Is always "doing the right thing" possible? How does it hurt to imagine no one has achieved it?

jan 4, 2001 | xzins

[xzins]

This is a philosophical debate I was part of. Got any philosophers out there in freeperland?

[caisson71]

I'm now reading a book called "The Paradoxical Commandments" by Kent Keith which addresses this question. It's a short but powerful book and is reputed to have sections used by Mother Theresa. I've barely started and it already has me hooked. As a Jesuit schooled, minored in philosophy type nonconformist, I've always who else thinks about things like this.

[Post Toasties]

I believe that there is a human moral code which is pretty universal (and a surprising amount of it is instinctual, which to me amounts to it being a natural tendency toward certain ethical behavior in most people), but I don't consider it as necessarily applying to all minute aspects of everyday activity.

[xzins]

Answering "no, 'there is no such thing'" is the same as saying "there is such a thing." (double negative.)

Are you saying there is such a thing as an absolute moral code?

Or is the agnostic in you saying that it's an unanswerable question?

[Happygal]

Before you start questioning my answer, why not rephrase your initial question. Are you talking about doing the right moral thing? Does the right thing necessarily have to be moral?

[Post Toasties]

I also believe that a widely accepted moral code is necessary for a healthy and stable society. Just my opinion.

[attagirl]

Wellllll, it's an imperfect world, so even doing the right thing doesn't necessarily mean everything turns out right. The Good News though, is that, we at least know there IS a right, and WHAT it is, and the other is that we're only responsible for our own (and in varying degrees, to those over whom we have authority) actions.

Unintended consequences when doing the right thing are not part of our responsibility.

Besides, we know that God can work all things to good (we just need to live long enough to see it).

[nothingnew]

I firmly believe that at some level, we always know what the right thing to do in any given situation is,

I call it "MY GUT"....I always know immediately when I went the wrong way...He gave us the greatest gift, that of "Free Will"...I don't know about the rest of the rest, but I know when I F'd up in an instant...my gut tells me so.

JMHO

FMCDH

[xzins]

Actually, I like your answer a lot. Doing the right thing would have to fit someplace into a perfect, absolute moral code, wouldn't it?

[Happygal]

Well in my opinion Yes. And who decides on the absolute perfect moral code?

Even those of us who believe in God can't decide that, because our different religions teach us different acceptable moral practices.

[xzins]

"The Paradoxical Commandments" by Kent Keith which addresses this question....As a Jesuit schooled, minored in philosophy type nonconformist, I've always who else thinks about things like this.

Does "wondered" go in the gap in your last sentence?

Any possibility that you can summarize Keith's book in paragraph or so?

The part that has me personally intriqued is the follow on question....HOW does it hurt?

I think may HOPE is one thing that's damaged if it is so that no one has ever achieved "perfect morality." It gives a sense of inevitableness about human weakness and incapacity.

[nothingnew]

It gives a sense of inevitableness about human weakness and incapacity.

I think you're starting to get it...

FReegards,

FMCDH

[xzins]

our different religions teach us different acceptable moral practices

Is there any way to condense different acceptable moral codes into a consolidated, single code? (Sort of like Jesus saying, "Love God....heart, soul, mind, strength...and your neighbor as yourself.)

In the case of Jesus' code, to say that NO ONE has ever achieved "total morality" is to say, depressingly, that no one has ever really, totally loved. That would be an empty world.

[xzins]

That's the same as believing that life is a tragedy just waiting to happen. (Reminds me of the guy who described Shakespeare as this guy who didn't know what to do with his characters so he just killed them all off.)

It's believing we're doomed to blowing ourselves to smithereens; that the day just hasn't arrived yet.

[Happygal]

But take the different churches followings. Say Anglicans (who allow female priests) and Catholics (who don't).

An Anglican ordaining a female priest finds that morally acceptable, a Catholic doesn't.

Both believe they follow the teachings of Jesus. Loving thy neighbour etc. But have a man-made moral code imposed on their beliefs.

I'm a Catholic. I have a certain number of moral beliefs (all of which I don't meet daily, I'll admit...but a sinner am I, so ~shruggin~). Therefore I cannot attest to `doing the right thing' possibly in the eyes of my Anglican brethren.

It's a deep question. But at the end of the day, I revert back to the fact that you cannot do the right thing in the eyes of everyone.

All any of us can do is our best, within our own remit of beliefs.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Since this is a philosophical debate, I will pose this question to your statement.

I am keeping in mind that "the right thing" is open to interpretation, but even still...
How is allowing Judas Iscariot to commit suicide, doing the right thing?
Surely He was capable of a kind word at the right time to perhaps sooth Judas' tormented soul and perhaps save his life...and his soul?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Looking at it logically, if we can say that it is impossible to ALWAYS do the wrong thing, it has to be, therefore, impossible to always do the right thing.
Assuming, of course, that you first have defined or identified exactly what the 'right thing' or 'wrong thing' is.

There. That ought to clear things up. </sarcasm>

[_Jim]

Since I'm agnostic, I think I can say 'no'.

What do you think about:

• late at night when you're alone, no distractions, no internet, no radio, no CDs playing?
• when you're flat on your back recuperating from an injury?
• when you're sweating bullets slumped and over the john late at night because of a BAD case of the stomach flu?
• when you're halfway through an intersection - a you look left and see a car bumper coming at you just feet away?
• when the landing in your jumbo jet is unusually rough - in a thunderstorm?

[nothingnew]

That's the same as believing that life is a tragedy just waiting to happen.

Au contraire my friend...don't know how many years ya got under yer belt, but trust me, life is not a tragedy waiting to happen, rather it is a life waiting to happen...get on with yours, and know that you will F-up now and then...you see...that is your freedom, and He gave it to you...Enjoy!

FReegards,

FMCDH

[nothingnew]

All any of us can do is our best, within our own remit of beliefs.

Amen, and I can tell by your handle, you believe what you say...

FMCDH

[Prodigal Son]

If I accept another man's claim that it isn't possible for man to understand the truth, then no it isn't.

But man's tool for survival is his reasoning facility. Man can always make a rational attempt to understand his environment and act upon that knowledge to further his existence. This will almost always necessitate judging other men's actions as right or wrong. One must do this because it is almost impossible to do anything without interacting with other men in some fashion.

Many would have us believe that man is not fit to understand the environment in which he finds himself. All "truths" are subjective. What I view as right or wrong will be viewed differently by the next man and the next etc. Who can say whose version is correct?- therefore the concepts of good and evil are abstract. So anything goes. That is the philosophy of anti-life in which the Left is so intricately entwined.

But who can say this or that is right or wrong? Well, anyone. Anyone, that is, who is willing to use reason. We have to have a starting point, a basic tenet to work from upon which everyone can agree. We will never acheive that, but I think that a fairly large majority of people would accept that it is a good thing to be alive and that given the choice they would prefer to stay that way.

That's the starting point- Life. We can then go on to say that whatever enhances Life is generally good and whatever detracts from Life (or enhances the prospects of death) are generally bad/evil. You can work upwards from that tenet. Freedom is an intrinsic part of man and his well being. Freedom to think, to reason, to act. Freedom to pursue not only his base existence but happiness as well. Obviously, there is much ground in between the basic tenet of Life is good and the creation of a nation like the USA but everything can be weighed on the scales of a man's reason to build on this basic tenet.

You look around at the world. The places on this planet that are most inhospitable to man are not extreme natural environments like the summit of Everest, the frigidity of Antartica or even the Moon. Man using reason has made these places livable and even hospitable. The most inhospitable places for man are places where other men do not widely accept, indeed they outright reject the idea that man's rational facutly is competent to understand his environment.

The Taliban forbade anything but the most rudimentary education and look at Afghanistan. Babies are being raped in South Africa because of a superstitious belief that it will somehow cure the mysterious illness. People starve because they do not accept the basic tenets of science that would allow them to better transform their world to feed themselves. In the Middle East the willingness to accept another man's word that an unsubstantiated "paradise with virgins" awaits him upon death leads men to actually blow themselves to bits as well as killing others who did not share his belief.

It never fails to amaze me. The United States is a nation that has enjoyed prosperity unprecedented in all of human history. You would think that after two centuries of a proven example, people would stop and say "hey, maybe they're on to something." It's not just the US though. If even small steps in the general direction of safeguarding a man's freedom to live and interact are taken, prosperity- even if tempered- usually follows.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. But I think that man can always, if he so chooses, make a rational decision about things. Even if faced with two unnattractive or wrong choices, if one must choose then you pick the lesser evil and in that situation that is the "right" choice. And you can use the same tenet to decide. Even if neither option enhances Life at all, you can usually still say "which detracts from life the least?".

I realize there are gray areas that arise when one doesn't have enough information to make a rational choice. But you still should use reason and make the best choice you can with dignity and then have the integrity to live with the consequences of your actions, to include making restitution to another party if through your ignorance you wronged them. That's my opinion anyway.

My apologies at the several paragraphs I have taken to say a thing that others could probably state in a few concise sentences.