Questions of a philosophical nature.
Discussion
Gandahar said:
In the past people with scientific views were castigated by people with religious.
Now people with religious views are castigated by people with scientific.
Is this morally right based on history ?
We'd need to spend a good few hours debating 'morals' and agree on what exactly a 'moral' is.Now people with religious views are castigated by people with scientific.
Is this morally right based on history ?
My version of a 'moral' will be remarkably different to, for example what my father calls a moral.
Likely, my view will differ markedly to that of a Monk in Katmandu or an African living on the plains.
'Morals' to me aren't rules of/for behaviour, they are ideas that benefit one self or others around.
If a 'moral' is going to be a way of behaviour then it needs to be judged/ratified/confirmed in terms of current behaviour - and that is the moment it stops being a 'moral'.
Morals are about what is right and beneficial, the moment 'they' stop being morals is when the are measured against other 'morals'
TO BE HONEST AND TO GE SOME DEBATE.....
(Sorry for the shout - but let's get on track)
MORALS:
What are they?
Where do they come from?
and after we answer those two questions,
Where will they lead us?
(I love threads like this!)
Gandahar said:
In the past people with scientific views were castigated by people with religious.
Now people with religious views are castigated by people with scientific.
Is this morally right based on history ?
I see it merely as a matter of the incorrect being replaced by something more correct. No morals involved.Now people with religious views are castigated by people with scientific.
Is this morally right based on history ?
Thrashing off into the moral undergrowth is a good way stop progress, which is probably why the church is so keen on it.
Vipers said:
As your mum aslways said "Make sure your wearing clean underpants in case your knocked over", and what happens when that happens............................... 
I bet she didn't say that at all. What she probably DID say was "Make sure you're wearing clean underpants in case you're knocked over".To my grandmother the only necessity was to look after the family. Everything was secondary, or thirdary really. She was born in the late 19th century, was put in a workhouse at the age of 16, fled to England at 14 and 'married' a bloke almost at once. She had 18 children who survived infancy (she had 6 sons, all of whom were twins, and one died at childbirth or shortly after every time). The police were frightened of her. I was nicked once for playing on the railway and when the arresting officer found out who I was he let me go. He didn't want to face her.
She sent her sons, including my father (the youngest) out to steal coal. The system was that my father would take the (well used) pram to the shunting yard and while the guards were talking to him, elder brother would nip over the fences. She needed the coal for her job, laundry (which she learned in the workhouse), and without that we had no income. Her husband had come back from WWI less one lung and without a pension as he could walk a little way (shades of ATOS).
So criminal tendencies, running a crime syndicate yet she was highly moral. One of her sons went out with a married woman who was going through a divorce. At the workhouse, run by nuns, divorce was seen akin to murder or wearing a condom. Despite leaving the church and becoming a methodist, so leaving christianity, the indoctrination worked. She refused to allow her son into the family house, excluding him from all gatherings apart from Remembrance Sunday - there are always exceptions. When he eventually married she welcomed the couple into the family in the expectation, demand, that everything that went before was forgotten.
She respected those matriarchs and patriarchs who looked after their own families even when their interests conflicted with ours. She never, ever, held a grudge.
She looked upon laws as of no interest to her. She ran her home solely in the interests of her family.
She died when I was about 7. She had a tremendous influence on me, and my brother.
So she ignored the laws of the land, she ignored religious restrictions, yet her morals guided her every move.
The question is: was she moral only in her and her family's eyes? Or was she moral in the absolute sense.
She would not give a f
k what anyone else thought.
By the way, she had a tremendous sense of humour. At a family get together, with the hail-mary brigade of widows from the war sitting around her, there was a discussion about Churchill, whom she abhorred, thinking of his as a warmonger. One of the daughters said: Come the time, come the man.
She said: Come the man, then go the man, that's what [name of daughter with two children where the man she thought she was married to cleared off] experienced.
She sent her sons, including my father (the youngest) out to steal coal. The system was that my father would take the (well used) pram to the shunting yard and while the guards were talking to him, elder brother would nip over the fences. She needed the coal for her job, laundry (which she learned in the workhouse), and without that we had no income. Her husband had come back from WWI less one lung and without a pension as he could walk a little way (shades of ATOS).
So criminal tendencies, running a crime syndicate yet she was highly moral. One of her sons went out with a married woman who was going through a divorce. At the workhouse, run by nuns, divorce was seen akin to murder or wearing a condom. Despite leaving the church and becoming a methodist, so leaving christianity, the indoctrination worked. She refused to allow her son into the family house, excluding him from all gatherings apart from Remembrance Sunday - there are always exceptions. When he eventually married she welcomed the couple into the family in the expectation, demand, that everything that went before was forgotten.
She respected those matriarchs and patriarchs who looked after their own families even when their interests conflicted with ours. She never, ever, held a grudge.
She looked upon laws as of no interest to her. She ran her home solely in the interests of her family.
She died when I was about 7. She had a tremendous influence on me, and my brother.
So she ignored the laws of the land, she ignored religious restrictions, yet her morals guided her every move.
The question is: was she moral only in her and her family's eyes? Or was she moral in the absolute sense.
She would not give a f
k what anyone else thought.By the way, she had a tremendous sense of humour. At a family get together, with the hail-mary brigade of widows from the war sitting around her, there was a discussion about Churchill, whom she abhorred, thinking of his as a warmonger. One of the daughters said: Come the time, come the man.
She said: Come the man, then go the man, that's what [name of daughter with two children where the man she thought she was married to cleared off] experienced.
To Derek,
Fascinating read there - I've drunk a bit too much tonight to reply sensibly, so I'll take another look tomorrow.
(Off topic - I've tried to send you a few emails via PH over the years but never got a reply, wasn't sure if you were just ignoring me or didn't get them at your end)
Fascinating read there - I've drunk a bit too much tonight to reply sensibly, so I'll take another look tomorrow.
(Off topic - I've tried to send you a few emails via PH over the years but never got a reply, wasn't sure if you were just ignoring me or didn't get them at your end)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff