A discourse on Philosophy: ethos, mores in relation to human nature
- Thread starter Aepsilons
- Start date
For the first discussion question, I would like to bring to the fore the concept of social roles, the development of social roles, the development of right and wrong in civilization. Let's talk about this.
A. On Social Roles
The term social roles refers to the expected behaviors and attitudes that come with one's position in society. One way adult development is studied is by examining the succession of social roles that adults typically occupy over the years. Until recently, adulthood was described in terms of the "number" of roles an individual occupies at different stages of life.
Role in transition is something that should be discussed. This new emphasis acknowledges that with few exceptions, roles are neither gained nor lost, they change as the life circumstance of the individual change. The young adult makes the transition from full time student to young professional; the middle aged adult moves from being parent of a dependent teenager to the parent of an independent adult; and the older adult may lose some roles as friends, and family members die, but the remaining roles in crease in richness and the satisfaction they provide. Perhaps, it is also important for us to differentiate the concepts of "biological clock" and "social clock". To better understand the social role structure of adults.
A very interesting point @Sandrocottus !
The term social roles refers to the expected behaviors and attitudes that come with one's position in society. One way adult development is studied is by examining the succession of social roles that adults typically occupy over the years. Until recently, adulthood was described in terms of the "number" of roles an individual occupies at different stages of life.
Role in transition is something that should be discussed. This new emphasis acknowledges that with few exceptions, roles are neither gained nor lost, they change as the life circumstance of the individual change. The young adult makes the transition from full time student to young professional; the middle aged adult moves from being parent of a dependent teenager to the parent of an independent adult; and the older adult may lose some roles as friends, and family members die, but the remaining roles in crease in richness and the satisfaction they provide. Perhaps, it is also important for us to differentiate the concepts of "biological clock" and "social clock". To better understand the social role structure of adults.
A very interesting point @Sandrocottus !
Sir,
In this regard i think its important for us to understand the difference between prescriptive morality and proscriptive morality.
Prescriptive morality is sensitive to positive outcomes, activation-based, and focused on what we should do. Proscriptive morality is sensitive to negative outcomes, inhibition-based, and focused on what we should not do.
Both are well-represented in individuals' moral repertoire and equivalent in terms of moral weight, but proscriptive morality is condemnatory and strict, whereas prescriptive morality is commendatory and not strict. More specifically, in these studies proscriptive morality was perceived as concrete, mandatory, and duty-based, whereas prescriptive morality was perceived as more abstract, discretionary, and based in duty or desire; proscriptive immorality resulted in greater blame, whereas prescriptive morality resulted in greater moral credit.
I want to expand that both proscriptive and prescriptive morality have implications when taken into consideration within the broader social regulation, especially taking into consideration the cultural aspect. As what is considered "wrong" in one culture may be perceived as permissible in another culture; tho there are varying thresholds.
Perhaps we can go into detail by investigating further?
If you put more and more details to complete the question, in one fixed angle, right and wrong will be talkalbe and shows up.
In other word, if you switch the angle or position, right and wrong would replace each other swiftly.
Well said. Perhaps you can tell us more about the Confucian explanation of sin , morality, immorality and its relation to human nature.
Rent
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
If I may say, social roles may change through social influences and behaviors. Even social structure can be overturned.
A righteous cause may be perceived as a wrong doing and a wrong doing can be taken as righteous.
Only one thing in this world is certain, that is death
A righteous cause may be perceived as a wrong doing and a wrong doing can be taken as righteous.
Only one thing in this world is certain, that is death
Rent
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
In the Axial age, the age of great thinkers. Many religions and philosophers arose during this time, their thoughts guided civilizations all the way to the present day. None have surpassed their way of thinking. Have we now devolved in this area?
Cultural evolution, or perhaps a better term would be cultural advancements, is not constant. In my opinion, we may advance in some area but can descend in other areas. This depends on the path we take and what we perceived as beneficial advancements within our society. Every culture advance differently and take different paths; some advance in sciences, some in technologies, other advance in philosophies, consciousness, literatures, economics or in arts. We then try to spread our influences towards other cultures. Convincing them to take our path as the right path. But is it really the right path or a wrong one? By taking this path, are we evolving or devolving?
Ah, so true.
Masterio92
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 149
- Reaction score
- 0
Human nature is complex, often driven by greed and power which prevent those utopian behaviors to take root. Conflict and violence is regular phenomenon throughout human history, fuelled by exploitation of economic resources and struggle for power grabbing. Human civilization gave birth to many isms for governance and social orders which were constantly in conflict, internally and externally. After the WW2 and cold war, neo-colonialism emerged with control over countries without direct application of military and political force. Now economic forces are enough to carry on the relationship of dominance and exploitation between mother country and colony. Thus neo- colonialism is as effective as colonialism, wouldn't hesitate to plunder the weaker nations--- the third world. So universal brotherhood is the desirable world when you are out of the game.
utraash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,427
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Dear i am not mixing geopolitics into human behavior, on a individual i think one should seek enlightenment n wisdom n that's the only way to make this better no matter how much you advance in technology, how rich you become, etc... Sorry I might be sounding very idealistic but its very true......
The beauty of this is that it is apparent that majority of us , despite our differing cultural and social backgrounds, all wish for peaceful development , devoid of unnecessary conflict. I think that is also an aspect of human nature as well as human psychology.
The concept of morality and sin, in a bioethics perspective,
by: @Nihonjin1051
I think its important to distinguish within sin the dimensions of anomia, hamartia and asthenia that allow one to analyze in great detail the contrary manners in which traditional and post-traditional Christianities in Christian bioethics do endeavor to capture elements that was lost when secular bioethics reconstructed the specifically spiritual oriented normative commitment of Christianity in a one dimensionally moralistic term.
Christian bioethics does address the phenomenon of sin. Sin is defined as an offense against God, and is associated with guilt. So in line with teachings by Kurt Schmidt who identifies that the language of sin has almost lost its sense of virility with the normalization of bioethics into the secular context. He contends that Sin is a natural proclivity of man, one’s ability either it be willing or unwilling, to break precepts that are identified with the teachings of Providence. The action of Sin results in the loss of grace, which results in the spiritual experience of Guilt. He reiterates that these concepts are to an extent followed upon in Jewish literature, the Talmud , the Torah as well as in Islamic literature in the Quran. This also expands to Eastern concepts, in Buddhism and in Hinduism to an extent which espouses on the spiritual ills of sin and its effect on the soul.
Bioethics and to an extent the progenitor, Christian Bioethics, espouses the following, “Love for enemies must not be considered as a simple ethical teaching or moral exercise. Rather, it is the actual dynamic and existential participation of the created human nature in the uncreated grace of Providence.”
Why Bioethics without A Recognition of Sin Fails
Some would say that secular bioethics creates accounts of the moral life in medicine that are:
1) One-dimensional at best
2) Disoriented in the cosmos at worst. Patients, their faimlies, physicians and other health care providers find themselves confronted with disease, disability, suffering, and death with onl a one-sided and incomplete understanding of what human life, medicine and the cosmos are all about. In such circumstances, disease, disability and suffering, and death are ultimately surd. By affirming the centrality of concerns with sin, one is reminded that there is a point of ultimate orientation: Providence, the good, the right, the virtuous and all concerns with human flourishing are thus placed in terms of a pursuit of Providence.
The result is that when a patient, person recognizes sin, one discovers what had been the case all along and the nexus of suffering whose root is individual, personal human sin. In fact, this enormity is more than a secular person can conceivably live with, and it is in the realization of Providence , that the internal psychic strain as a result of sin is diminished. This is what allows patients, clients that part take in clinical psychotherapy have experienced reduction in.
Reference:
Delkeskamp-Hayes, C. (2005). Between Morality and Repentance: Recapturing "Sin" for Bioethics. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 11(2), 93-132. doi:10.1080/13803600500203806
Engelhardt Jr., H. (2005). Sin and Bioethics: Why a Liturgical Anthropology is Foundational. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 11(2), 221-239.
by: @Nihonjin1051
I think its important to distinguish within sin the dimensions of anomia, hamartia and asthenia that allow one to analyze in great detail the contrary manners in which traditional and post-traditional Christianities in Christian bioethics do endeavor to capture elements that was lost when secular bioethics reconstructed the specifically spiritual oriented normative commitment of Christianity in a one dimensionally moralistic term.
Christian bioethics does address the phenomenon of sin. Sin is defined as an offense against God, and is associated with guilt. So in line with teachings by Kurt Schmidt who identifies that the language of sin has almost lost its sense of virility with the normalization of bioethics into the secular context. He contends that Sin is a natural proclivity of man, one’s ability either it be willing or unwilling, to break precepts that are identified with the teachings of Providence. The action of Sin results in the loss of grace, which results in the spiritual experience of Guilt. He reiterates that these concepts are to an extent followed upon in Jewish literature, the Talmud , the Torah as well as in Islamic literature in the Quran. This also expands to Eastern concepts, in Buddhism and in Hinduism to an extent which espouses on the spiritual ills of sin and its effect on the soul.
Bioethics and to an extent the progenitor, Christian Bioethics, espouses the following, “Love for enemies must not be considered as a simple ethical teaching or moral exercise. Rather, it is the actual dynamic and existential participation of the created human nature in the uncreated grace of Providence.”
Why Bioethics without A Recognition of Sin Fails
Some would say that secular bioethics creates accounts of the moral life in medicine that are:
1) One-dimensional at best
2) Disoriented in the cosmos at worst. Patients, their faimlies, physicians and other health care providers find themselves confronted with disease, disability, suffering, and death with onl a one-sided and incomplete understanding of what human life, medicine and the cosmos are all about. In such circumstances, disease, disability and suffering, and death are ultimately surd. By affirming the centrality of concerns with sin, one is reminded that there is a point of ultimate orientation: Providence, the good, the right, the virtuous and all concerns with human flourishing are thus placed in terms of a pursuit of Providence.
The result is that when a patient, person recognizes sin, one discovers what had been the case all along and the nexus of suffering whose root is individual, personal human sin. In fact, this enormity is more than a secular person can conceivably live with, and it is in the realization of Providence , that the internal psychic strain as a result of sin is diminished. This is what allows patients, clients that part take in clinical psychotherapy have experienced reduction in.
Reference:
Delkeskamp-Hayes, C. (2005). Between Morality and Repentance: Recapturing "Sin" for Bioethics. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 11(2), 93-132. doi:10.1080/13803600500203806
Engelhardt Jr., H. (2005). Sin and Bioethics: Why a Liturgical Anthropology is Foundational. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 11(2), 221-239.
utraash
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,427
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Absolutely dear which also shows humans spirit across the planet to make this world better....
I am not aware of other's Guru(Master) to achieve what we are discussing but i always find Buddha's teaching very relevant in this conflicting world.... Spiritual growth is more important for humans than material growth which is why humans are far superior than any other living species if they thrive on spirituality........
Buddha's Saying
"The one who has conquered himself is a far greater hero than he who has defeated a thousand times a thousand men".....
Similar threads
