Subject:

Comments:
: First "morals", now we have "rights"? "Happiness"?Do I also have the right to be unhappy? to be a slave? Which is better cheap happiness or exalted suffering? "Liberty"? Just give us more independence, untie the hands of any one of us, widen the sphere of our activities, relax the discipline and we should immediately be begging for for the discipline to be reimposed on us. "Life"? You have mistaken your cowardice for common sense and have found comfort in that, deceiving yourself. We do not even know where we are to find real life, or what it is. Leave us alone without any books and we will at once become confused, lose ourselves in a maze and not know what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise. We even find it hard to be men and women. We are ashamed of it. We think it a disgrace and we do our best to be some sort of theoretical "average men". : Your have baptised your prejudices and called them "morals". : : : : what if we say that morals do not exist? it is a scarry thought maybe..where would we be without values and restraints that stop us from hurting each other? i guess i am too existentialist and nietszcheschian to accept a suffocating and stringent moral...in my opinion, if we find ourselves, if we take coscience of our word and reality, then we can become overman. then, our evolution having reached the peak, we would not need rules anymore, because a fearless and determinate man doesn't need to defend himself..as to say that he'd be a constructor... : : : not a destroyer. yet, to answer your question, if we were to apply values, and sometimes i guess we should, i would say that they must be subjective. one would maybe say that there are some universal values that shoul hold for everyone..i do agree..i don't want to deny that...but only after our complete evolution would we be able to understand and respect them... : : : standards and stereotypes are killing us, are killing our individuality...the only thing that makes us supermen... : : : : Are morals, standards, etc., universally applicable therefore constant and unchanging no matter who, what or where? Or are our morals relative to a given people, place, time, or person? : : : : What is morality? Morality is the concept of a rightness and wrongness existing as pertaining to some idea or type of behavior. Many people find the idea of an action being "wrong" for everyone a bit contrary to the individualistic attitude that has since 177something fueled America. : : I believe that there are morals and that they are objective. I do not hold this idea due to any religious stimulation. The modern concept of religious morals consists of either God (i.e. Supreme Being, Allah, Mother earth, or a polytheistic ensemble)determine morality. Followers of this morality due so because they fear retribution or want to go to Heaven(I am certain there are other Nirvanaesche nouns, but I don't have a handy thesaurus). My morality is one based on individual happiness. Man's goal in life is individual happiness. So anything contrary to this goal is immoral. : : Now, how does this pertain to behavior in society? Every man has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. For every man to have these rights every other man must respect them. For me to have the ability to freely pursue my happiness, other people must respect my rights. Thus, disrespect of the rights of other is immoral. : : As to the subjectivity of morals, simply because an individual exist does not mean he or she will be happy. Individuals must pursue their happiness. And this happiness is not set by any whim, want, or irratioanl, immoral action in this person or the same in others (i.e. Fate). It is set by reason. For a person to find happiness, he or she must have a goal and values necessary to reach that goal. This goal and these values must not be compromised. Compromising one's self or one's values destroys any chance at individual happiness. One cannot throw away values on whims or irrational desires and expect happiness. Happiness is a set objective goal. To achieve it an individual must meet certain goals and not compromise ideals and values. These goals and values are not subjective to the desire of the seeker. They are objective and do not change. : : This objectivity is not a collective concept. It is an individual one. Outside judgement (a popular concept in most modern religions) of individual morality as pertaining to pursuit of happiness is not possible or necessary. A person is his or her own judge and own master. Whether or not a person achieves individual happiness is up to the person. He or she must think and strive to it, but no collective philosophy will be a road map to achievement. : : As to morality concerning the respect of individual rights, it is the place of the government insure the protection the rights of man. Morals of this sort, those of our law code, should be determined through logic and reason. A man has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What rights that do not impede his fellow man are his. Those that do are not. When other individuals do not respect this ultimatum, then the government should enforce it. : : On an ending noteI'd like to know more about this finding yourself. I've read Hesse's Demian and some essays of Nietszche, but the idea still seems mystic and confusing. Perhaps you could define this interesting anomoly.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[Nantucket Navy Live Chat][Classicals][The Jolly Roger][Kill Devil Hill][Western Canon University][Federalistnavy.com Spirit of America]
[Starbuck.com Classical Poetry Port] [Kill Devil Hill] [Shakespearean Greetings]
[Western Canon University Commons] [Western Canon University Lecture Halls]
[The Crow's Nest]
[CLASSICALS CAMPFIRES ] Philosophy, Philosophy,Philosophy, Philosophy, Philosophy,Philosophy, Philosophy, , Philosophy, Philosophy, , , Philosophy, Philosophy,