Old morals still apply

[stafffighter]

There's a lot of talk about changing times and changing people, particularly in discussions of age old moralities. People feel that stories of how the ox man dealt with the fisherman and such bear no relevance to their modern lives. While the technology and perhaps the style of the writing are indeed dated I submit that the morals from these olden times are still as needed as they are today based on a simple observation, people haven't changed.
I'm not by any means denying that there have been evolutions in society, any look at history can show that. But these shifts do not represent an over all change in humanity. We still lust, covet, kill, eat and so on and so forth. There is the higher self, more so in some of us than other, that strives to do good. But is what defines that good any different from what has been since ages past.
I'll no provide examples that while simplistic, do show the principle I'm discussing. Martin Luther King made great strives towards equality in America. Did racism end? Yes a shift was forced but was the foundation of what he fought against destroyed. I'm aware he didn't do the civil rights movement on his own. Don't try to make it sound like I'm not.
Gandhi made great movements in nonviolent resistance to imperial forces. Have people stopped conquering others? Have those opposing them always done so through peaceful means? No, because people still have greed and wrath. It is also still at times necessary to take up arms in defense. It was then an d still is. Again, I'm aware he wasn't the only person doing this kind of thing.
Everything changed after 9/11. What changed? Are the people you deal with in every day life any different for the experience. Yes the attacks were a tragedy and yes there was a period of healing. What people forget is that after something heals it goes back to what passed for healthy before.
These are only examples of how people are the same creatures we have been. Yes we have built on innovations and developments but our nature has always remained with a lesser self and greater self. Rather than constantly show that we have not I challenge you to show that we have. Show me examples of people as a whole having changed in some way that invalidates existing moralities. Simple acts of kindness will not serve this purpose, as kindness has been around as long as anything else.
I'm not picking on any denomination because when boiled down what's considered to make a good person is fairly consistent.

[BrianEtrius]

Yep, that's pretty much how things are.........they never change.

Reminds me of that line from the Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again".

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[MortifiedPenguins]

Wouldn't this all depend on what a person viewed as "healthy" or the pre concieved view as "health" before and after whatever concieved event.

For example, a man gets mugged in the city street and is now afraid of his life and is uncomfortable in large society. Eventually he regains his sense of "normalcy", copes with his attack and moves back into regular society.

For a person who considered overcoming a challenge to be a healthy reaction then, this is a return to the percieved healthy.

But what happens if somebody doesn't view it as a healthy reaction or a return to the concieved perception of healthy. What if somebody sees how he dealt with this situation and percieves it as unhealthy and different then what the pre norm is. Would not that be a change, if only to that one person?

Your arguing on a society's views and inputs and the effects of man adaptability. Yet, in the singular, society is made up of all different individuals with all differing goals and views, so to say there is a singular uniform view of "healthy" that never changes is to this view of the individual, uncredible.

So yes, if a single person is changed. If a single person is affected and differed, then there is a change of moralities.

[stafffighter]

At 8/26/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Wouldn't this all depend on what a person viewed as "healthy" or the pre concieved view as "health" before and after whatever concieved event.

I'm talking about established values so yes

For example, a man gets mugged in the city street and is now afraid of his life and is uncomfortable in large society. Eventually he regains his sense of "normalcy", copes with his attack and moves back into regular society.

For a person who considered overcoming a challenge to be a healthy reaction then, this is a return to the percieved healthy.

Percevierance, forgivness, and healing are all natural values.

But what happens if somebody doesn't view it as a healthy reaction or a return to the concieved perception of healthy. What if somebody sees how he dealt with this situation and percieves it as unhealthy and different then what the pre norm is. Would not that be a change, if only to that one person?

So someone thinks that adapting to something that happened and moving on isn't healthy? Then something's wrong with that person

Your arguing on a society's views and inputs and the effects of man adaptability. Yet, in the singular, society is made up of all different individuals with all differing goals and views, so to say there is a singular uniform view of "healthy" that never changes is to this view of the individual, uncredible.

So humans having knowable feelings, expereinces that relate to others or even the very base of empathy are all contrary to the existance of the individual?

So yes, if a single person is changed. If a single person is affected and differed, then there is a change of moralities.

Once again, i'm not denieing the existance of the individual. I'm saying that what individuals faced then and what they face now are simular and, while built upon, they remain true.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/26/08 10:14 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So someone thinks that adapting to something that happened and moving on isn't healthy? Then something's wrong with that person

Why? Because your morals and mind, influenced by the status quo of society say so.

Yet the Ancient Greeks or Romans would feel that this man inadequatly defended himself and should feel shame and shouldn't forgot that shame, the morals of thier people. Are they any more wrong?

So humans having knowable feelings, expereinces that relate to others or even the very base of empathy are all contrary to the existance of the individual?

If one takes a side in the argument in the state of nature, yes.

Once again, i'm not denieing the existance of the individual. I'm saying that what individuals faced then and what they face now are simular and, while built upon, they remain true.

But there is no individual. Your arguing Platoism here, the ideal individual, the concieved notion of the individual. Yet each individual is different, so can there be a uniform individual. Anatomically yes, mentally no.

This is what I'm attacking, you've built up an ideal or uniform individual when there is none.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/27/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/26/08 10:14 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But there is no individual. Your arguing Platoism here, the ideal individual, the concieved notion of the individual. Yet each individual is different, so can there be a uniform individual. Anatomically yes, mentally no.

Typo: So there can be no uniform individual instead of so there can be a uniform individual.

[stafffighter]

I'm not calling for the uniform individual. Like the early 90's cartoon told us all you can express yourself as an individual while still being a good person. Rescue Rangers Go!
That being said, the qualities that make a good person, compassion, charity, kindess, all those things, are fairly universal. People like to look at the simularities of major religions as an invalidator, and I'm by no means defending the people who use it to control others or sheild themselves, but what this really does is show that what makes a person good is seen pretty much across the board.
Human beings are social creatures naturally so how we act towards others is a very natural aspect of humanity. We have not evolved as far away from that as we think. Someone who does nothing but type on a computer is eating food that came from other people, using programs that came from other people, likely in some way interacting with other people. And none of these things have changed how we are as humans.

[poxpower]

I would just like to add:

RREEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL LLLLYYYYY?

[Saruman200]

I don't really understand this post so much, but I'll reply as best I can.

To what "old morals" do you refer? There are thousands of moral codes that exist and have existed. Judeo-Christian morals, Islamic morals, Buddhist morals, pacifist morals, etc...etc.. In my view, the idea of "morals" is complete crap. The only real "morals" are rather simple, don't murder, don't steal etc... But those are all against the law and are hardly under debate. I think everyone should have the right to determine what they think is right or wrong. If you believe sex before marriage is wrong, then fine. If you believe sex before marriage is perfectly acceptable, then fine. It's your choice, I don't believe that everyone should be forced to adhere to one set moral code (besides the obvious laws). Really, my greatest "moral" is not to force my morals on other people. I don't mind debating my morals with other people, but I consider that more to be the discussion of my views than trying to force other people to accept my outlook.

As for your point about people not changing, I agree people haven't really changed. However, the times have. The essential human character may not have changed, but the way we live our live certainly has.

I think I answered you as best as I could. If I missed the point of your post please tell, I'm sorry but I didn't understand your post completely.

[stafffighter]

How is how we live different? because we have different devices? Humanity has always been subject to an array of new devices. We have tool making intellect and we use it.
My point in these posts is that the moral lessons of the past are not as dated as they may seem and they do still apply to people in modern situations.