@icolan Do you even know what the word "lack" mean?

@icolan Yes, stupid is having or show a great lack of intelligence or common sense, that is why they keep repeating the same mistake over and over again and again. Now what is the word "LACK" mean?

@icolan ok, then explain to me what does the word "Lack" mean....

@icolan wait, your meaning of "Lack is very unclear." That is very loosely meaning. You can not define a word in such way. Let finish up with the definition of "lack" first. To a precise and accurate understanding of it.

@icolan Now read on top of your previous answer. Is it missing something?

@icolan I think tuytran888 is just letting us know that he considers himself immoral. =/

@dellik What is moral? Do you even know?

@dellik, @icolan You do not even understand what the word lack mean. even after you post the definition. You only look at the without, and forgot to see the "or not having enough of something. And you think you have no hack of understanding of the English language. What a laugh.

@icolan So you know every word in English and you understand clearly every word mean? While you are not even understood What the word lack really mean.

@Bobby9 when the person you wish to murder is causing great harm to others, the moral choice is to insure they can no longer do so.

@Bobby9 and thats your opinion. Id say lay enforcement is inherently immoral, as for the most part, laws exist to subjugate the masses, not protect.

@Bobby9 I literally said Id say, which means my opinion. reading comprehension not your strong suit? And as far as 'backing that up' I would say the surge in public outcry over police brutality and abuses removes my personal need to back it up, as society as a whole already sees what you seem to chose not to.

And your blanket statement that most people see vigilantism as immoral is absurd. most people see those that fix what the law does not as hero's. Its literally a entire genre in fiction.

There is no good cop, that has been proven, as by definition a cops job is to enforce all laws, and some laws are inherently unjust. therefore either a the officer is failing to do his job, and only enforcing laws he/she considers just, or B they are actively enforcing unjust laws, either is a moral failure.

And lastly, your weak deflecting attempt to discredit me due to a accidental spelling error marks you as a petty sot, and worthy of contempt =D

@Bobby9 actually, Yes, the good cop argument has been definitively put to rest.

If someone creates a threat to others, by their continued existence/freedom (without the recourse to imprison them) that justifies removing them from the environment, to do anything less would be amoral.

And no, there is no justification for rape, rape can not prevent harm.

and the irony of you standing by your petty spelling correction, when you literally misspelled the word you prefaced the quote with is fantastic. Thank you for that =D

@Bobby9 Also worth note that the topic wasnt murder, the topic (in this sub thread anyway) is the fluidity of morality.You chose to direct the discussion to murder. I simply opted to take the direction you chose, to correct your mistake, but you gripped harder, clinging to the vain hope you were correct.

I would say I will await your humble acknowledgement of your error, but honestly I doubt you are capable of that level of self awareness, and will either allow cognitive dissonance to convince yourself you are right, or b just block me, but either way.. You failed.

Too funny/ =D

@Bobby9 well ultimately there are people being in goverments or in the various law enforcement agencies ... Laws are pondered by people who have their personal interests at heart. ... You view is very idealistic

@Bobby9 well ultimately there are people being in goverments or in the various law enforcement agencies ... Laws are pondered by people who have their personal interests at heart. ... You view is very idealistic

@Bobby9 I think that your definition of vigilantism is incorrect.

The Dalai Lama also said he was thankful he was not born a woman. So please don't hold him up as a moral guide!

So was the Dalai Lama expressing gratitude because he despises women or because he sees their plight? I too am glad I am a cisgender male, and a white one to boot. I've had access to a world of privilege as yet denied to those who are not. This does not mean I despise those people, merely that I am grateful for the luck of my birth.

@Agnostic1 I'm also thankful not to be a woman. I think I am also lucky to be strait and white. There are obvious advantages to both. I don't see other races or genders as inferior however, just oppressed. I support any person or movement that seeks to end that oppression. So does the Dalai Llama as far as I've read anyway.

@UnityBrad - what a bunch of self-righteous nonsense. "Thankful not to be a woman, lucky to be strait (sic) and white" - thankful to whom? If you can't see that you insult all women, black people and gays by saying you're thankful not to be one, you have a lot of growing to do. Try changing society so there is not need to do this. It seems you spend a lot of time navel-gazing and being thankful - how about some REAL stuff? But hey, if it makes you feel better,

@RobAnybody - it makes no difference why the DL said it - and how do you explain the extra rules for women monks? Rather than internalise and be "grateful" in a totally selfish way (I'm shocked at how many people still only think of themselves on here) let's try to make a society where all people start their lives from the same equal point, rather than be told they are second choice - which is exactly what you just said.

@Agnostic1 Why at you so angry? Life is far too short to waste it being angry. What if you are right and this is all there is? You seem to wear your victim status like a badge of honor.(I think that is what "self righteous" people do.) What do you get out of having that mindset besides prescriptions for anti depressants. You said it was wrong for me to appreciate not being oppressed. I hope that someday you will also be free from your oppressive circumstances. Then you can experience gratitude or at least feel fortunate.

@UnityBrad - Hahahaha! The religiot's last stand! "Why are atheists so angry?" - I'm not angry at all - I just don't suffer fools gladly. I'm not a victim, I don't take any drugs, and I'm certainly not oppressed. But I agree I've spent far too much time on you. You now bore me, Yawn. So bye.

@Agnostic1 No that's what you just read. I am expressing my acknowledgement of current reality. I may not agree with it (it actually infuriates me that my son can walk safely at night but not my daughter) but it is the reality in which we live. It is changing, slowly, but pretending that men do not have less crap to deal with than women, or that our society does not give an easier time to the lighter of skin, or that anyone outside the heteronormality doesn't face extra challenges won't achieve anything. So back to my original question, Was the DL despising women or commenting on their oppression, even within his own tradition?

I've always felt the same way. You don't need a deity to have a conscience.

@GoldenDoll You have a point. The mere mention of race makes it a racial issue and a superiority complex. If it doesn't matter then why mention it?

@GoldenDoll - Acknowledging the current state of things is not the same thing as endorsing them or even accepting them.

@GoldenDoll I think the Dalai Lama sees the world pretty clearly, including the benefits of being male, and the inherent struggles of being female.

I looked at the post again and thought I should write my own reply but this pretty much sums it up,Before I really thought about it I was going to go with "Do unto others,,," but who am I to judge what others want done to them.I will go with "Dont do to others what you would not want done to you"

Yep, pretty much sums it up, I would go, "Do no harm" first, to me it applies at all levels including environmental, though it is not always simple, at times I have had to choose between that and "the greater good".

Oversimplified or not, I live by your 3 point statement above except that I am a bit lax on number 3. I can help but often it is not monetary help. As for "live and let live" I have had that as a life motto for many years now.

@DenoPenno I don't think help has to take any specific form, and I don't think it has to take up all of one's free time. I just think it's a good guide that I help people when the opportunity arises, provided it isn't an undue burden (financially, emotionally, etc.). It might be as simple as volunteering one day a month at a soup kitchen or food pantry. I tend to think gifts of time are often more valuable than money. (I just learned that an organization where I volunteer, by virtue of being a non-profit, must have 60% or more of its work performed by volunteers. They have funding and grants, but without volunteers they can't fulfill their mission.)

That about wraps the whole thing up.

Agreed. Succinct yet profound.

You said it well, thank you.

Which law?

@PontifexMarximus the one you have to deal with when you kill someone, or commit fraud, or go over a stop light, or rob a bank, or don't pay your taxes, etc etc etc

@IamNobody many laws lead to immoral outcomes. Laws are stitched up and cobbled together within polities that lack moral foundations. The connection between legal frameworks and morality is rather arbitrary.

@IamNobody Some ethnic communities would never have been able to achieve the alignments of the rights with the prevailing order if the had just respected the laws.
Respecting laws can be immoral. Being law abiding only means a person is obidient and a good follower.
Totalitarian regimes also apply the rule of law for self protection.

@PontifexMarximus you can cut it anyway you like, I am saying you follow the law then you will be fine and you don't any religious beliefs to do so

@IamNobody So laws compelling citizens to denounce others because of their ethnicity or religion or political conviction should be followed?

@PontifexMarximus yes !! Spot on !!

The Golden Rule is what I use also

TBH, I'm not exactly a fan of the golden rule. It would be better expressed as treat others the way THEY wish to be treated. As it is now, it allows you to project your morality on others.

Me too. The Golden Rule rules.

Even if they try to kill you?

@GizmoAmbivert So maybe "Do harm when necessary" would be a better mantra.

But didn't you know that anyway, before somebody wrote it in the buybull?

The golden rule doesn't work very well if you're a paedophile though does it?

@GoldenDoll - That's why I say it should be "treat others the way they wish to be treated."

You simply take whatever you want if you can without harm to yourself? Because THAT is instinct.

I'd say our moral compass comes from our DNA. We are social animals who can think in concepts, outside of our small selves and realize that together we are stronger.

[merriam-webster.com]

Erica.
I instinctively know how to treat other people. I don't need to make up "moral codes" to know what the right thing to do is.
I don't navigate life with a rule book, and I really don't think anyone else does either.

...and if I get to make up my own rules, then what difference does it make if I follow them?

@NASTYNEIL better in what way?that you have no flaws? No errors in judgement?for someone to be subjectively wrong makes you only better subjectively.

Exactly how I live my life. I get along with lots of people from different religions to ethnic back grounds. Be a good person and try to be as happy as you can. You do me wrong and you no longer have a place in my life. I try hard to be kind to mother earth and have tought my kids the same. FYI.. I tell my kids all the time, " You don't want to grow up and be an asshole" ????

Have you read the book, Assholes: A Theory. It may give additional insights.

I like you! Your position is powerful.

I agree. Defining ourselves by what we are not seems to be a ridiculous way of doing so. Do religious people refer to themselves as "non-Atheist"?

I didn't think about it before, but I do agree after reading your comment.

A religious moral code seems to be kill the opposition, been going on for thousands of years... morality at its highest

Having a comic artist background, I've always tried to walk the walk when it came to some of the "hero" mindset. Do the right thing, be a positive role model and help whenever you can/should. In other words I take the positive force code. My presence should be positive everywhere I go to all around me.

The non aggresion principle is a more complete philosophy. Google NAP.

If Illusion knowledge enriches your life, would you harm it?

@TuyTran888 do you need Illusions to be happy? If your happiness is based on an illusion perhaps you aren't happy. Perhap you should spent your time and effort on trying to beome happy/ What's that stone song. "You can't always get what yyou want, but if you try sometime you may get what you need.

If you ever decide to seek and have real happiness then it will be you who will destroy the Illusion

@argome It is good that you acknowledge illusion is not good for anyone. There are a lot of people trying to enrich people life to be happy with illusion knowledge. If you just focus on happy, then how would you even tell which is illusion knowledge or not? What we need is knowledge so that we can distinct what is illusion or not. That is how we can be more happy.

Well if you can dicide for yourself what is or is not moral then you give me the right to decide as well.you being no more the authority then i, that torturing a animal for any reason is wrong without morality even being the issue. So simply said. I have that authority as well as a duty to protect that witch can't protect its self when and where I can. Unessisary harm to anything is wrong,vary wrong

@River-david these are subjective judgements. I think plastic surgery and IVF is immoral.

Immoral is about not having a duty of caring, whatever your belief system is. And mate if you ever torture an animal I'll be after you.

Not so much a moral choice as a vehicular imperative

@moNOtheist I tend to disagree after experiencing traffic in China where driving behaviour appears threatening. In general the respecting of rules boils down to moral choices.

@PontifexMarximus I know what you mean - they seem to miss each other by a hair's breadth - although i don't recall seeing more than a couple of stop signs my whole time there. Of course, even red lights seem to be treated as mere advisories.

If it's morally proper to kill a person then why not, religion has nothing to do with it . . . just be ready to face the consequences because any action will always have a reaction

I've known many god "loving" people who have no morals at all and use God as a get out of jail free card. But hey.. At least they can be forgiven and still go to heaven. ????

It's dangerous to use the what goes around comes around code - it lets an awful lot of people off the hook when they do bad things, and we all know it's not true. (And it's almost a "religious" thing! - have faith in somebody/something else sorting out injustices).

It's what works for me.... I have a conscience and feel that if I do wrong to another, It will come back to me. It has worked that way in my life, so far.

Cool - I'm a physical chemist too!

Yep we are cool ...

Me too! I'm having difficulty using it as a noun - quite a moutful "You're such a casuistrist!"

I find spiders creepy, too, but they do a hell of a lot more good for us than bad, so don't squish too many. Without them we'd be overrun by insects, and they are unlikely to bite much larger critters like ourselves, preferring to flee if at all possible.

My then 10 year old son claimed the proof for God was that spiders can't fly. It's as convincing an argument as any.

It gets complicated by the incredibly wide variety of "others", who have many different needs, problems, understandings, life conditions etc. For instance, some people are masochistic (extreme example) so should they hurt others? But there are many finer shades of difficulty and paradox if you think about it. But I think that the statement is basically in the right direction.

If we all did this we wouldn't have masochists.

Interesting, Tommy. I like the never compromise yourself, but I'm a little bemused by the (2). I'm not sure I know what an ego is, or what you specifically mean by it.

EGO; The self regarded as acting independent of causes and conditions.

No ego satisfactions. Never exalt yourself and vent your emotions to inflate your mind or magnify your pride against life.