Benjamin B. Compton wrote:
> I think we should be careful when we say morality is doing that which we
> love and wish, unless of course we're willing to accept all the
> implications of such a statement. If one "loves and wishes" to murder,
> then we'd have to say, "Hey, thats ok, its what that person likes." I have
> a small problem with that idea.
>
> And what if a manager loves and wishes to play head games with his/her
> employees? And the list can go on and on. . .
This is the point. We can compare morality to a ladder. There are rules
for the first steps. Rules are good for beginners. The highest steps do
not have rules, and that is the reason why it is more difficult to climb
to them.
"Love and do as you wish" is an attempt to express the highest moral
requirement. The problem is that it is expressed in words that are often
used with a broader meaning. For instance, Augustine mentions that beating
people is not good behavior. But if you beat someone not because of hate
but to protect someone you love, then you may have done the right thing.
There is similarity between moral behavior and artistic performance. The
basics of writing or music playing are easy to explain. But that which
distinguishes exceptional performance is difficult to understand or
explain, sometimes even to specialists.
This is why we need to climb the ladder beggining by the lowest steps.
> Which implies there is no such thing as moral absoluteness. Is that an
> accurate assessment of your comment? If so, then what do you think of
> Covey's "Principle-Centered Leadership"? Are there principles which
> should be used as a guide for everyones life? And if so, are they the
> principles Covey espouses? (I've argued more than once that Covey's 7
> Habits will help a person become more happy and successful, but so will a
> lot of other 7 Habits. My friends that work at Covey get quite perturbed
> when I say this, so I say it often.)
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with Covey's principles. I understand
you do not disapprove them, but think they are one way and not the only
way. I believe that is the case with many sets of principles. Maybe we
should not expect more than that.
There is an old indian story of some men who wanted to know where did
the sun go whe it was not in the sky. So they climbed the mountain
behind which the sun hid himself at afternoon. When they arrived there,
they saw another mountain behind which the sun seemed to be hiding, and
proceeded to reach its top...
Personally, I am happy when I am able to understand some principles that
my conscience feels comfortable with. Sometimes I find that I had been
wrong, but this is the best I can do.
Maybe we can agree that morality is difficult to define, that there are
different morality levels and well defined principles are good only at
the initial steps. Apparently, there is some relation between morality,
creativity and learning. Is it possible to determine which moral
practices or standards contribute to creativity and learning? What kinds
of practices or standards would these be?
Durval
-- Durval Muniz de Castro <durval@ia.cti.br> Fundacao Centro Tecnologico para Informatica <http://www.ia.cti.br/> Campinas - Brasil - Fone: 55-19-2401011 - Fax: 55-19-2402029Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>