What's more important? To be right, or to be good? To be good, or to be great?
What are values? Are they an invention of the human mind? Or are they something that are part of the structure of the Universe? You know, some sort of cosmic order.
What is right, what is wrong? Are they entirely relative? Or, are there rights and wrongs that are absolute and unchangeable? If there are, how do we know them?
Do humans have inalienable rights? If they do, what about other species on this planet? Are animal rights "invented" by humans? If so, who gave us the right to presume that they didn't have any rights to start with?
Is man the measure of everything that's moral? What is morality? What is conscience? What is the difference between right and wrong? Is something that's not wrong right? Who determines it? Where do morality and conscience come from?
What is knowledge? What is belief? Are the two interchangeable? When you say you know something, what exactly do you mean? Is rationality the knower? How do you validate it? Is everything not a matter of belief (though there may be laws that explain things 99.99% of the time)?
Does God exist (I certainly believe so)? If so, how do we prove Its existence? Can it even be proved, in a way that will satisfy science (if not scientists)?
The questions go on and on, and I have no thoroughly convincing answers.
Posts
I found that, everything is absurd.. we only 'give' meanings to it..
ReplyDeletemorality is high only if we assume it through our intellects for example,
I should not steal coz I believe God will punish me.. that's false or stupid morality.. I should not steal
because the other man's wealth is as precious to him as I do hold mine
so in that case, altruism emerges and thereby dictates morality . there is no set rules to live
nor we have some book to follow
we just have one life to live and one shot at it
so morality gains even more importance here.. and I think that should be a superior one, which comes out of rationality
morality is in many ways individual example, Ravana may ve been a very good person morally, according to him
I think if we live such that we don't harm the existence or belittle the other humans, and still lay our own paths, that's superior morality.. upayogam pannalainaalum paravalla.. upadhravam panna koodathu
God : either theism or Atheism are the same.. they are different ways of looking at the same coin.. there is no use in criticizing each other.. I think if Science and Religion can co exist, so do can Theists and Atheists live in harmony, very well knowing that, arguments never win anything and live to do something good for the society rather than fighting for ideological reasons..
I think the end may justify the means man is defined only by his own life.. there is no hidden agenda..
so that brings us close to think more about Death.. I think Death is to be glorified..
life is inherently meaningless.. but at the same time, so beautifully meaningful only because we have Death to define us.. a wonderful full-stop to give meaning to our sentences..
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr.Anonymous. Since you speak in Tamizh, I assume you're not a stranger. In that case, please reveal your identity.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that utility is the measure of morality. What's convenient, or even beneficial to you may, even without your being aware of it, be harmful to another human. If that's the case, you're not being moral since, by your definition, you have either harmed the existence of, or belittled, another human. Well, to be precise, you've not committed an act of immorality, but you've slipped from your "superior" moral standards.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you consider your intentions to be the measure of your moral standards, then you've been moral.
Dilemmatic? Or is it just me?
Dilemmatic?
ReplyDeletethe understanding should be made clear ourselves ..we have to draw our understanding and stand for our values
its indeed dilemmatic and, what do you think of suicide? is it allowed morally?
again, when we talk about 'allowing', then it becomes a point of Law, not philosophy anymore
Law of the land is a crude form of philosophy which is practical and derived..
but philosophy should be much more.. should transcend all laws so, to take an example
lets consider a woman, with no husband, and a child.. she has AIDS and her hubby had given her that.. and the child doesnt have it.. okay, and she is so depressed that she thinks she should die, and goes on to the act.. now, when we think, is it good? anyways, there is no life for her.. she will die painfully in a year.. so, now, there are two courses to do.. one is to sustain and care for the baby till she dies.. or, die immediately , leaving the baby in distress
what do you think of this situation? there is always a dependancy in life..parents - child, husband - wife, boss - employee - client..
so,any small decision or big will affect the chain all..:)
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/LadyTige.shtml You must haveread this short story?
lady or the tiger? by frank stockton , this has a sequel too ...this one was in the CBSE textbook
this is it! http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/?p=83398933 awesome story, on choices in life
the discourager of hesitancies
Thanks again, Anon, for those superb links - I've bookmarked them. Now, that story - the Lady or the Tiger - is an awesome example, not of a dilemma, but of a puzzle that probes into human emotions and intentions. Amazing!
ReplyDeleteI believe that, at one level, and for certain things, morality is relative and fixed by individuals based on convenience, practicality, etc., though for many things, morality should transcend these. I suppose, this stems from my belief that Absolutes exist. God, for example, is an Absolute.
In the example of the lady with AIDS, I'd say that she live a year for the sake of her child, giving the child a better chance at life. Again, it's my belief that our sufferings can be looked at as an opportunity to become better beings. Perhaps on the route to self-realisation!