Vampires!

Introducing people of all ages to mythology... in pre-college educational curricula, youth orgs, the media, etc. Share your knowledge, stories, unit and lesson plans, techniques, and more.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Umm.... I think you might be taking this a little too seriously perhaps? I'm just inferring that there are aspects that remind us of our true nature... including our "deathless" self and our free will... it's all pretty light-hearted and certainly not a discussion of morals.-Matt
The point I'm trying to make is that although we should should be mindful and respectful to "other ways of life", we should not ignore the fact that if another's "way of life" is hurtful or destructful to a certain population, we shouldn't just say "Oh. the poor vampires, they have no blood to drink, lets just give them the homeless because they are worthless anyway".

Ignorance of morals, in the name of acceptance, does not lead to wisdom.
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Ignorance of morals, in the name of acceptance, does not lead to wisdom. -Neo
My problem with this, Neo, is that it implies the existence of morality prior to it's construction.

All things, in my view, exist as part of and as separate aspects of life's continuum. One could easily say that the only morally correct way to live and do no harm existence is to become an ascetic and go out into the wilderness and sit. This way nobody gets hurt by your actions. But this is certainly not true, because even in dying the body may slump over and kill other creatures and there was no "intent to harm" there...and as one walked the path to find a place to sit, life was being crushed underfoot the entire way.

Morality is a social construct. It's an agreement. We agree on certain things and these things are not set in stone, they are guideposts on the path. But the path may change...it may get flooded or a landslide may block it permanently. The moment we carve them into the rock is the moment we fail to evolve (in my view). This does not mean that our agreements are bad, as long as we remind ourselves that we have created them and that for this reason they are likely to be flawed and should be subject to change when necessary.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

This way nobody gets hurt by your actions. But this is certainly not true, because even in dying the body may slump over and kill other creatures and there was no "intent to harm" there...and as one walked the path to find a place to sit, life was being crushed underfoot the entire way. -JJ
While I have the dictionary out, the concept of "morallity" is the same as "right behavior". All I can do is choose to act "rightly" based on perception of the "truth". If my truth is :drink blood" then I'm acting rightly based on my morals.

Yes, a person must choose if "inflicting death and destruction" vice "promoting kindness and compassion" is moral.

What would you choose? :twisted:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Matt_McCovann
Associate
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:53 am
Contact:

Post by Matt_McCovann »

Neoplato wrote:What would you choose?
I'm VERY curious about the concept/relevance of morality.... What if one man's murder inspired compassion in a million others... is the death "morally wrong" if it inspires a "greater good" like that? ... And, taking it a little further, assuming that the death then holds some merit because it inspires so much more good, could it be that the person responsible for the death could also be attributed with the merit?? ... Thinking about it from this angle really calls "morality" into question to a certain extent -- don't you agree?
Learn to Live a Life You Love
http://www.facebook.com/ifeelthemagic
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Matt_McCovann
Associate
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:53 am
Contact:

Post by Matt_McCovann »

jonsjourney wrote:The moment we carve them into the rock is the moment we fail to evolve (in my view).
Great response :) ... You've got an excellent perspective there. I totally agree that there's nothing intrinsically "wrong" with morals unless we see them as absolute in any way.
Learn to Live a Life You Love
http://www.facebook.com/ifeelthemagic
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Matt_McCovann wrote:
Neoplato wrote:What would you choose?
I'm VERY curious about the concept/relevance of morality.... What if one man's murder inspired compassion in a million others... is the death "morally wrong" if it inspires a "greater good" like that? ... And, taking it a little further, assuming that the death then holds some merit because it inspires so much more good, could it be that the person responsible for the death could also be attributed with the merit?? ... Thinking about it from this angle really calls "morality" into question to a certain extent -- don't you agree?
If I killed a person who in the future would destroy the lives of hundreds of people, I would still have committed a negative action in the name of "morallity". What would it gain the human race by doing so?

Did my inaction result in death, or the action of the individual I did not take action against result in death? Am I immoral in my inaction? :shock:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Matt_McCovann
Associate
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:53 am
Contact:

Post by Matt_McCovann »

Neoplato wrote:If I killed a person who in the future would destroy the lives of hundreds of people, I would still have committed a negative action in the name of "morallity". What would it gain the human race by doing so?
I'm certainly not happy about the idea of inflicting death on people in the name of anything, let alone morality, but I'd say that in this instance it would gain the human race hundreds of saved lives ... so isn't that a good thing??
Learn to Live a Life You Love
http://www.facebook.com/ifeelthemagic
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

in this instance it would gain the human race hundreds of saved lives ... so isn't that a good thing??-Matt
IMHO, I would say no. Why? Because although hundreds of lives may be saved by the death of a single person, thousands of future lives may be sacrificed by my single action.

The ends do not justify the means. It is a hard lesson, and the sooner we learn it, the sooner we may find "bliss". :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

What if one man's murder inspired compassion in a million others... is the death "morally wrong" if it inspires a "greater good" like that? -Matt
This is the problem with Utilitarianism. As Neo indicated, one cannot take an "ends justify the means" view without running up against moral dilemmas. Again...the idea that one answer will serve all humanity is flawed from onset, thus the problem with "set in stone" universal moral imperatives.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

What would you choose? -Neo
I can choose not to choose! :wink:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

jonsjourney wrote:
What would you choose? -Neo
I can choose not to choose! :wink:
Mmmmm....not choosing against "death and destruction" may be considered immoral. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

Mmmmm....not choosing against "death and destruction" may be considered immoral. -Neo
Short of a fixed set of morals that are universal and free of human shortcomings, not choosing is actually amoral.

For something to be moral, or immoral, there must be agreement as to the nature of these constructs and the history of ethics in philosophy has produced no such universality. Rather, it has been an elaborate tennis match without a clear winner...sort of like that epic tiebreak session between Nadal and Federer a few years ago at Wimbledon. I bet few could remember who actually won, but many remember the match. The winner did not matter because the game transcended victory. Murder for some is mercy for another. Justice for one is intolerance for another.

How can one possibly reconcile the irreconcilability of this unless they base their belief on belief?

All we have is our current constructs framed in our own time. What was "true" in 5,000 b.c.e. does not necessarily apply to 32 c.e. or 2011 c.e. (in my view, of course).
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

I think, and I do believe this was Campbell's point, that when one becomes an adult, in Jungian terms, one no longer requires an external system of fixed rules. One knows right from wrong, and within the context of the time one lives, that right and wrong will find commonality with other adults.

The real question for me is, to what degree do external systems intend to keep us children, unable to make our own decisions?
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

Anteros
Associate
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:45 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by Anteros »

Clemsy wrote:The real question for me is, to what degree do external systems intend to keep us children, unable to make our own decisions?
Isn't that the definition of civilization? A system of control? And to what degree is civilization a reflection of the conflicts within us, of certain aspects of ourselves wanting control over other parts? It is organized or orderly neuroticism.
http://www.forbiddenheights.com

It takes a truly charitable person to extend a hand to the poor and feel no charity whatsoever in doing so.

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Anteros wrote:
Clemsy wrote:The real question for me is, to what degree do external systems intend to keep us children, unable to make our own decisions?
Isn't that the definition of civilization? A system of control? And to what degree is civilization a reflection of the conflicts within us, of certain aspects of ourselves wanting control over other parts? It is organized or orderly neuroticism.
Hey Anteros, good to hear from you. :D

Obviously, thinking is prohibited. IMHO, one of the goals of "society" is to inhibit rational thought. Fortunately, it doesn't work 100% of the time. :wink:
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

Locked