How do you view the world?
- Thread starter BuddyLee
- Start date
K
Kain99
Guest
Please condense all further comments to the Gumbo vs. Kain thread....Mikeinsmd said:
BuddyLee
Football addict
You speak much 'grey' in this, plus you're using plenty of cop-out's. Answer the question, is it right or wrong? If it is wrong to steal this bread to feed your family I would surely bet a helluvalot of people would disagree. This 'other half' would think you were 'wrong' for not stealing this bread to ensure your families betterment. Greyness.gumbo said:Dur da...The answer is ...."WRONG".
You ask for the loaf of bread or ask if you can do some work for it.
You can believe this or not. The majority of people are still good hearted and can see sincerity.
If your family is starving and my family is starving, I will offer you half of my loaf.
Next week if your family has a loaf and mine is without and you don't offer half. I will be taking care of two families for a couple weeks.
Because I'm gonna scab your azz up.
Welcome to Gumbo's world.
BuddyLee
Football addict
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I voted "Other".
And that's mainly because no matter how hard you try to "codify" what ought to be done, there's always an obvious exception that normal people with normal brains can spot right away.
And that's because *language* is faulty.
I learned a long time ago that on any multiple choice test, the answer that uses words like "never" and "always" is usually the wrong one.
And so you have places like courts to argue, at least, in a perfect world, the "spirit" of the law versus the letter of the law. If you make a law against speeding, the intent is to protect people and keep them safe - but if it's necessary to speed to catch a killer, it's obvious that the two needs have to be compared against one another fairly. Laws weren't created to establish right and wrong - we have churches and religion to hash those things out. Laws are there to protect people's rights. But they're imperfect, because unlike laws of physics, they do a lousy job of handling every circumstance imaginable, because they're written in language and not mathematics. They represent needs and rights of people, and not the nature of the universe.
Jesus did a pretty good job of illustrating things like this - he gave the example of observing the Sabbath - but BREAKING it to serve a higher purpose. (He even observed that *priests* BREAK the Sabbath routinely, because it IS the day they work on). Because, just as our laws do, he commented that it was created FOR man, and not man for it.
So the paramount goal is to observe what is MEANT by the law, and not explicitly what the law says.
That being said - I can easily be a black and white person, for some obvious reasons.
One is in an example my mom once gave me.
You're sitting at a traffic light, say, somewhere in Texas where you can see to the horizon in EVERY DIRECTION possible. You can tell without any reservation, there ain't NOBODY coming any direction. It's a long light. Why bother to stay at it? NOTHING is served by sitting at the light. You go through it, right?
Now, same situation, except - now there's a cop behind you. Nothing's changed, except you can probably BET you'll get a ticket for disobeying an understandably STUPID law, in this one instance.
Answering this is a tough dilemma. If you're the type that would observe the traffic light no matter what, you're a true blue law observer - and I fear for your sanity, because you're clearly crazy. On the other hand, you're not in the clear either if you'd only obey so long as no one could catch you.
It's actually a "trap" question, ethically.
But it illustrates my point very well. I do observe a lot of laws because I don't want to be bothered by the cops. I relinquish this much of my freedom to give them the latitude they require to protect my safety. It's a small price to pay.
And it illustrates one other thing ........
I can't always be relied upon to be the final word in what laws need to be observed, and which ones need to be ignored. For one thing, I know me, all too well. Given too much latitude, I'll break every rule. I know as much as I like my own integrity, I have to submit part of my own will to authority. I have to recognize some authority greater than myself, even if it's just the traffic cop. It's fairly trivial, because it's not a big deal to relinquish control to a traffic cop, but left to freely ignore him, I'd place myself in danger. I just allow this much, to protect my safety. For another thing - we can't allow EVERYONE to do the same. That would obviate the whole point of law, in the first place. If everyone was free to determine what the "spirit of the law" is, we'd have chaos, and not law at all.
For law to have ANY meaning whatsoever, it HAS to be black and white *somewhere*, even if it's at the bottom of a laundry list of litigation and red tape.
And that's mainly because no matter how hard you try to "codify" what ought to be done, there's always an obvious exception that normal people with normal brains can spot right away.
And that's because *language* is faulty.
I learned a long time ago that on any multiple choice test, the answer that uses words like "never" and "always" is usually the wrong one.
And so you have places like courts to argue, at least, in a perfect world, the "spirit" of the law versus the letter of the law. If you make a law against speeding, the intent is to protect people and keep them safe - but if it's necessary to speed to catch a killer, it's obvious that the two needs have to be compared against one another fairly. Laws weren't created to establish right and wrong - we have churches and religion to hash those things out. Laws are there to protect people's rights. But they're imperfect, because unlike laws of physics, they do a lousy job of handling every circumstance imaginable, because they're written in language and not mathematics. They represent needs and rights of people, and not the nature of the universe.
Jesus did a pretty good job of illustrating things like this - he gave the example of observing the Sabbath - but BREAKING it to serve a higher purpose. (He even observed that *priests* BREAK the Sabbath routinely, because it IS the day they work on). Because, just as our laws do, he commented that it was created FOR man, and not man for it.
So the paramount goal is to observe what is MEANT by the law, and not explicitly what the law says.
That being said - I can easily be a black and white person, for some obvious reasons.
One is in an example my mom once gave me.
You're sitting at a traffic light, say, somewhere in Texas where you can see to the horizon in EVERY DIRECTION possible. You can tell without any reservation, there ain't NOBODY coming any direction. It's a long light. Why bother to stay at it? NOTHING is served by sitting at the light. You go through it, right?
Now, same situation, except - now there's a cop behind you. Nothing's changed, except you can probably BET you'll get a ticket for disobeying an understandably STUPID law, in this one instance.
Answering this is a tough dilemma. If you're the type that would observe the traffic light no matter what, you're a true blue law observer - and I fear for your sanity, because you're clearly crazy. On the other hand, you're not in the clear either if you'd only obey so long as no one could catch you.
It's actually a "trap" question, ethically.
But it illustrates my point very well. I do observe a lot of laws because I don't want to be bothered by the cops. I relinquish this much of my freedom to give them the latitude they require to protect my safety. It's a small price to pay.
And it illustrates one other thing ........
I can't always be relied upon to be the final word in what laws need to be observed, and which ones need to be ignored. For one thing, I know me, all too well. Given too much latitude, I'll break every rule. I know as much as I like my own integrity, I have to submit part of my own will to authority. I have to recognize some authority greater than myself, even if it's just the traffic cop. It's fairly trivial, because it's not a big deal to relinquish control to a traffic cop, but left to freely ignore him, I'd place myself in danger. I just allow this much, to protect my safety. For another thing - we can't allow EVERYONE to do the same. That would obviate the whole point of law, in the first place. If everyone was free to determine what the "spirit of the law" is, we'd have chaos, and not law at all.
For law to have ANY meaning whatsoever, it HAS to be black and white *somewhere*, even if it's at the bottom of a laundry list of litigation and red tape.
People say all kinds of things to justify wrong, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.BuddyLee said:
It's wrong to steal. Period. Maybe you have a good reason, but it's still wrong. I might even do it myself, but it's still wrong. You may not be (or even deserve to be) punished for it, but it's still wrong. Our judicial system provides for good excuses - it doesn't say what you did wasn't wrong or illegal, just that you had a good excuse and will not be punished for it. Example: a woman who kills her abusive husband - clearly wrong, but a judge or jury might let her off because she had a good excuse.
Just like Sam's traffic light scenario - call me crazy but I would sit at the light until it became obvious that maybe the light was broken and would never turn green. Done it many times. It doesn't hurt anyone to sit at a light for 2 minutes.
But once we start accepting gray as the norm, we begin our journey down the slippery slope where the line between right and wrong becomes blurred to the point of non-existence.
sleuth
Livin' Like Thanksgivin'
BuddyLee said:Your family is starving. You steal a loaf of bread, right or wrong? There are differences between promises and rules.
I'd look at why the family is starving. If they're starving because you and your spouse are lazy-arses, then it's wrong.
I voted for grey... but only because it was the closest to my answer.
I actually see the world as 95% black and white, and 5% grey. The comment about "excuses" for poor decisions was right on.
What most people see as grey I see as the result of poor conscious choices. The 5% grey that I see is that which is the result of tragic circumstances, ala Katrina, the Tsunami, etc., or even layoffs from work, etc.
But even then... all those people building houses below sea level..
Last edited:
migtig
aka Mrs. Giant
After reading all the comments, I realize I really am on a different page than most of the posting forum members. 
Yes, there is right and wrong. There are moral issues that must be resolved within one's self. There are demands that society dictates to keep a status quo...however, black and white are just two colours in the spectrum of light that encompass our lives. There are joys and hopes and expectations and learning experiences, all of which help us as individuals choose what path is correct for us, and what is "right and wrong" as the majority on here are saying. Our individual life experiences, our inner moral compass and personal strengths, weakness, joys and tragedies enable us to see or not see what's before us. I see the world in a myraid of colours. Kind of like seeing someone's aura, I try to see all the colours that one has within and the earth displays for us. So I am definitely "other".
Yes, there is right and wrong. There are moral issues that must be resolved within one's self. There are demands that society dictates to keep a status quo...however, black and white are just two colours in the spectrum of light that encompass our lives. There are joys and hopes and expectations and learning experiences, all of which help us as individuals choose what path is correct for us, and what is "right and wrong" as the majority on here are saying. Our individual life experiences, our inner moral compass and personal strengths, weakness, joys and tragedies enable us to see or not see what's before us. I see the world in a myraid of colours. Kind of like seeing someone's aura, I try to see all the colours that one has within and the earth displays for us. So I am definitely "other". 
Pete
Repete
So to clarify for the dozen or so guys out there scratching their heads; Does this mean you are open to bang bang bang?migtig said:After reading all the comments, I realize I really am on a different page than most of the posting forum members.
