RE: moral/ethics..

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: moral/ethics..

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: moral/ethics..

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 11:55:51 AM

fergus

Posts: 1110
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

"depends" seems to be the term of agreement here ;)

I don't believe ANY TWO people have the exact morals.

In any relationship there is a little give and a little take. If the ones that you consider major line up with each other, there shouldn't be too much trouble.

fergus

(in reply to SimplyV)

Post #: 21

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 12:36:57 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

a by product of good morals ultimately teachs one to have a highly developed and keen sense of discretion as well as the ability to discern sometimes very subtle differences in the world around them that can have a large impact on the quality of life as a whole.

ref:
discern - To recognize or comprehend mentally
discretion - Ability or power to decide responsibly

No two persons morals are identical.

buyer beware: since ethics/morals are the essence of ones character which provides the building blocks and foundation of standards for which one makes the judgements of what is "right" or what is "wrong" with regard to another, in the eyes of the beholder, where like a vine, if one runner falls onto bad earth and takes root, the whole plant suffers or even withers and dies.

yes i could possibly serve someone whos moral structure is less developed than my own, only if they demonstrated moral stability under "all" circumstances, and only if the areas that their morals were under developed would not conflict or infringe upon mine.

i would not remotely consider someone who is largely unethical / amoral or immoral as someone i could accept as my friend much less serve.

references:
a·mor·al (-môrl, -mr-) KEY ADJECTIVE:

Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral.
Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

mor·al (môrl, mr-) KEY ADJECTIVE:

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
NOUN:

The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mrlis, from ms , mr-, custom; see m- 1 in Indo-European roots

OTHER FORMS:
moral·ly (Adverb)

SYNONYMS:
moral , ethical , virtuous , righteous

These adjectives mean in accord with right or good conduct. Moral applies to personal character and behavior, especially sexual conduct: "Our moral sense dictates a clearcut preference for these societies which share with us an abiding respect for individual human rights" (Jimmy Carter). Ethical stresses idealistic standards of right and wrong: "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants" (Omar N. Bradley). Virtuous implies moral excellence and loftiness of character: "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous" (Frederick Douglass). Righteous emphasizes moral uprightness; when it is applied to actions, reactions, or impulses, it often implies justifiable outrage: "He was . . . stirred by righteous wrath" (John Galsworthy).

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LadyElizabeth)

Post #: 22

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 1:19:31 PM

LadiesBladewing

Posts: 944
Joined: 8/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

buyer beware: since ethics/morals are the essence of ones character which provides the building blocks and foundation of standards for which one makes the judgements of what is "right" or what is "wrong" with regard to another, in the eyes of the beholder, where like a vine, if one runner falls onto bad earth and takes root, the whole plant suffers or even withers and dies.

yes i could possibly serve someone whos moral structure is less developed than my own, only if they demonstrated moral stability under "all" circumstances, and only if the areas that their morals were under developed would not conflict or infringe upon mine.

i would not remotely consider someone who is largely unethical / amoral or immoral as someone i could accept as my friend much less serve.

Ok, my next question here is: Why does there seem to be the assumption that, if someone's morals or ethics are different than yours, they are "less developed"?

It is possible for someone to have a moral and ethical framework that is -quite- carefully and extensively developed, but in which there might be broad areas of divergence about the expression of ethics/morals. Just because there is a variance does -not- mean there is a correlating lack of development in the ethical system in question.

Lady Zephyr

_____________________________

"Should have", "could have", "would have" and "can't" may be the most dangerous phrases in the English language.
Bladewing Enclave

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 23

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 1:37:33 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

buyer beware: since ethics/morals are the essence of ones character which provides the building blocks and foundation of standards for which one makes the judgements of what is "right" or what is "wrong" with regard to another, in the eyes of the beholder, where like a vine, if one runner falls onto bad earth and takes root, the whole plant suffers or even withers and dies.

yes i could possibly serve someone whos moral structure is less developed than my own, only if they demonstrated moral stability under "all" circumstances, and only if the areas that their morals were under developed would not conflict or infringe upon mine.

i would not remotely consider someone who is largely unethical / amoral or immoral as someone i could accept as my friend much less serve.

Ok, my next question here is: Why does there seem to be the assumption that, if someone's morals or ethics are different than yours, they are "less developed"?

It is possible for someone to have a moral and ethical framework that is -quite- carefully and extensively developed, but in which there might be broad areas of divergence about the expression of ethics/morals. Just because there is a variance does -not- mean there is a correlating lack of development in the ethical system in question.

Lady Zephyr

let me clarify: different does not equal less, however different certainly can be less, different can equally be more.

what i said was not intended to imply different = less.

if it were i who's morals are underdeveloped then mine would be in conflict, it works either way, and in the end its conflict that ultimately results in a deal breaker

Its the expression of those morals that becomes the issue. and it can get pretty convoluted to pick away at. Its the expression of a persons morals that makes the statement of "who you are" (keeping in mind this is being said by an atheist)

imagine someone, (and i am not referencing to the previous poster here), who has a very highly developed sense of morals who would swerve to miss a squirrel while taking out a human.

i am sure there are better examples to be had but one can say the person saving the squirrel has a highly developed sense of morals and this is tru, but now to take out the person instead? it shows a conflict in moral structure.

though it may not be a good example i think everyone knows someone who treats their animals and pets better than their mates

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/18/2006 1:49:54 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LadiesBladewing)

Post #: 24

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 1:51:26 PM

yourMissTress

Posts: 1665
Joined: 6/14/2005
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

buyer beware: since ethics/morals are the essence of ones character which provides the building blocks and foundation of standards for which one makes the judgements of what is "right" or what is "wrong" with regard to another, in the eyes of the beholder, where like a vine, if one runner falls onto bad earth and takes root, the whole plant suffers or even withers and dies.

yes i could possibly serve someone whos moral structure is less developed than my own, only if they demonstrated moral stability under "all" circumstances, and only if the areas that their morals were under developed would not conflict or infringe upon mine.

i would not remotely consider someone who is largely unethical / amoral or immoral as someone i could accept as my friend much less serve.

Ok, my next question here is: Why does there seem to be the assumption that, if someone's morals or ethics are different than yours, they are "less developed"?

It is possible for someone to have a moral and ethical framework that is -quite- carefully and extensively developed, but in which there might be broad areas of divergence about the expression of ethics/morals. Just because there is a variance does -not- mean there is a correlating lack of development in the ethical system in question.

Lady Zephyr

Lady Zephyr, the person you are responding to has made an impression on me, such that anyone who isn't in exact agreement with him on any issue ( morals and ethics being only one of many) is "less developed".

For my own response to the question would I dominate someone whose morals and ethics were not inline with my own. Assuming the stance that for me BDSM is a highly sexually charged and sensual lifestyle, my thoughts here include only a sexual/romantic based D/s relationship. I have to go with Celeste on this one. When it comes to sexual, sensual, and BDSM activities, I have a bare minimum of codes of conduct. They lie mainly along the lines of being consentual. I don't mention safe and sane because those terms are, to me, relative. If something can be done consentually where the consent itself can be held to legal scrutiny i.e. a person of legal age and sound mind, then it's all good. If a persons morals don't hold up to at least this basic standard then, no, I can't dominate them.

_____________________________

Tress

"If you have to tell people that you are a lady, you are not." My Grandmother

(in reply to LadiesBladewing)

Post #: 25

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 1:58:23 PM

LATEXBABY64

Posts: 2107
Joined: 4/8/2004
Status: offline

ever state has laws on sexual conduct some good some bad lol it pays to learn them other wise 5 to ten for assult consent or not it not a good thing check it out
:)

(in reply to yourMissTress)

Post #: 26

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 2:03:06 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yourMissTress

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadiesBladewing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

buyer beware: since ethics/morals are the essence of ones character which provides the building blocks and foundation of standards for which one makes the judgements of what is "right" or what is "wrong" with regard to another, in the eyes of the beholder, where like a vine, if one runner falls onto bad earth and takes root, the whole plant suffers or even withers and dies.

yes i could possibly serve someone whos moral structure is less developed than my own, only if they demonstrated moral stability under "all" circumstances, and only if the areas that their morals were under developed would not conflict or infringe upon mine.

i would not remotely consider someone who is largely unethical / amoral or immoral as someone i could accept as my friend much less serve.

Ok, my next question here is: Why does there seem to be the assumption that, if someone's morals or ethics are different than yours, they are "less developed"?

It is possible for someone to have a moral and ethical framework that is -quite- carefully and extensively developed, but in which there might be broad areas of divergence about the expression of ethics/morals. Just because there is a variance does -not- mean there is a correlating lack of development in the ethical system in question.

Lady Zephyr

Lady Zephyr, the person you are responding to has made an impression on me, such that anyone who isn't in exact agreement with him on any issue ( morals and ethics being only one of many) is "less developed".

For my own response to the question would I dominate someone whose morals and ethics were not inline with my own.

yes if i were a dom(me) and controlled their actions such that if thier moral system were less than mine i would not have an issue with that. especially if i never intended to have a "real" as in husband wife relationship with them where moral unity is essential. obviously like most things in life there are a zillion levels this applies each with it own set of circumstances.

again the key word here is conflict. of course there are limits to everything regardless of position or identity

Not saying this poster has but many people go off on tangents as a result of missing key words or points in my posts micro focusing, and then comment on it or missing the boat entirely and unfortunately create this kind of animosity.

i do not see where we disagree here or where i am trying to force anyone to agree with me as is being suggested.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/18/2006 2:12:12 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to yourMissTress)

Post #: 27

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 2:14:05 PM

ownedgirlie

Posts: 9184
Joined: 2/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Not saying this poster has but many people go off on tangents as a result of missing key words or points in my posts micro focusing, and then comment on it or missing the boat entirely and unfortunately create this kind of animosity.

i do not see where we disagree here or where i am trying to force anyone to agree with me as is being suggested.[/size]

We do tend to get lost in the detail sometimes (at work i am always accused of "over-analyzing"). i think it's fair to say that anyone who has a set of morals that say, "killing is wrong", and they meet someone who says "Killing is good, " it is safe to say the first person may deem the second person as less moral. In scenarios of a lesser degree (something much more mild than the subject of killing), the same translations/interpretations may occur. As humans, we tend to judge or consider others by referencing what we believe to be right and true.

i think the point of the posts is about the difference in morals, and not whether someone thinks theirs is better or greater than anyone else's. At least that is how i read it...

~ drops a couple pennies in the bucket ~

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 28

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 2:14:15 PM

yourMissTress

Posts: 1665
Joined: 6/14/2005
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

yes if i were a dom(me) and controlled their actions such that if thier moral system were less than mine i would not have an issue with that. again the key word here is conflict. of course there are limits to everything regardless of position or identity

Not saying this poster has but many people go off on tangents as a result of missing key words in my posts, comment on it and unfortunately create this kind of animosity.

i do not see where we disagree here or where i am trying to force anyone to agree with me as is being suggested.

My impression is not that you are attempting to force anyone to agree with you, but that you view those who don't think exactly as you do to be "less". Not different, but less than. It's not just here, but in most of your posting that I get this vibe. But it is here that you so clearly state it, not once but twice.

_____________________________

Tress

"If you have to tell people that you are a lady, you are not." My Grandmother

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 29

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 2:22:44 PM

IrishMist

Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

/sighs and goes looking for some pain meds to alleivate the headache that is coming on

I think Ownedgirlie said it best right here

quote:

As humans, we tend to judge or consider others by referencing what we believe to be right and true.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 30

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 3:46:17 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yourMissTress

quote:

yes if i were a dom(me) and controlled their actions such that if thier moral system were less than mine i would not have an issue with that. again the key word here is conflict. of course there are limits to everything regardless of position or identity

Not saying this poster has but many people go off on tangents as a result of missing key words in my posts, comment on it and unfortunately create this kind of animosity.

i do not see where we disagree here or where i am trying to force anyone to agree with me as is being suggested.

My impression is not that you are attempting to force anyone to agree with you, but that you view those who don't think exactly as you do to be "less". Not different, but less than. It's not just here, but in most of your posting that I get this vibe. But it is here that you so clearly state it, not once but twice.

let me clarify:
There is nothing wrong with that statement and it is as tru for you as it is for me.

i can get along quite well with people whos morals are reasonably close to mine even tho they may be quite different then mine.

however if this person is dishonest then i can legitimately state that their morals are "less" than mine all things considered.

i wont exchange the word kill for murder as is so commonly done, but if someone feels it is ok to murder, and i do not, i would think its very clear and obvious that this person has "less" morals than i all things considered.

As i said in one post that i took lots of flaq over: when morals fail the law is there to catch them, and our prisons are full of people who have proven themselves to have less morals which is to say less moral developement or a lower standard of morals than you or i and it goes without saying "since we are not in prison".

Now since we are talking about standards more or less certainly applies and in some areas i may have less than you and in others you may have less than me and all things considered you may have less than me or vice versa as well as on any given applicable topic.

In either case where those standards are placed is very telling about someone.

some people, not suggesting you, cheat on their spouse and as far as they are concerned there is nothing wrong with it, which is obvious by the fact they are cheating and as far as they are concerned its not cheating! another more extreme example that clearly demonstrates this persons character.

morals envelope a wide range of what is basically "right or wrong" actions based on social and a host of other sources valued by mankind that can range from the extreme to very subtle.

this is not some generic i am better than thou statement and i do not see how you can have a problem with it?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to yourMissTress)

Post #: 31

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 4:02:12 PM

IrishMist

Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

quote:

wont exchange the word kill for murder as is so commonly done, but if someone feels it is ok to murder, and i do not, i would think its very clear and obvious that this person has "less" morals than i all things considered.

I take it that you are including all military in this statement? Not to mention those who 'murder' in self-defense?

quote:

cheat on their spouse and as far as they are concerned there is nothing wrong with it, which is obvious by the fact they are cheating and as far as they are concerned its not cheating!

Please give a clear definition of what YOU consider to be cheating. But remember, NOT EVERYONE adheres to the same definition.

quote:

morals envelope a wide range of what is basically "right or wrong" actions based on social and a host of other sources valued by mankind that can range from the extreme to very subtle.

Yes they do...but again...ownedgirlie said it best

quote:

As humans, we tend to judge or consider others by referencing what we believe to be right and true.

Just because you see something as being right or wrong, does not mean that the person sitting next to you will see it in the same way.

_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 32

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 4:16:40 PM

ExistentialSteel

Posts: 676
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline

I just took a psychology test online and one of the questions was if I would bend my ethics and I said yes. The reason is that I’ll always consider the situation and person. I would never get into absolutes because that is a matter of definition. Feelings, emotions, abilities, passions and knowledge could trump rules.

_____________________________

For those who are like Roman Candles leaving bright trails in the night sky while the crowd watches until the dark blue center light bursts into magnificent colors and the crowd goes, ahhhhhhhhhh.

(in reply to LadyElizabeth)

Post #: 33

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 4:39:55 PM

yourMissTress

Posts: 1665
Joined: 6/14/2005
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

quote:

let me clarify:
There is nothing wrong with that statement and it is as tru for you as it is for me.

Now, let ME clarify:

Do not ever presume to know what is true for me. You don't know me, who I am, where I have been or where I am going. You do not have the ability to sum up the experiences throughout my life that have shaped my feelings, thoughts, opinions and self without having lived them, which you have not.
With that being said, I will kindly bow out of this conversation, as anything more that I would add, would simply be redundant.

_____________________________

Tress

"If you have to tell people that you are a lady, you are not." My Grandmother

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 34

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 5:33:47 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: yourMissTress

quote:

let me clarify:
There is nothing wrong with that statement and it is as tru for you as it is for me.

Now, let ME clarify:

Do not ever presume to know what is true for me. You don't know me, who I am, where I have been or where I am going. You do not have the ability to sum up the experiences throughout my life that have shaped my feelings, thoughts, opinions and self without having lived them, which you have not.
With that being said, I will kindly bow out of this conversation, as anything more that I would add, would simply be redundant.

i am very happy that you are bowing out. thank you

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to yourMissTress)

Post #: 35

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 5:35:40 PM

stef

Posts: 10215
Joined: 1/26/2004
Status: offline

Now if we could just get you to bow out.

~stef

_____________________________

Welcome to PoliticSpace! If you came here expecting meaningful BDSM discussions, boy are you in the wrong place.

"Hypocrisy has consequences"

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 36

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 5:37:25 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Now if we could just get you to bow out.

~stef

not a chance :)

some people enjoy insulting others by taking things out of context and using it to paint someone in a bad light therefore i have to stick around.

(refererence to no one in particular) :)

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/18/2006 5:44:05 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to stef)

Post #: 37

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 5:46:30 PM

Real0ne

Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel

I just took a psychology test online and one of the questions was if I would bend my ethics and I said yes. The reason is that I’ll always consider the situation and person. I would never get into absolutes because that is a matter of definition. Feelings, emotions, abilities, passions and knowledge could trump rules.

i love those tests i have taken lots of them. the hard part is answering thruthfully because its pretty easy to control the outcome if you know what i mean :)

i agree that the more subtle moral issues tend to change as feelings knowledge and circumstances etc changes in one life and are quite fluid.

Everything in life is circumstancial except death and taxes and some i think have found a way out of taxes. even murder can be justified under certain circumstances.

i think looking at a persons situation can help answer the why's of their convictions but the moral axioms serve to stand as a reference marker from which to work from to make those judgements.

When people allow their passions to to get out of line with these markers the rest of society by means of law deal with them such as the guy who murders his wife because dinner wasnt served on time if you know what i mean.

< Message edited by Real0ne -- 2/18/2006 5:52:22 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to ExistentialSteel)

Post #: 38

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 7:06:04 PM

talmar

Posts: 338
Joined: 11/13/2005
Status: offline

If I thought someone was unethical I would not associate with them inany capacity.

(in reply to LadyElizabeth)

Post #: 39

RE: moral/ethics.. - 2/18/2006 7:34:15 PM

KnightofMists

Posts: 7149
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

let me clarify: different does not equal less, however different certainly can be less, different can equally be more.

or it can just mean Different! neither more or less!

_____________________________

Knight of Mists

An Optimal relationship is achieved when the individuals do what is best for themselves and their relationship.

(in reply to Real0ne)

Post #: 40

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: moral/ethics..

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078