Dilemma
If someone very close asks you to critque a moral position and you find that you feel you are at odds with a portion of their position , knowing they are safe and happy and have no need of change, do you express that opinion risking that you may say something that might cause them to question their position needlessly?
After considering both sides of the discussion I can see no good that can come from it and therefore I demure. However if need becomes a factor then the question should be discussed.
After considering both sides of the discussion I can see no good that can come from it and therefore I demure. However if need becomes a factor then the question should be discussed.
posted by red label @ 5:33 PM
4 Comments:
At December 21, 2004 at 1:28 AM,
Anonymous said…
There is no such thing as "questioning their position needlessly," as any position worth holding is worth a thorough examination. Ultimately, truth is of paramount importance, not just an existence of perceived safety and happiness having no alleged "need of change." Happiness is a transitory emotional state, regardless of a person's circumstances. And feelings of safety can be deceptive: a man feels safe in his home until a criminal enters in the middle of the night to rob and murder him. If you had seen the criminal breaking into his home, and you knew the man was not truly safe despite his feelings to the contrary, would you withhold warning?
Or perhaps you fear, deep down, that your position is the one that will end up in question.
At December 23, 2004 at 1:32 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have no fear of my position one way or another but in a test flier question with this person their answer was "you are wrong because I believe otherwise". This leads me to understand,again, that it would be of no good to argue the question. Beliefs are not the purpose of the examination. Truth is. For many years man thought the earth was flat. Some still do today.
At December 23, 2004 at 6:20 PM,
Anonymous said…
You are correct; truth is the purpose of the examination. But you mentioned a "test flier" question. That seems dishonest. Are you sure this person knew what you were asking for? If you're not clear and direct about your motives in a discussion, you leave a lot open to interpretation. If you think the guy's position is based on a complete sham, you should ask for his reasons. Obviously, if he's arguing for his beliefs, then he thinks they have basis in truth. If you think yours have basis in truth, and are contrary to his, then the burden is on you to give compelling evidence in support of your position.
At December 24, 2004 at 8:36 AM,
Anonymous said…
That just goes to show that all beliefs are relative. The only thing that is intrinsive to man is the will to survive. This is evidenced by a babys only instinct. That is to suckle. All other knowlege is "learned" Mazlow's "Hirearchy of Need" explains why moralities or ethics come and go and why the same moralities are not universal to all mankind from the begining of time.
Post a Comment
<< Home