(Christian) Morals

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 7:34 pm

Here is the question I came up with.
Which of the two moral premises to build a culture on sounds better?

1. We determine values and norms together to have a structured society and people know what laws to obey, what not to do, what rights they have etc.

OR

2. The only thing in the world that we CAN do, is trying to find happyness. For the rest we just do things.

Notice the difference between the two. Number 1. can never exist in number 2. because man is not able to do that. He is only able to try and be happy. For the rest he just does things.

(in case you're woundering. The Indian culture was built on number 2. but colonisers have destroyed it

)

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:54 am

maybe in a perfect world filled with sunshine, love and kisses, #2 would work. But our world is far from perfect. We need a certain amount of order to maintain things, we need a certain amount of #1. I'm sure even the almighty Indians had rules to which their tribes followed to maintain order.

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:41 am

jgh7 wrote:maybe in a perfect world filled with sunshine, love and kisses, #2 would work. But our world is far from perfect. We need a certain amount of order to maintain things, we need a certain amount of #1

It worked for thousands of years in India stoopid. What has suddenly changed so much that it is impossible now?

WESTERN CULTURE??

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:43 am

jgh7 wrote:I'm sure even the almighty Indians had rules to which their tribes followed to maintain order.

You're not sure, liar.

They had dialogue and agreements for every problem, not rules. That's something else in case you haven't figured that out.

MagusYanam · Post by **MagusYanam** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:10 am

Ehm - it isn't as though in pre-colonial India there weren't rules, laws and social structures. It's just that they weren't universal and they tended to rely more on custom and habit than on a set code. It would be like the difference between English common law and American constitutional law.

For example, the caste system wasn't as strong in some regions of India (like the Punjab or other areas of the far north) as it was in others, but there were still brahmin families, ksatriya families, merchant, worker and peasant families, et cetera - and each village had rules and regulations for their interactions (though some villages would have more strict rules than others). The biggest change colonial Britain brought about in this regard was the uniform application of the caste system, set down in a single code of law based on the Laws of Manu (which ended up interfering with a lot of local traditions, customs and laws).

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:17 am

MagusYanam wrote:Ehm - it isn't as though in pre-colonial India there weren't rules, laws

And you know this how exactly?

You can only project what you know on them. Have you been there, in pre-colonial India?

Or have you just read some Western books about it?

I know this saying from Wittgenstein which applies here.

"Where of one cannot speak, there of one must be silent".

I'd suggest you try and understand what the saying means...

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:22 am

MagusYanam wrote:....the caste system...

Again, the saying above here applies.

The only reason there is a "caste system" in India today is because Western colonizers came there and wrote about India by projecting the only thing they know. Some social structure with rules. Actually read the first Western descriptions of India. They are just a description of the Western society at the time with Indian names and words.
Before Western idiots came there, there was no such thing.

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:49 am

I'm not blaming anyone for this nonsense. It is totally normal that you sprout this here because it is all you know.
But nonsense it is.

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:57 am

Moderator Formal Warning: MrWigglez, desist from engaging in personal attacks on other members. It is against the forum rules. You have already been made aware of this. If you do not improve your posting style immediately, further action will be taken.

MrWigglez wrote:
It worked for thousands of years in India stoopid.

You're not sure, liar.

MrWigglez · Post by **MrWigglez** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:04 am

Fallibleone wrote:Moderator Formal Warning: MrWigglez, desist from engaging in personal attacks on other members. It is against the forum rules. You have already been made aware of this. If you do not improve your posting style immediately, further action will be taken.

MrWigglez wrote:
It worked for thousands of years in India stoopid.

You're not sure, liar.

If he's lying I call him a liar. That no ad hominem

The stoopid is, I appologize.

But a liar he is when he says such a thing. I'm not talking about his entire persona. But that statement is a LIE. End of story.