Religion as character development

As to the vice vs sin thing. My understanding has been that vice is a habit that harms oneself where sin is a deeper offense against others, God, the universe, whatever. For the example, gambling is usually considered a vice not a sin. It harms oneself but isn't morally wrong (except in the eyes of some hardcore funnies).
 
Laura said:
Indeed, I would like to commend AI and Obyvatel for engaging in this discussion. However, I would like to suggest that the intellectual wise-acreing stop and ya'll bring it down into practical terms and make it easy for everyone to understand. I have to admit that my head goes all woozy when trying to sort through ya'll's convoluted sentences.

Hmm... after reading the above I decided to look if there is a list of "ancient life tips" or something similar, and stumbled upon this list: Be A Stoic – 24 Brutal Life Advice Quotes From Ancient Rome, which are basically quotes by Marcus Aurelius, or so they claim. But it's the following image that caught my attention.

men.jpg


Also, don't know how factual those tips are, but they are very similar to advice we have today. So perhaps there are universal concepts of conduct and certain ways of "growing a character" that transcend cultures?

As for the difference between vice and sin, my understanding is, that vice first of all perceived as such by other people. Fellow human beings, including the person that has a vice. It's an Earthly concept, perhaps a hindrance, imperfection, indulgence. The following comes to mind:

Q: (Atriedes) Did you have any vices?

A: None that controlled me.

While sin sounds as something that has to do with universal laws of Nature. For example, like sinning against one's soul as described in "Darkness over Tibet".

As for being a good person and if it has a "spiritual" meaning or provides extra features that can be attained?...maybe one first need to strive to be a good person in the realm of the fellow men, and then if all goes well and in accordance with the universal laws of Nature, then the Universe may respond. But how? Who knows.
 
I agree with all the replys. I especially appreciate Perceval's summation, since, when I read the opening post, my heirarchy of categories flattened and I became confused (sorry, AI ).

I'm replying now in support of Keit's post, because I see in Marcus' statement, a direct connection between any effort to teach moral virtue and the Ontological Proof (or at least one aspect of its argument) - even if it wasn't formally named. By that, I mean people have to be able to discern that virtue in the teacher otherwise the effort to teach is in vain...because it then becomes obvious that the teacher has not concieved it in such a way that he can BE it. So, in a way, Marcus seems to be pointing that out.

The role of "community" in the context of this discussion is part of an awareness that virtues are different in kind and in type/degree. They can be distinquished in kind from interactions with other persons and in type (their qualitative aspects and position in a heirarchy of importance). Philosophy, in general, tends to leave it to psychologists to deal with the differences in kind and just discuss the qualitative aspects and differences in degree. To discuss virtues as a mixed bag might confuse some people if they don't already have that understanding.

As for my thoughts on sin, I don't think I even know what it means if it's not related to consequences of disconnecting from people and denying it. As for the virtues, I guess it's for someone else to say if I have any.

Aside: something I haven't seen mentioned here yet: unless human psychology has changed fundamentally in the last 1500 to 2000 years, I think it's possible that Paul's extra-ordinary emphasis on sexuality could just as well be due partially to his own sexual suppression/repression as is often the case in modern times. I have no evidence that that is the case - just saying it might be a possibility.
 
Perceval said:
So this seems to be your question:

Approaching Infinity said:
Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

Can you not see how my summation of your posts so far:

Over and above the efforts any human being can make to lead a virtuous and good life - efforts that may not prove sufficient for him/her to truly evolve in a spiritual sense - is there some kind of 'power' or force or energy or information field, in the universe towards which human beings can be led, or into which they can 'tap', that will set them on the path to real spiritual evolution?

Is more or less the same as your question above?

Now that I re-read it, yeah. I was nitpicking and didn't read your sentence carefully. :-[ My ways of trying to frame this were really unclear, too. Perhaps to simplify it even more, I could have just asked: "Are human efforts sufficient to truly evolve in a spiritual sense?" And by "spiritual" I mean things relating to 'higher' realities, beings, consciousness, values.

I'm also interested in knowing how a 'spiritual framework' helps people in their own lives: in their own struggles and efforts to evolve. So a separate question would be: "Is a spiritual framework helpful, and how so?" The 'itch' was prompted by Bob Price's statement, but I really don't know enough about him to use him as an example.

For me personally, at this point in my life, I think a spiritual framework does help. For example, it makes me more aware of the fact that my actions will not only affect me, but the people around me as well. And this may also happen in ways that are not obvious (e.g., in an action-at-a-distance kind of way). Also, that I am part of something greater than just myself. That doesn't mean I don't still mess up. But such a perspective makes me even more motivated to find out better ways that I can help others, to learn my function in the world and fulfill it as best I can, not just for me, but to play my part for others.

For example, in this very thread, I had a vague 'intention' that really didn't turn out the way I intended! It wasn't helpful in any practical way. But I'll be trying to be clearer. If this post is no improvement, let me know!

I'm also interested in seeing what Laura has to say about how Romans understood the traits the worked to develop, and what we can learn from those examples!

I think that in cases like this you should try to formulate your question as fully and simply as possible at the very beginning, with all of your thoughts about it. If you don't make the effort to do that, it can become a process of attempting to discover what your question actually is, rather than discovering the answer to your question/thoughts.

Totally agree, Joe (and Chu, and Laura, and everyone else!). You guys are right. I really didn’t think through my question enough in order to really make it clear, either to myself or others! I jumbled a whole lot of stuff together instead without really thinking it through or laying it all on the table, and that is just not helpful! I just made it incomprehensible.
 
Keit said:
Hmm... after reading the above I decided to look if there is a list of "ancient life tips" or something similar, and stumbled upon this list: Be A Stoic – 24 Brutal Life Advice Quotes From Ancient Rome, which are basically quotes by Marcus Aurelius, or so they claim. But it's the following image that caught my attention.
Yeah that's a quote I love. My college roommate 35 or so years ago was really into Marcus Aurelius and for me there is also this:

http://gospelaccordingtodoctorwho.tumblr.com/post/68618713495/waste-no-more-time-arguing-about-what-a-good-man

“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.” – Marcus Aurelius

It is highly appropriate—and no accident—that those words of wisdom are the first we hear in “The Day of the Doctor.” For that maxim is one of the principles of Marcus Aurelius, from the book we call Meditations, but which the emperor simply titled “To Myself.” Aurelius was not—primarily, at least, if at all—writing for a wider audience: he was composing his own self-improvement book, grappling on paper with the larger questions so that he could teach himself to be a better man. What better introduction to an episode in which the Doctor comes together with his own various facets to teach himself important things, and to answer the question, once and for all, of how good a man he is? (At the risk of giving Moffat even more credit for being a clever genius than is already evident, I will merely point out that the Meditations is divided into—you guessed it—12 books, each representing a different period of the emperor’s life.)

To the best of my knowledge, the Doctor has not met Marcus Aurelius in his travels—yet—but I think they would find a lot to talk about. “Remember that man lives only in the present, in this fleeting instant,” the emperor writes. “All the rest of his life is either past and gone, or not yet revealed.” It is as true for a regenerating time traveler as it is for everyone else: whether in the past or in the future, the Doctor is always in the present, and it is the decisions he makes in each fleeting moment that define who he is.

Moment. I use that word deliberately, for it’s an important word in this episode, as it’s an important word for Marcus Aurelius. (“Objective judgment, now, at this very moment. Unselfish action, now, at this very moment. Willing acceptance, now, at this very moment, of all external events. That’s all you need.”) “The Moment” is also the name given—originally by Russell T. Davies in “The End of Time"—to the weapon with which the Doctor annihilated two civilizations. Moffat, here, builds on that idea, setting the entire 50th anniversary tale in the Moment of the Moment—the very instant in which The War Doctor (John Hurt) must decide to accept his duty, do the unthinkable, and justify an act of unspeakable evil in the name of the greater good. It is the moment that Moffat has been heading towards his entire run, the very moment that defines the modern series.

For Moffat (as I’ve argued before) has always been preoccupied with the dichotomies within the modern Doctor: how he can be a healer and a warrior; how he can be both an anonymous trickster and "the most feared being in all the cosmos”; how one moment he can be a Christ-like messiah figure, and the other “a nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies.”
 
AI, thanks for your input. I can relate!


Approaching Infinity said:
Perhaps to simplify it even more, I could have just asked: "Are human efforts sufficient to truly evolve in a spiritual sense?" And by "spiritual" I mean things relating to 'higher' realities, beings, consciousness, values.

I'm thinking human efforts are going to have to suffice but I'm probably thinking that because I don't know any other way.

Approaching Infinity said:
I'm also interested in knowing how a 'spiritual framework' helps people in their own lives: in their own struggles and efforts to evolve. So a separate question would be: "Is a spiritual framework helpful, and how so?"

I would say a framework is helpful. For one, I think it helps as a guide to what my reflections and meditations focus on as well as for organizing certain ways of experiencing life.

For example, when I focus efforts on locating a quiet center, I often reflect on how the rhythm and flow of life has affected me recently and compare with how things seem now. I look for spiritual quality in what I learn and in relationships between items of knowledge. Spirituality seems present in how I perceive quality in various kinds and levels of relationships, the quality or quantity of happiness or joy that seems to be present in those reflections - even when the feeling is very subtle and I'm unable to locate where it comes from.

Sometimes during this quiet, I seem to sense vague impressions of concerns unrelated to any that I'm aware of having at that moment and when I try to focus on those impressions my attention usually turns to the biosphere. I wonder if Nature can see herself through my eyes, so to speak. Probably sounds strange, but I will feel joy at just being alive, being a part of Nature. I will also hurt when I think of the damage being done to the ecology -its systems and living communication fields. That's when I know I want to play a part in all of life and to make improvements anywhere I can, because I think humanity is hell bent on driving Nature insane.

Is any of that suggestive of having a framework and of having a sense of spirituality?

As concerning how it helps me, my understanding, and probably imaginary perception, of these qualitative aspects of life is what I live for - like fuel of some sort.

[quote author=from Perceval's summation]
Over and above the efforts any human being can make to lead a virtuous and good life - efforts that may not prove sufficient for him/her to truly evolve in a spiritual sense - is there some kind of 'power' or force or energy or information field, in the universe towards which human beings can be led, or into which they can 'tap', that will set them on the path to real spiritual evolution?[/quote]

I think there is an information/energy field that can be tapped into. I see, or imagine, the field as a way of looking at the communication aspects and circuits(?) in the ecology of this planet. I describe it as stilling my 'Buddy' mind and trying to temporarily alter my perceptual mapping to what I think are the energy/information flows in the environment around me and which includes me. I don't know if I'm accomplishing anything 'real', but I often feel energized after doing this for a short time! I don't think I'd have any real sense of spirituality if I couldn't occasionally step out of the Cartesian theater built on top of my monkey mind!

Now, is religion a background context for the activities and efforts that help me mature those understandings that involve me and my relationships to all that's around me? Definitely! Life is my religion.
 
Just a little warm up here. I present Sallust's comparison of Caesar to Cato with a few comments following:


Sallust, War With Catiline, 52:

For my own part, as I read and heard of the many illustrious deeds of the Roman people at home and abroad, on land and sea, it chanced that I was seized by a strong desire of finding out what quality in particular had been the foundation of so great exploits. 3 I knew that often with a handful of men they had encountered great armies of the enemy; I was aware that with small resources they had waged wars with mighty kings; also that they had often experienced the cruelty of Fortune; that the Romans had been surpassed by the Greeks in eloquence and by the Gauls in warlike glory. 4 After long reflection I became convinced that it had all been accomplished by the eminent merit of a few citizens; that it was due to them that poverty had triumphed over riches, and a few over a multitude.

5 But after the state had become demoralized by extravagance and sloth, it was the commonwealth in its turn that was enabled by its greatness to sustain the shortcomings of its generals and magistrates, and for a long time, as when mothers are exhausted by child-bearing, no one at all was produced at Rome who was great in merit. 6 But within my own memory there have appeared two men of towering merit, though of diverse character, Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar. As regards these men, since the occasion has presented itself, it is not my intention to pass them by in silence, or fail to give, to the best of my ability, an account of their disposition and character.

54 In birth then, in years and in eloquence, they were about equal;

in greatness of soul they were evenly matched,

and likewise in renown, although the renown of each was different.

2 Caesar was held great because of his benefactions and lavish generosity,

Cato for the uprightness of his life.

3 The former became famous for his gentleness and compassion,

the austerity of the latter had brought him prestige.

Caesar gained glory by giving, helping, and forgiving;

Cato by never stooping to bribery. {See note below.}

One was a refuge for the unfortunate,

the other a scourge for the wicked.

The good nature of the one was applauded,

the steadfastness of the other.

4 Finally, Caesar had schooled himself to work hard and sleep little, to devote himself to the welfare of his friends and neglect his own, to refuse nothing which was worth the giving. He longed for great power, an army, a new85 war to give scope for his brilliant merit.

5 Cato, on the contrary, cultivated self-control, propriety, but above all austerity. 6 He did not vie with the rich in riches nor in intrigue with the intriguer, but with the active in good works, with the self-restrained in moderation, with the blameless in integrity. He preferred to be, rather than to seem, virtuous;86 hence the less he sought fame, the more it pursued him.

The problem with the depiction of Cato is that Cato was a self-righteous, narcissistic hypocrite. In reference to his extreme uprightness and never stooping to a bribe:

Suetonius' Life of Julius Caesar
19 Of the two other candidates for this office, Lucius Lucceius and Marcus Bibulus, Caesar joined forces with the former, making a bargain with him that since Lucceius had less influence but more funds, he should in their common name promise largess to the electors from his own pocket. When this became known, the aristocracy authorized Bibulus to promise the same amount, being seized with fear that Caesar would stick at nothing when he became chief magistrate, if he had a colleague who was heart and soul with him. Many of them contributed to the fund, and even Cato did not deny that bribery under such circumstances was for the good of the commonwealth.


Another anecdote from Plutarch:

Cato's stubbornness began in his early years. Sarpedon, his teacher, reports a very obedient and questioning child, although slow in being persuaded of things and sometimes very difficult to retrain. A story told by Plutarch tells of Quintus Poppaedius Silo, leader of the Marsi and involved in a highly controversial business in the Roman Forum, who made a visit to his friend Marcus Livius and met the children of the house. In a playful mood, he asked the children's support for his cause. All of them nodded and smiled except Cato, who stared at the guest with most suspicious looks. Silo demanded an answer from him and, seeing no response, took Cato and hung him by the feet out of the window. Even then, Cato would not say anything.

Another:

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, the Roman dictator, liked to talk with Cato and his brother Caepio, and often requested the child's presence even when the boy openly defied his opinions and policies in public (Sulla's daughter Cornelia Sulla was married to their uncle Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus Livianus). According to Plutarch, at one point during the height of the civil strife, as respected Roman nobles were being led to execution from Sulla's villa, Cato, aged about 14, asked his tutor why no one had yet killed the dictator. Sarpedon's answer was thus: "They fear him, my child, more than they hate him." Cato replied to this, "Give me a sword, that I might free my country from slavery." After this, Sarpedon was careful not to leave the boy unattended around the capital, seeing how firm he was in his republican beliefs.

After receiving his inheritance, Cato moved from his uncle's house and began to study Stoic philosophy and politics. He began to live in a very modest way, as his great-grandfather Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder had famously done. Cato subjected himself to violent exercise, and learned to endure cold and rain with a minimum of clothes. He ate only what was necessary and drank the cheapest wine on the market. This was entirely for philosophical reasons; his inheritance would have permitted him to live comfortably.

Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Life of Cato the Younger, 7:

[Atilia] was the first woman with whom he had sex, but not the only one, as was true of Laelius, the friend of Scipio Africanus; Laelius, indeed, was more fortunate, since in the course of his long life he only ever made love to one woman, the wife of his youth.

Cato and Atilia had a son, Marcus Porcius Cato who later died in the second Battle of Philippi, and a daughter Porcia Catonis who became the wife of her cousin Marcus Junius Brutus.

Circa 63 BC, Cato divorced Atilia on the grounds of adultery (she was rumoured to have been one of the many lovers of Julius Caesar), later marrying a woman named Marcia.

Marcia's second marriage, in the year 56 BC, was to the renowned orator and advocate Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, whom Cicero styled as "king of the courts". Hortensius was an admirer and friend of Cato’s, and he was eager to be more closely related to Cato and his family. Although Hortensius' own wife, the daughter of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, had just died without leaving Hortensius an heir, an alliance with Cato seems to be the chief reason for Hortensius, nearing 60 years old, to request to be married to Cato’s daughter Porcia, who was only about 20 years old at the time. However, because Porcia was already married to Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus and the age difference was so great, Cato refused to give his consent. Hortensius immediately suggested that he marry Marcia instead because she had already borne Cato his heirs. Due to Hortensius' ardor, Cato acquiesced, but only on the condition that Marcia's father, Lucius Marcius Philippus, approve as well. With Philippus' consent obtained, Cato divorced Marcia, thereby placing her under her father's charge. Hortensius promptly married Marcia, and she bore him an heir. After Hortensius' death in 50 BC, she inherited "every last sesterce of his estate"

Marcia and her children moved back into Cato’s household. Plutarch asserts that Cato remarried Marcia after Hortensius's death, whereas Appian's histories relate that Cato merely reestablished her in his own household. Either way, this caused a minor scandal, as after Hortensius' death, her return made the household rich.

Julius Caesar accused Cato of wife trafficking and marrying Marcia off to Hortensius simply in order to gain his wealth. . "For why," said Caesar, "should Cato give up his wife if he wanted her, or why, if he did not want her, should he take her back again? Unless it was true that the woman was at the first set as a bait for Hortensius, and lent by Cato when she was young that he might take her back when she was rich."
 
Buddy said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Perhaps to simplify it even more, I could have just asked: "Are human efforts sufficient to truly evolve in a spiritual sense?" And by "spiritual" I mean things relating to 'higher' realities, beings, consciousness, values.

I'm thinking human efforts are going to have to suffice but I'm probably thinking that because I don't know any other way.

Yep! Like keit wrote, "maybe one first need to strive to be a good person in the realm of the fellow men, and then if all goes well and in accordance with the universal laws of Nature, then the Universe may respond. But how? Who knows." And there isn't a whole lot of point speculating about it in the meantime.

Is any of that suggestive of having a framework and of having a sense of spirituality?

Probably in some sense. But does it have any effect on your relationships with other people?
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Perhaps to simplify it even more, I could have just asked: "Are human efforts sufficient to truly evolve in a spiritual sense?" And by "spiritual" I mean things relating to 'higher' realities, beings, consciousness, values.

I would just note here that this is not simplifying your question, but asking the only coherent question that you appear to have had, and doing so in a direct and clear way.

One part of an answer to the question seems to be: no, because awareness of 'higher' realities, beings, consciousness, is vital for spiritual growth because true spirituality is intrinsically linked with awareness of objective reality, and simply being virtuous does not provide such awareness.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Is any of that suggestive of having a framework and of having a sense of spirituality?

Probably in some sense. But does it have any effect on your relationships with other people?

Well, I suppose it does allow me to see that I have choices in how I interact with people around me in my daily life in my local context. I also have a great respect for the world around me whether or not "Great Spirit" is aware of my existence. I make more choices not to interfere with people's normal activities and ways of thinking, I help and support them in whatever ways it seems they want to make improvements - to self and/or environment. Most of the time I also see people's behavior as what they are really conceiving and doing (as opposed to what they say they are thinking and doing). I can then make choices as to how deeply to be involved with them and whether or not I would be wasting valuable time.

It's not for me to judge what role a person or behavior might be contributing to progressive advancement of The Great Creature, and that realization aids me to think in terms of 'value' a lot more than I would be otherwise, I think.

The above is probably a description of a level of coarser spirituality than you might have been expecting, but I'm thinking that spirituality, per se, doesn't lend itself well to ostensive verification in verbal communication, although I could be wrong. I'm aware that I have limitations in that area, though I'm trying to improve.
 
Hi, all! The starting point of this discussion is a very fruitful question:
Approaching Infinity said:
Are the atheists missing something important be just focusing on being 'good people' without some spiritual understanding of what they're doing? If so, what exactly are they missing? How does spirituality relate to character development? Or is a spiritual context for living one's life and developing one's character unnecessary?

The way I see it, “Focusing on being ‘good people’ is not the whole business, but it IS where one has to start, and what one cannot afford to neglect, ever.

My experience is that in order to be a “good person” one has to learn as much as possible about REALITY—the reality that YOU live in (which may not be exactly the same as anyone else’s reality). Not just making beautiful gestures, not just looking for information that supports what you want to believe, but looking for what is real and how reality works. And then, living, acting and making decisions according to what you know about reality.

It requires persistence. And persistence involves getting all those little “i’s on board the project, or at least not obstructing or diverting it.

In a sense, one’s very life depends on it—Do you choose to spend your future life dealing with the consequences of mistakes you made because you were too lazy or weak or distracted to figure out how things really work?

Seeking to understand reality as if you life depends upon it means you will recognize valuable information and lessons when they appear. We all can think of people who don’t recognize reality when it hits them in the face. Seeking to learn reality as if your life depends upon it does not have to be frantic or fearful or desperate. As the saying goes: Learning is fun.

One thing I have learned is not to allow fear of making a mistake get in the way of making decisions. 3D humans, by definition, have only incomplete knowledge, and one of the best teachers is failure. If you make your own, conscious decision, and it turns out to be a mistake, you will learn from it. Whereas if you make someone else’s mistake, you’ll be left wondering if you took bad advice, or whether you didn’t follow it correctly.

But here’s what I have been leading up to: my experience has been that when I’m trying to be the best human being I am capable of being, and when I am doing my best to work with Reality, the universe has come to my aid. Not usually in a dramatic way; not usually instantaneously. But often in ways that transcend the material laws of cause and effect as the rationalists understand them. Many times the right information, or the necessary introduction comes just at the opportune time. That still small voice, the voice that is not from the too-familiar chorus of self-blame or self-justification, the voice that is from beyond my own head, sometimes speaks.

Grace can happen. It comes from who-knows-where, and it is not to be commanded nor earned. But we must make ourselves ready to receive it.

Grace is part of Reality, too!

May we all come to the knowledge of the Truth!
 
ka said:
My experience is that in order to be a “good person” one has to learn as much as possible about REALITY—the reality that YOU live in (which may not be exactly the same as anyone else’s reality). Not just making beautiful gestures, not just looking for information that supports what you want to believe, but looking for what is real and how reality works. And then, living, acting and making decisions according to what you know about reality.

I think this is well put. In other words, it's this awareness of all aspects of reality that helps us to make good decisions, based on the way reality really works. So, here on the forum we have info on diet, health, relationships, understanding political realities, learning to identify and transform our programming, dealing with hyperdimensional realities, and more. All this information helps us to transform our old ways of living into new ones. We learn to behave in new ways based on an objective reading of all aspects of reality. And without that information, we wouldn't be able to do it.
 
Keit said:
Also, don't know how factual those tips are, but they are very similar to advice we have today. So perhaps there are universal concepts of conduct and certain ways of "growing a character" that transcend cultures?

Reminds me of this quote from Meetings with Remarkable Men:

Objective morality never changes, it can only broaden in the course of time. As for subjective morality, that is invented by man and is therefore a relative notion differing for different people and different places and is based upon the understanding of good and bad prevailing at the given time.

Subjective morality is a relative notion and if you are filled with relative notions then when you are grown up you will always and everywhere act and judge other people according to the conventional views and notions you have acquired from others. You must learn not what people around you consider "good" or "bad" but learn to act in life as your conscience bids you. An untrammeled conscience will always know more than all the books and teachers put together. But for the present, until your own conscience is formed, you should live according to the commandment of our Teacher Jesus Christ: Always-do-unto-other-as-you-would-have-others-do-unto-you.

Surface appearances change over time and between cultures, but the essence is pretty much the same. Human nature is human nature, and any two developed humans will share certain understandings and qualities.

You can get people like Cato, who may believe they're all that, but they're not. Products of subjective morality? And then you can get people like Caesar and Putin, who despite being thousands of years apart, and in different cultures, seem to live their lives by similar principles and share certain qualities.
 
Approaching Infinity said:
Keit said:
Also, don't know how factual those tips are, but they are very similar to advice we have today. So perhaps there are universal concepts of conduct and certain ways of "growing a character" that transcend cultures?

Reminds me of this quote from Meetings with Remarkable Men:

Objective morality never changes, it can only broaden in the course of time. As for subjective morality, that is invented by man and is therefore a relative notion differing for different people and different places and is based upon the understanding of good and bad prevailing at the given time.

Subjective morality is a relative notion and if you are filled with relative notions then when you are grown up you will always and everywhere act and judge other people according to the conventional views and notions you have acquired from others. You must learn not what people around you consider "good" or "bad" but learn to act in life as your conscience bids you. An untrammeled conscience will always know more than all the books and teachers put together. But for the present, until your own conscience is formed, you should live according to the commandment of our Teacher Jesus Christ: Always-do-unto-other-as-you-would-have-others-do-unto-you.

Surface appearances change over time and between cultures, but the essence is pretty much the same. Human nature is human nature, and any two developed humans will share certain understandings and qualities.

You can get people like Cato, who may believe they're all that, but they're not. Products of subjective morality? And then you can get people like Caesar and Putin, who despite being thousands of years apart, and in different cultures, seem to live their lives by similar principles and share certain qualities.

The Caesar/Putin example really illustrates that point, especially at a time when it seems when the surface appearances being almost all that exists in society have become more blaring (or perhaps that's not true and only seems that way to me, pretty much having always been so).
 
Back
Top Bottom