"We should not project our morality on others."?
965508
Go away this is the immigration category not your \nplatform to preach.
1130162
That's a very good question. Are morals relative? Even the ones we think are basic--Thou shall not kill, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,Don't put that in your mouth;you don't know where it's been!--can be violated if one feels he/she has just cause, and whichever society that individual happens to exist in has differing opinions on whether or not his/her actions were justified.\nI suppose the only ethical constant I can think of would be the 5-second rule. Unless it's an Oreo. Then all bets are off.
450503
Ok, this is the thing. As far as morality is concerned there is no real right and wrong. That is totally determined by the person who is in the situation. Society has a grander scale on which they see things as right or wrong but then again society doesn't enter into this question.
1060799
It's called sympathy which is a natural emotion.  We know how it feels to have pain.  So, it's only logical that we wouldn't want  to inflict that on others.  On the other hand.   Christians are taught that you're born bad which can make you bad.  You're also taught that god will forgive you for almost anything you do.  That can lead to bad behavior
276677
I agree, you can accept the views of others, it doesn't mean you need to practice what they believe.  As long as they are good people, I have no real problem with them.  It is thier choice as much as your's and mine to believe what they, you, I wish.\n\nI mean, why intentionally hurt someone?  Some people need to look up the word "tolerance" and then use it.
683149
It is their foundation.  I sometimes wonder if arguing with someone about their core beliefs is moral.  if I ever convinced someone that they aren't going to Heaven, and the most powerful thing ever (God) doesn't love them, they would probably not feel good.  Of course, there are psychiatrists all over the world trying to convince people they are not God, or Jesus, or Napoleon, so I am immoral with company.
801514
What he meant is that people around the world are UNCONCERNED. We all know that there will are evil people who will do evil deeds. But what are we going to do about it? The world is dangerous because people are unconcerned about these things.\n\nHe is persuading us TO CARE and BE COCERNED about what is happening around us and DO THE RIGHT THING.
763569
The lowest form of moral depravity is to hold others to a standard that you have no intention of living up to yourself, this describes American foreign policy since the turn of the century. You ask a excellent question that challenges even the most die hard maniac or warmonger or whatever you want to call the mainstream American public. As for OBL, your right ,why(you need that bad guy out there running around to maintain your constant state of fear and paranoia when it comes to the public)
775804
I think we should do what that general suggests.  There has never been a war, in which a force that went and lived up to laws of morality, and the other side did not, and the first force, winning.  Sometimes, you just have to be cruel to win.  I think what this general says is a great idea (I know it sounds kind of sick)  Just kill the people that decide to ruin other's lives, I see no wrong in that.
773960
Yes. By using the example of the immorality of others, feel free to commit crimes. Sheesh.
1146972
Follow-up Question:\nWouldn't it be hypocritical for a pacifist to expect other people to take up arms and endanger themselves for the pacifist's sake?
865822
I'm not sure I exactly understand the supposition you're making.  In general, however, I would argue that moral and legal can be viewed as a Venn diagram - an act can be both, one of the other, or neither.  We probably wouldn't want it any other way, actually - hence the saying that "you can't legislate morality."
516971
Bit of sweeping statement that one! \nSounds like you're having some bad experiences. I must admit though, that I do agree with you when you say that most people don't have any respect for others.\nI've been living in a new town with my boyfriend for over a year now, and just about every day we each come home from work with another story of the sheer ignorance of people that just blows our minds.\nI don't think it's the town itself, I think we are simply noticing it more here than we did in the city because of the smaller population.\nI think it is very rare to encounter conscientious people these days, most of us are out for ourselves, all our energy and actions going towards nurturing our own self-importance.\nAs for the the 90% of us that lie, perhaps that is also connected to fulfilling our self-important desire, believing ourselves the lies we tell others. Or, lying to avoid responsibility and accountability, shifting blame and generally being cowards.\nIt is a bit of negative question you've posted here, but I understand your feelings of frustration with people. Be a conscientious person yourself, don't add to the collective selfishness and ignorance out there.\nOh, and get a dog, they have plenty of respect and love to give, and they never lie.
902096
context of Wang Ken's moral program appeared individualistic.\n\n:> peace
654935
It is human nature to want everyone else to think the way you do.  \nDON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME?  \nWanting to say things correctly and without insulting someone is very important. \nRIGHT?  \nTrying to be everything to everyone while still being an individual is the main goal of each person.  \nOKAY?\nIt is difficult to make a statement anymore without stepping on the toes of someone else.  \nUNDERSTAND?\nThe world keeps getting smaller and smaller while our knowledge base keeps getting bigger.  C\nORRECT?\nThree hundred years ago, a speech MIGHT travel word of mouth across a country.  \nI'M NOT WRONG, AM I?\nNow, it travels the world.  \nSEE?\nPeople have to be so careful of what comes out of their mouths because of the possible repercussion.  \nARE YOU WITH ME?
883223
Unless morality is based on the Law of God, the definition of "morally right" simply becomes "whatever I think is morally right", and "morally wrong" becomes "whatever I think is morally wrong". Of course, that would only define my own personal subjective morality, since there would be no such thing as objective morality. Your definition of "morally right" would be "whatever YOU happen to think is right", which might be completely opposite to my definition of "morally right". If morality is completely subjective, why even speak in terms of morality? Morality would consist of "you do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll do whatever I feel like doing". I couldn't judge any action of yours to be immoral, nor could you judge any action of mine, or of terrorists, or of governments, to be immoral. "What's right for you may not be right for me" would be the foundation of morality, whether we werespeaking of murder, rape, child molestation, or any other act. All acts would be morally neutral, and would become "right" or "wrong" only in the minds of individuals. Morality is meaningful only when there is an objective standard against which to compare subjective ideas of morality. An act is objectively moral when it fits the objective standard of morality.
766392
The whole quote is: Humility does not mean thinking less of yourself than of other people, nor does it mean having a low opinion of your own gifts.  It means freedom from thinking about yourself at all.  ~William Temple