, wrong everything in-between.

I'll counter your question with this question.... what is your definition of success?