Can you say more about what this common element in their character might be? I can imagine it might be, for instance, concern for others. But then I can imagine it might be, for instance, something common only to all those of a certain nation or regime. I'd appreciate it if you, or anyone, can expand on this.
The common element has usually been a shared nationality, a nation... We find it easy to be moral among those closest to us, and so we try to instill into people the sense of humanity as a familily, to make international morality manifest, and yet, while we do that many look at the body politic as the horn of plenty where those who give not can take their fill...And I do not think there is a cure for people who have no feeling for humanity or family or nation... Some people are pathological, born without mercy, pity, or empathy... Some become killers and some become bankers and some become generals...
One thing is certain to me, that people learn morality before they learn anything consciously... It is a normal and natural extension of the relationship between mother and child...Bonding, and emotional attachment are behind morality, and reason is against it, for what is reasonable is reasonble to some one, from a single perspective, as moral behavior can never see things...The we is an axium of all moral behavior, and reason asserts the individual and denies the group...
---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 07:36 AM ----------
Yogi DMT;147992 wrote:
IMO keeping your morality would be to respect others' life, liberty, and as much as i hate to say it, property. These are the most fundamental values that when violated becomes a moral discrepancy. Therefore any violation of these rights would be a violation of our fundamental moral code, anything else, could theoretically be argued.
Property was once essential to life, and so, people were once justified in killing others in defense of their property...To do so now is not justified...Property can be replaced, and society can make the victim whole, but no one can return life to the dead, and so there must be some good reason, something other to justify the death of a thief... And, people are removed from vast amounts of property daily in this country by fair means and foul, and those who remove them have the protection of law, so such laws do not protect property, but theft of a higher kind....
---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 07:37 AM ----------
Morality is an excellent thing to debate, and may be the most relevant debate topic. The problem, of course, is that people like absolutes and hate to admit they're short sighted or in error, thus, debates about morality suggest that there is some sort of defect in moral debates. But morality becomes an excellent conversation catalyst when the discussion becomes a sort of point-counterpoint-conclusion cycle in which various view points are presented.
What this means is that there is so much gray area in all things morality that a good discussion about morals helps narrow down conclusions that are compromises. Of course, it would be ideal if all moral discussions were like this, but unfortunately, they are not.
People do not like absolutes, but they like the idea of absolutes, and so they take perfectly good moral sentaments and make laws of them; and it is a mistake...