My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs

by onacruse 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  onacruse

  Gamaliel, first of all I thank you for being so open about your feelings. I trust that my openness in return is not offensive. Since you suggested that we pick this topic up on another thread, I offer to start:

  My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs.

  Those last 2 words just crank me right up the wall. That's exactly what I thought and did for all my life as a JW. And, imho, that approach to life doesn't deserve being described as moral or ethical (social terms) but as selfish (a non-judgmental personal term).

  Don't take me wrong here; there's nothing intrinsically wrong with being selfish, nothing at all. But it does make a difference when we frankly admit "I'm doing this because I'm selfish" and choose options for other human beings "because I'm selfish."

  When and if I ever make a decision for another human being based strictly and solely on my own personal opinion, I won't try to dress it up as moral and ethical.

  Craig
• 

  StinkyPantz

  Onacruse-

  Will you give a link to the thread that Gam made that statement so that we all know what context it's in?

  As for my opinion (which I'm sure you want) I agree with you AND disagree. Sometimes you have to do things solely because it is the right thing for you regardless of how the other person feels. I think abortion is a good example of this. Basically, if the woman decides not to keep the child, there is nothing the man can do. It might be murder to him, but ultimately it is the woman's decision and she has to take that into consideration over anything else. Yes, the man is involved and a lot is a stake from his end, but the woman has to think of herself. This of course is only one example, and I could share many more.

  The problem I think that you are trying to show, is when a person NEVER takes into consideration the other person's ethics/morality, and that's horrible. Ever aspect should be considered and weighed, not just your own.
• 

  Valis

  dearest onanism...the only other thing I will add is that such descisions are hard to analyze after the fact, when in fact all you have to blame IS some moral or ethical belief, instead of even anecdotal/personal evidence convincing enough to even hurt your feelings thinking about the alternative.

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  onacruse

  SP, my bad

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/51641/1.ashx

  As for your example of abortion, a good, but disparate, question. The context of the other thread has to to with authorizing medical treatment on the body of another informed and consenting adult.

  Valis:

  when in fact all you have to blame IS some moral or ethical belief,

  That's exactly my point. As Bertrand Russell said:

  Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself.
  A Free Man's Worship and Other Essays, ch. 6 (1976).

  Therefore, back to the "do unto others" criteria. If I, in all good personal conscience and as an informed adult, demand the freedom to decide for myself that I would refuse a certain medical treatment, then how can I in good conscience turn around and demand that such medical treatment be forced upon some other equally (as best I can know) informed and pre-consenting adult? Ethics and morals are a cooperative exercise, not a unilateral coincidence of "I'm conscious, and you're not."

  Craig
• 

  SixofNine

  So the alternative is to become a cold unthinking unfeeling robotic slave to a principle?

  Do you realize how hollow principles can be?
• 

  onacruse

  Six:

  Do you realize how hollow principles can be?

  Oh, do I ever! And, how "principles" can be twisted to meet almost any circumstance.

  Trust me, I'm growing into my new mind by "baby steps," and perhaps my polarization on this issue is just another symptom of how damn hard it is to shake off my JW/high-control group/Judeo-Christian mindset.

  I talked with another poster at length tonight, and he suggested that perhaps the only answer to this issue is that "there is no answer." We all must just take our best shot, in accord with our own feelings; even when our decision involves other competent adults.

  I'm by no means comfortable with that perspective, but I'm willing to consider it. In fact, I could be comfortable with it. However, I would appreciate further comment.

  And, again, I hope my stridence offers no offense.

  Craig
• 

  Valis

  ona...maybe I just have a problem defining "competent adult"...if we were to refer to the example of my sister you see what happens when you let informed people make descisions for others, you have the choice of outcomes...non-interference with the outcome that ends badly for everyone, or interference where the outcome means the continuance of life and someone got thier religion stepped on. I would rather take the heat and be hated, than know I had let someone die because they were addicted or brainwashed or delusional and couldn't have an informed opinion if it smacked them clear accross the face. To me the choice is obvious, but as you say, we can only "do what we can"...have a good weekend onanism...BTW, I saw you spamming the board yesterday with your moral/ethical dilemma threads...just tell Katie to get you some Tucks Pads and a sippy cup, you'll be fine...*LOL*

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  onacruse

  Valis:

  let someone die because they were addicted or brainwashed or delusional

  If we define these conditions, and coerce others accordingly, based only on our own personal belief-system, then we've set ourselves up as our own little Gods, passing summary judgment on what constitutes rationality or irrationality.

  Society has, and has always had, mechanisms (religious, political, legal, etc) that establish communal standards. Those standards may be completely unacceptable to me/us (e.g. Spartans throwing deformed babies off the cliff, Asians killing unwanted female babies, doctors strangling or crushing the brainpans of in-utero fetuses). On what "legitimate" basis are such practices to be evaluated as right or wrong? The Bible? The Koran? The Vedas? History? Might makes right?

  Whichever of these one chooses, if any, the fact remains that human society has never sanctioned indiscriminate unilateral action by one individual over another.

  Craig

  btw: I only trashed 3 threads, 2 of which were my own. So I'm a masochist...what's new? LOL
• 

  expatbrit

  Craig:

  Another good thread. You're kicking ass lately.

  What do you think of the concept that our ethics and morals are determined by our perceived self-interest?

  Expatbrit
• 

  onacruse

  expat:

  You're kicking ass lately.

  Mostly my own, I hope! A good ass-kickin once a week keeps me healthy LOL

  What do you think of the concept that our ethics and morals are determined by our perceived self-interest?

  Interesting question. To wax way off into the right-field philosophical stands, I'd say that ultimately each and every standard we develop, internally or socially, is totally motivated by self-interest. We're all essentially isolated individual little bags of salt and water that never really know what's going on in the life-forms around us. We receive all kinds of sensory input (words, sights, touches) and process that info through our internal neurological and epistemelogical mechanisms, and walk away thinking that we've just achieved some wonderful insight on the true nature of the universe. In fact, all we've done is interpret the world according to our own symbology.

  As an example: Katie and I were on the patio this afternoon, and I placed my hand on her leg, and asked her to determine from my touch what I was thinking. At that very moment, I was thinking "I hate you." But my touch, based on every other interaction she and I have had, made her think that I was thinking "I love you." (LOL...no, we're not breaking up). I used that to illustrate to her that we individually receive, translate and interpret all these signals according to our conditioning and patterning, internally; but actually and totally isolated from each other on the truly emotional level. Perhaps that's why the idea of "mental telepathy" is so intriguing...the true connection, touching of souls.

  However, by the very fact of our essential isolation from each other, we have no choice but to act totally in self-interest. Those actions we then call "moral," and then, in conjunction with society (but still in accord with our own self-interest) we coalesce those morals into a common "ethic."

  Craig