quote: Storm/Tom, do you think that there are any moral universals, such as "killing is bad"?
I don't think even YOU think that's a moral "universal." Because I'm willing to bet that there are hypothetical situations in which you would be willing to kill -- or see someone else kill -- to protect a "greater good."
Yeah, I think killing is always bad. However, I also think killing is occasionally justified, and can sometimes be the best of a set of bad options.
I think morality is consensual, not natural, and that some moralities are more practical and more useful than others.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'll have to think about "consensual morality" now, too. At face value, though, it sounds a bit close to "right is whatever we agree it is." Maybe that's the best we can do, but I'm not willing to give up on something higher just yet.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to believe in something higher, too. But since I don't know what is is, have never seen any sign of it, and don't know how to distinguish "higher" morality from a very effective "consensual" morality, I'm not confident that it exists -- or has to.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: What's wrong with that, Storm, is that compromise has not historically been the choice among humans when one group has significantly more power than another. You imply this yourself with the "when we have to" that follows "compromise". When a group of humans doesn't have to compromise (that is, when they have sufficient power to refuse compromise at the expense of the other side of any disagreement) they historically don't, leading to all manner of atrocities. The best way we have found to avoid this "Might makes right" philosophy is the rule of law based on a foundation of agreed-upon morality coupled with a system that allows for change in these laws as that common morality is further defined.
No, the best way we have found to avoid these atrocities is to not assume that your morality/culture is objectively best. That is 'might makes right' is a form of a belief in an objective morality.
Understanding that morality is subjective isn't an invitation to do whatever you please, it's an invitation to use dialogue and active participation in the moment with your reason with others as you, yourself, seem to be saying when you said
quote: rule of law based on a foundation of agreed-upon morality coupled with a system that allows for change in these laws as that common morality is further defined.
That's subjective morality in action, right there.
Ultimately, what those who believe in objective morality do is disregard everything that disagrees with them as immoral, it gives them person permission to treat those things that are outside of their morality, or understanding, as 'bad'. People who believe they have an ojective morality don't engage in dialogue with others and listen. What's the purpose? They have the answer already.
quote: The quest for a natural morality is born of a hope that mankind might find a morality that can be agreed upon by all. The need is probably debateable, after all, we don't really have one now and we're getting along OK. However, the value of one should be self evident. If we can discover an Objective Morality or a Natural Morality, or truely a Universal Common Morality, we could end most of the strife in the world.
One of the things a local conservative commentator mentioned the other day in another context that rang true for me is that the communists always said they were for peace, but it was a peace that would occur when everyone 'embraced' communism.
People are different, and the only reason they will all embrace one morality is if they are forced to do so.
quote: SS- I would think that the reason why we cannot do as you suggest is apparent. One of the primary reasons for the existence of modern government is to protect its citizens from threats to their security. Morality is what defines what a threat consists of. As a simple example, in our society currently most people would consider attempts by a pedophile to have sex with their children to be a threat. The government protects people from this threat by locking pedophiles up and tracking them when they are released. Imagine a society where pedophilia is culturally acceptable. How will it peacefully coexist with a society such as our own? The coercive power of the government will either be used to support pedophilia or to punish it. Compromise is problematic at best.
No it's not. *points to America* *points to board*
It happens quite easily and it happens all the time.
quote: Compromise is much more possible and likely when the gap between beliefs is small. As that gap grows (which is inevitable as more and more differing cultures are embraced) compromise becomes more and more difficult.
Space and resources force compromise. When you and I are in a room and there's only so much food, oxygen and other resources to go around, we will compromise if we don't kill each other. That's just the nature of the beast. And before you say anything,'objective morality' wouldn't keep one of us from killing the other. It's only our consciences that prevent that.
However, hapilly, we live in a society where groups can basically retreat to their own spaces and do their own thing. To a large degree, we don't all live in the same room, so there is no need, most of the time, for compromise between groups.
People are naturally gregarious and group oriented. Understanding that there isn't an objective morality certainly doesn't mean that people won't choose to live in certain groups, deciding that their precepts and rules are best.
So, one group might view paedophila as bad, and another might view it as wrong. The groups themselves will work out what is right and wrong and, further, because there is more than one morality, each group can look at the other and compare what it is doing and profit from the different experiences of the other--different experiences that are made possible by society being heterogenous. That's why I think a free market of ideas springing from a variety of different experiences serves society best.
Those who believe in Objective morality deny the free market of ideas because, again, they deny the validity of certain other ideas.
'Paedophilia' perfectly illustrates this. On this board, everyone can agree in theory to the idea that some paedophilia is bad, but after a moment's discussion, it becomes clear that people disagree about what paedophilia means, believe that some of it is worst than other kinds, or that people disagree entirely whether paedophilia, in some instances,is bad at all.
Objective morality doesn't exist in the real world. It's a fantasy.
posted
I prefer to think of a structural morality. That is, the structure of the world is fixed in such a way that there is a "best" morality. Or course, that's one of the basic assumptions that goes along with being a scientifically oriented humanist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, let me hasten to add that there are a large number of similiarities, bioligical and whatnot, that often make it so that the 'best' course of action isn't that hard to determine.
I'm not saying that people are completely different, just that there exists differences between all people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Barring an extremely obvious, explicit, and universal divine revelation, any “objective” morality that gains broad acceptance is going to be agreed on by people coming to consensus on what the objective principles are. Which is to say, it will be (in effect) a consensual morality.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, The "the subjective is objective" and J.S. Mills On Liberty both are guides to morality that explicitly make not having everyone do the same thing an important part of the system. I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: No it's not. *points to America* *points to board*
I find it ironic that you would use either the US or Hatrack as examples of successful compromise for widely varying beliefs. I would say that the US is an example of the capacity to compromise when there is only a small gap between beliefs while at the same time serving as a sterling example of the difficulties of compromise when the gap is wider.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Jacare, but you've got an extreme view of the "culture war" you want to have. Most people don't share this view.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes Jacare, but you've got an extreme view of the "culture war" you want to have. Most people don't share this view.
And you have an amazing propensity for dismissing views you disagree with without ever actually addressing the points raised.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The "the subjective is objective" and J.S. Mills On Liberty both are guides to morality that explicitly make not having everyone do the same thing an important part of the system. I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.
They are attempted guides to morality which attempt to help people arrive at a moral solution objectively, they aren't an objective morality or claim to be one, which is what we are discussing.
quote: I think you're oversimplifiying morality to insist that this is precluded by having a shared system.
I don't understand what you're saying I'm saying, exactly. What does 'this is precluded' refer to?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I find it ironic that you would use either the US or Hatrack as examples of successful compromise for widely varying beliefs. I would say that the US is an example of the capacity to compromise when there is only a small gap between beliefs while at the same time serving as a sterling example of the difficulties of compromise when the gap is wider.
Compromise is often difficult.
I don't know what qualifies as small gaps in belief and large gaps in belief. It's pretty subjetive, wouldn't you say?
Actually, I hypothesize that belief is often a product of environment, and given that most people in the U.S. live in the same environment, they're going to hover around the same basic beliefs.
Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you are forgetting my plans to send all the theists here to re-education camps in Siberia as soon as I come to power? Just because I don't froth at the mouth doesn't mean I'm not mad. Conversely, I can plot the utter destruction of people's cultures, beliefs and lives without getting rude about it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you're going to have a despot, I guess it's better to have one that says 'please' and 'thank you' before he screws with you than one who doesn't. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't know what qualifies as small gaps in belief and large gaps in belief. It's pretty subjetive, wouldn't you say?
Actually, I hypothesize that belief is often a product of environment, and given that most people in the U.S. live in the same environment, they're going to hover around the same basic beliefs.
I would agree that what I termed "small gaps" and "large gaps" is pretty subjective. I would also agree that belief is often a product of environment, but I would say that the US can by no means be considered a single environment. Again, the difficulty here arises in which particular subgroup gets to use the coercive power of the government to enforce their views.
quote: Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.
To address Hatrack first- what this site illustrates is that people who communicate often can come to see the opposition as people and therefore cease fighting when the argument gets too heated. I don't believe that Hatrack illustrates compromise because in the first place nothing is at stake. If you don't see things my way, what of it? You don't have any power over policy decisions, so I lose nothing by not debating abortion to the bitter end or what have you.
As far as the US goes- it represents my viewpoints perfectly. When people agree on most issues they are willing to compromise. When the differences are great and the core values are at stake, things are different. The election of 1800, crises in 1820, 1850, bleeding Kansas, the civil war, or in more recent times abortion, homosexual marriage, separation of church and state. These are not matters of compromise; in these cases one side amasses political power and forces to the other side to bend to its will. After a time people may come to agree with the fait accompli, but surely this is not compromise.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would agree that what I termed "small gaps" and "large gaps" is pretty subjective. I would also agree that belief is often a product of environment, but I would say that the US can by no means be considered a single environment. Again, the difficulty here arises in which particular subgroup gets to use the coercive power of the government to enforce their views.
I didn't say that it was a single environment. However, now more than ever, most people in the U.S. have enough to eat and drink, have a roof over their heads, have the same career choices open to them (though certainly their ability to get them varies), want basically the same things in their day to day life. We are all surrounded by much of the same media and see the same advertisements and face the same issues, whether we admit it or not.
Of course there are differences, for many reasons, but I would argue that those differences are far, far outweighed by the similiarities between any group than they are the differences. Again, I would like to make the observation that, in my opinion, if you observed a million Catholics, a Jews, a million Muslims, and a million atheists in what they actually do during the day, it's going to be pretty much the same. The culture is more homogenized now that it has ever been before.
quote: quote: Why is it ironic that I point to Hatrack and the U.S. as examples of succesful compromise? It seems to me that they show quite well that people who don't have the same set of values can be friends and get along together.
To address Hatrack first- what this site illustrates is that people who communicate often can come to see the opposition as people and therefore cease fighting when the argument gets too heated. I don't believe that Hatrack illustrates compromise because in the first place nothing is at stake. If you don't see things my way, what of it? You don't have any power over policy decisions, so I lose nothing by not debating abortion to the bitter end or what have you.
Not to be snarky at all, but if you haven't learned anything from people who don't believe as you do, and come to understand where they are coming from, and modified your own thinking, then maybe you haven't been listening.
I am constantly suprised when I hear things like this on this forum and on Ornery. How can you be on either forum and interact with people and not change as a person, gain in understanding in issues, modify your position? I honestly do not get it. I know Hatrack has had a profound effect on me.
quote:
As far as the US goes- it represents my viewpoints perfectly. When people agree on most issues they are willing to compromise. When the differences are great and the core values are at stake, things are different. The election of 1800, crises in 1820, 1850, bleeding Kansas, the civil war, or in more recent times abortion, homosexual marriage, separation of church and state. These are not matters of compromise; in these cases one side amasses political power and forces to the other side to bend to its will. After a time people may come to agree with the fait accompli, but surely this is not compromise.
Reader Digest, and other periodicals, have done articles that detail how most of the U.S. is more similiar on most issues than seperate. Sure, conflicts arise. That's to be expected, but that's all part of the process. All the things you list that the nation is wrestling with are all things that many people have, are, and will compromise on. The fact that not everyone agrees on what that compromise must be, or will compromise on, and that dialogue is necessary to come to some kind of resolution, only underlines the false belief that in a desire for an objective morality.
The question is, what would some so-called objective morality do to remedy any of these things? Nothing, because people are different in many of their beliefs edit: and would never agree to such a morality. I would also say that the reason most of the conflicts you mentioned took place is exactly because some people believed that their morality/beliefs were absolutely the best and refused to listen to what other people said or felt. For instance, how could slavery exist when people sought to understood what they were doing and didn't assume a priori that slavery was acceptable by dehumanizing those who were slaves? The same thing with most wars. The whole process of the military and war is to dehumanize the person in uniform and the person you are fighting so you don't stop to think and ask why, but instead to bend your own morality to the will of someone else. Of course, the consequences for not doing so are sometimes worse than if a country didn't have a military and do things to the people in it so they would obey orders. That's why countries have militaries, but that doesn't change the fact that wars are often the result not of an inability to compromise, but of an assumption that 'I am right no matter what and the only way I'll change my mind is if you kill me.'
This isn't to say that there aren't things that we can die for, or principles that people should adhere to no matter what. However, we shouldn't pretend that what we believe is something that everyone else must believe because 'objectively' it is true. That's impossible to know and a contradiction in terms, as no belief is objective and can be measured seperate from human beings in and of itself. All we can do is measure and react to behavior, which is not the same as belief. That is, different beliefs can cause the same behavior.
Pretty critical edit that changes something that I said. Sorry, but it needed to be in there.
posted
>>Perhaps you are forgetting my plans to send all the theists here to re-education camps in Siberia as soon as I come to power? <<
Then it's fortunate for everyone you're living in California. It will be destroyed by the Implaccable Engine of Ultimate Destruction before you ever rise to power.
Sorry to rain on your parade and all.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that for the most part I find myself agreeing with KarlEd a lot here.
I just finished reading the thread from start to finish (whew!) and I really didn't think I'd be this interested in it
First I'd like to address the question of "How do you determine morality if you don't believe in God?" Being agnostic I feel like I can answer this question, at least from an individual point of view. My morality is derived from what my family taught me as good, for anyone to deny their upbringing had any effect on their morals seems somewhat foolish. My morality also stems partly from the religion I used to hold, Catholicism. But I think that overall though, morality stems from Natural Law (as according to Locke).
We, as people, all seem to share a certain code of morals and views on right and wrong. I also subscribe partly to Deontology as suggested by Kant where the intent matters more than the action itself. The will is the only thing which is inherently good, actions and consequences can easily be tainted by circumstances, but your intent, what you sought to achieve, is the only thing over which we as people have absolute control. The "golden rule" standard can also be used to some extent to determine morality: "Do unto others and you'd have them do unto you." This method of course, also has it's failings because we as humans are all inherently different and we all want different things, so relying on one particular philosophy to me, seems somewhat foolish. Instead I choose to combine different aspects of codes of ethics and apply a different bit of code depending on the situation.
At the end of the day though, the way I determine my self worth as a human being is based a lot on what society thinks of me. My self image is tied in to my morality, to be sure, but since I know that as a human I am a fallible entity, I also rely on the judgement of my loved ones and of society in general.
That being said I believe I am a good person. Overall my intent in most circumstances is to do the "right" thing according to my moral standards, I say overall because I know that sometimes even I fail to my own code of morals and I also accept the fact that my intent isn't always the best, I don't think there's a single person in the world who hasn't taken the last slice of cake instead of sharing it with everyone equally.
I know when I fail, I know when I'm commiting a bad deed. I believe my image of myself as "good" is tied directly to my desire for redemption for such bad deeds. The desire to be the best person that I can be, the desire to grow and change into a better person, I think that is what defines "good". I may never come close to even measure up to perfection, but I'm going to try my best to do it anyways.
With all that said, I subscribe to the belief that any God that chooses to damn a person because of lack of faith is an entity that doesn't deserve my worship. I do my best to do good as a person, I try to serve my fellow man and when I fail, I get up and try to learn from my mistakes. Any deity who cannot accept my fallibility, who damns me from the very moment I draw breath a baby when I'm at my most vulnerable and when I lack the most basic sense of reason... that is a God which I cannot accept. My mind simply cannot accept the fact that God damns us for having made us the way he did, if we are born damned it's because he made us that way, and if that's a bad way to be then we are not to be blamed for being flawed, just as you would not blame a newborn for coming into this world with mental retardation.
If God's judgement isn't based solely on my works and my intent to do good on this earth for my fellow man, then what is God, other than an omnipotent bully?
I'd also like to state that I mean no offense to any Jatraqueros out there whose beliefs may differ or clash with mine. This is just an explanation of my reasoning for my beliefs, if you believe in a God that requires both good works and acceptance of his religion in our mortal lifetime, please don't take this to heart.
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The "golden rule" standard can also be used to some extent to determine morality: "Do unto others and you'd have them do unto you." This method of course, also has it's failings because we as humans are all inherently different and we all want different things,"
This is one of the reasons I prefer the Judaic formulation of the golden rule... "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." That way, if you screw something up, its normally an error of omission, rather then comission.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a pretty good way of looking at it, although I think the golden rule method has a few flaws, I think that formulation would at least help fix some of the more obvious ones (like masochism).
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "The "golden rule" standard can also be used to some extent to determine morality: "Do unto others and you'd have them do unto you." This method of course, also has it's failings because we as humans are all inherently different and we all want different things,"
This is one of the reasons I prefer the Judaic formulation of the golden rule... "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." That way, if you screw something up, its normally an error of omission, rather then comission.
I completely agree. For the record, Hillel's statement was "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. This is the whole of the Torah, and the rest is the detailed explanation".
The idea of "doing unto others" has been used to justify horrible crimes throughout history. Excuses were made for the murders during the Inquisition on the basis that being burned to death was better than burning in hell for all eternity. No one asked the victims what they wanted.
But that's an extreme example. More pertinent, and more ubiquitousm, is the idea of helping others against their will. I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful. But the "do unto others" formulation not only permits this, but claims it to be a "Golden Rule".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful. But the "do unto others" formulation not only permits this, but claims it to be a "Golden Rule".<<
Here's the full text:
quote:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
I think this rebutts your critiscism, sL, PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful.
But we do it all the time. Parents take their children to get shots; we think we're helping them, and they think we're helping the doctor torture them. Likewise whenever someone wants something that is harmful to them, and we have to make a judgement as to what is the best way to help them. We can't always do what they want us to do; sometimes we have to do what we think is best for them, what we would want done for us, even if it's not what the other person wants right now.
Edited to add that I guess the golden rule only works if you really want what's best for others. If you're a drug addict, for example, and the thing you'd want most in the world is drugs, you oughtn't to be applying the "golden rule" and giving drugs to others. Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness."
I agree. But not everyone wants the same kindness. For example, and this is a trivial example, I left my tea mug on the coffee table when I went to bed last night. This morning, it is in the dishwasher. Its my mess, I want to clean it up, but my roommate, by being kind, took that opportunity from me. Which annoys me.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful.
But we do it all the time. Parents take their children to get shots;
Exactly my point. It's legitimate to take your children to get shots. Why? Because children are children. They're not adults. They have not reached the age where they're considered competent to make such decisions for themselves.
Now. Think about what that means when you do it to an adult. That's why it's offensive.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: we think we're helping them, and they think we're helping the doctor torture them. Likewise whenever someone wants something that is harmful to them, and we have to make a judgement as to what is the best way to help them. We can't always do what they want us to do; sometimes we have to do what we think is best for them, what we would want done for us, even if it's not what the other person wants right now.
See, now, you're changing the subject. I'm not talking about withholding something that someone wants. I'm talking about imposing something that someone doesn't want. They are two massively different things. There may be some cases where they overlap, in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day, but that's about it.
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Edited to add that I guess the golden rule only works if you really want what's best for others. If you're a drug addict, for example, and the thing you'd want most in the world is drugs, you oughtn't to be applying the "golden rule" and giving drugs to others.
What was that road again? The one paved with good intentions?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >> I can think of very little that's worse and more antithetical to any decent moral sense than "helping" someone in a way that they think harmful. But the "do unto others" formulation not only permits this, but claims it to be a "Golden Rule".<<
Here's the full text:
quote:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
I think this rebutts your critiscism, sL, PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness.
I don't think so. The fact that there's an invalid logical leap from the first verse to the second doesn't mean that that's the context.
God gives measure for measure, okay. That doesn't mean that people should do to others what they'd want done to them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he KNOWS that it annoys me when he cleans up my stuff if I leave it out. But in general, no. But person A is much less likely to be annoyed if he does not tell person B how to treat him, and B doesn't do something that A wants B to do, then if person A does not tell person B how to treat him, and then person B does something A doesn't want done. In general. This isn't true for everyone, obviously. But I also think that not doing something that is wanted is less of a moral issue then doing something that is unwanted
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " PG: in context, Christ is talking about offering kindness."
I agree. But not everyone wants the same kindness. For example, and this is a trivial example, I left my tea mug on the coffee table when I went to bed last night. This morning, it is in the dishwasher. Its my mess, I want to clean it up, but my roommate, by being kind, took that opportunity from me. Which annoys me.
Nor, I'd add, did your roommate "offer" this. An offer implies the opportunity to decline. Except when it's coming from Marlon Brando.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I also think that not doing something that is wanted is less of a moral issue then doing something that is unwanted
*I'm being really, really good right now and not diverting the thread*
quote:Well, he KNOWS that it annoys me when he cleans up my stuff if I leave it out. But in general, no. But person A is much less likely to be annoyed if he does not tell person B how to treat him, and B doesn't do something that A wants B to do, then if person A does not tell person B how to treat him, and then person B does something A doesn't want done. In general.
I think the larger point isn't that you did something wrong, but that at some level, there will always be annoyance experienced by one human being that was caused by another, and sometimes all we can change is who experiences it.
I have no idea about your roommate situation, but is it possible that the presence of the cup annoyed him, and that putting it away lessened his total annoyance?
I'm not really trying to get at roommate relations - there's something bigger that's dancing just out of reach of my exam and paper addled brain. Ah, well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I think the larger point isn't that you did something wrong, but that at some level, there will always be annoyance experienced by one human being that was caused by another, and sometimes all we can change is who experiences it."
Perhaps. I happen to think that errors of omission are generally less offensive then errors of comission, and as such, I think that the "do not" phrasing is a better rule of thumb then the "do unto" phrasing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is leaving your dirty dishes around the apartment an error of comission, or is failing to pick up your dirty dishes an error of omission?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
