Morality is about making the right decision

[bahman]

Morality is about making the right decision. Good or evil depends on the situation.

[Harbal]

Morality is about making the right decision.

Well who would have thought that?

[bahman]

Morality is about making the right decision.

Well who would have thought that?

You didn't read OP! Did you?

[Harbal]

Morality is about making the right decision.

Well who would have thought that?

You didn't read OP! Did you?

Yes I did; both sentences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is about making the right decision. Good or evil depends on the situation.

Yes, Hitler, the Oct-7 monsters and their likes insisted upon the above and that was a good thing depending on the situation???
Nah ...

What is Morality-proper:
Morality is the elimination and management of evil [as defined with an exhaustive listing*] to enable the spontaneous manifestation of its related good.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/, only human-related evil acts; genocide among others, is one of the worst evil acts.

The focus in this morality-proper is we do not focus on the consequences [maybe 10%] but rather to focus [90%] in getting rid or preventing evil acts from rising at source.
Once we get rid and prevent evil acts, whatever its related good will manifest spontaneously and accordingly.

[Age]

Morality is about making the right decision. Good or evil depends on the situation.

Yes, Hitler, the Oct-7 monsters and their likes insisted upon the above and that was a good thing depending on the situation???
Nah ...

What is Morality-proper:
Morality is the elimination and management of evil [as defined with an exhaustive listing*] to enable the spontaneous manifestation of its related good.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/, only human-related evil acts; genocide among others, is one of the worst evil acts.

The focus in this morality-proper is we do not focus on the consequences [maybe 10%] but rather to focus [90%] in getting rid or preventing evil acts from rising at source.

Once we get rid and prevent evil acts, whatever its related good will manifest spontaneously and accordingly.

So, how do you propose 'we' get rid of and prevent the 'evil acts' of genocide being committed by "jewish Israelies" on "islamic human beings"?

Or, are the so-called "monsters" only on "one-side" in 'your view' and from 'your perspective' "veritas aequitas"?

Not that you would ever answer and clarify these things, because you know you cannot without incriminating "yourself" and/or without being contradictory and hypocritical.

[bahman]

Well who would have thought that?

You didn't read OP! Did you?

Yes I did; both sentences.

So, do you agree, or disagree?

[Harbal]

You didn't read OP! Did you?

Yes I did; both sentences.

So, do you agree, or disagree?

I agree that morality often involves what we hope is the right decision, but that's hardly a ground breaking theory.

[bahman]

Morality is about making the right decision. Good or evil depends on the situation.

Yes, Hitler, the Oct-7 monsters and their likes insisted upon the above and that was a good thing depending on the situation???
Nah ...

What is Morality-proper:
Morality is the elimination and management of evil [as defined with an exhaustive listing*] to enable the spontaneous manifestation of its related good.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/, only human-related evil acts; genocide among others, is one of the worst evil acts.

The focus in this morality-proper is we do not focus on the consequences [maybe 10%] but rather to focus [90%] in getting rid or preventing evil acts from rising at source.
Once we get rid and prevent evil acts, whatever its related good will manifest spontaneously and accordingly.

Killing is neither good nor evil. Living is also neither good nor evil. Everything is situational. Think of a patient who is terminally ill like a patient who has locked-in syndrome and wishes he/she could die. Keeping the patient alive is alive is evil and wrong. Allowing the patient to die is good and right. Hiter action however was evil and wrong.

[bahman]

Yes I did; both sentences.

So, do you agree, or disagree?

I agree that morality often involves what we hope is the right decision, but that's hardly a ground breaking theory.

It is a groundbreaking theory once one realizes that both good and evil are allowed depending on the situation.

[Alexiev]

is a groundbreaking theory once one realizes that both good and evil are allowed depending on the situation.

Aha! That clarifies everything!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality is about making the right decision. Good or evil depends on the situation.

Yes, Hitler, the Oct-7 monsters and their likes insisted upon the above and that was a good thing depending on the situation???
Nah ...

What is Morality-proper:
Morality is the elimination and management of evil [as defined with an exhaustive listing*] to enable the spontaneous manifestation of its related good.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/, only human-related evil acts; genocide among others, is one of the worst evil acts.

The focus in this morality-proper is we do not focus on the consequences [maybe 10%] but rather to focus [90%] in getting rid or preventing evil acts from rising at source.
Once we get rid and prevent evil acts, whatever its related good will manifest spontaneously and accordingly.

Killing is neither good nor evil. Living is also neither good nor evil. Everything is situational. Think of a patient who is terminally ill like a patient who has locked-in syndrome and wishes he/she could die. Keeping the patient alive is alive is evil and wrong. Allowing the patient to die is good and right. Hiter action however was evil and wrong.

Your above view is bad thinking which is not effective for human progress.
Everything is situational but there are degrees to the criticalness of matter and issue in relation to the issue.

" Killing is neither good nor evil" it too loose that enable subjective thinking [like Hitlers evil and the like] to creep in.

It is obvious the killing of humans by humans is an aversion and repugnance [in varying degrees] to all humans and a taboo to the majority of humans [except to the malignant psychopath and some others].

Since it is a majority view, within morality-proper, "the no killing of humans by humans" must be established as a standard of absoluteness without exception. There is nothing 'good' that can arise from humans killing humans.
Therefore, the killing of humans by humans is immoral.

BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s].
Thus, is a real situation, the killing of humans by humans may be allowable provided there are solid justifiable reasons to do so; how this provision for killing of humans must be accompanied by the mindfulness that there ought to be striving and effort to prevent such killing of human from the root cause in the future.

If we have to kill terminally ill patients at present, we must strive to prevent terminal ill type of diseases in the future so that we do not have to make a decision that is immoral.
Note this thread:
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
viewtopic.php?t=42514

Whatever evil [immoral] acts that we do out of wisdom & rational necessity at present, humanity must strive to prevent it [at source, root] from arising in the future, so we do not have to fire fight it.

This is the effective framework and system approach to morality that provide a basis for continuous moral progress towards an ideal [impossible].
Your ideas on morality is too flimsy and rickety.

[bahman]

Yes, Hitler, the Oct-7 monsters and their likes insisted upon the above and that was a good thing depending on the situation???
Nah ...

What is Morality-proper:
Morality is the elimination and management of evil [as defined with an exhaustive listing*] to enable the spontaneous manifestation of its related good.
* https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/, only human-related evil acts; genocide among others, is one of the worst evil acts.

The focus in this morality-proper is we do not focus on the consequences [maybe 10%] but rather to focus [90%] in getting rid or preventing evil acts from rising at source.
Once we get rid and prevent evil acts, whatever its related good will manifest spontaneously and accordingly.

Killing is neither good nor evil. Living is also neither good nor evil. Everything is situational. Think of a patient who is terminally ill like a patient who has locked-in syndrome and wishes he/she could die. Keeping the patient alive is alive is evil and wrong. Allowing the patient to die is good and right. Hiter action however was evil and wrong.

Your above view is bad thinking which is not effective for human progress.
Everything is situational but there are degrees to the criticalness of matter and issue in relation to the issue.

" Killing is neither good nor evil" it too loose that enable subjective thinking [like Hitlers evil and the like] to creep in.

It is obvious the killing of humans by humans is an aversion and repugnance [in varying degrees] to all humans and a taboo to the majority of humans [except to the malignant psychopath and some others].

Since it is a majority view, within morality-proper, "the no killing of humans by humans" must be established as a standard of absoluteness without exception. There is nothing 'good' that can arise from humans killing humans.
Therefore, the killing of humans by humans is immoral.

BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s].
Thus, is a real situation, the killing of humans by humans may be allowable provided there are solid justifiable reasons to do so; how this provision for killing of humans must be accompanied by the mindfulness that there ought to be striving and effort to prevent such killing of human from the root cause in the future.

If we have to kill terminally ill patients at present, we must strive to prevent terminal ill type of diseases in the future so that we do not have to make a decision that is immoral.
Note this thread:
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
viewtopic.php?t=42514

Whatever evil [immoral] acts that we do out of wisdom & rational necessity at present, humanity must strive to prevent it [at source, root] from arising in the future, so we do not have to fire fight it.

This is the effective framework and system approach to morality that provide a basis for continuous moral progress towards an ideal [impossible].
Your ideas on morality is too flimsy and rickety.

You don't really understand. Do you? People have all rights in their lives. We are not allowed to give a general prescription about how they should live.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Killing is neither good nor evil. Living is also neither good nor evil. Everything is situational. Think of a patient who is terminally ill like a patient who has locked-in syndrome and wishes he/she could die. Keeping the patient alive is alive is evil and wrong. Allowing the patient to die is good and right. Hiter action however was evil and wrong.

Your above view is bad thinking which is not effective for human progress.
Everything is situational but there are degrees to the criticalness of matter and issue in relation to the issue.

" Killing is neither good nor evil" it too loose that enable subjective thinking [like Hitlers evil and the like] to creep in.

It is obvious the killing of humans by humans is an aversion and repugnance [in varying degrees] to all humans and a taboo to the majority of humans [except to the malignant psychopath and some others].

Since it is a majority view, within morality-proper, "the no killing of humans by humans" must be established as a standard of absoluteness without exception. There is nothing 'good' that can arise from humans killing humans.
Therefore, the killing of humans by humans is immoral.

BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s].
Thus, is a real situation, the killing of humans by humans may be allowable provided there are solid justifiable reasons to do so; how this provision for killing of humans must be accompanied by the mindfulness that there ought to be striving and effort to prevent such killing of human from the root cause in the future.

If we have to kill terminally ill patients at present, we must strive to prevent terminal ill type of diseases in the future so that we do not have to make a decision that is immoral.
Note this thread:
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
viewtopic.php?t=42514

Whatever evil [immoral] acts that we do out of wisdom & rational necessity at present, humanity must strive to prevent it [at source, root] from arising in the future, so we do not have to fire fight it.

This is the effective framework and system approach to morality that provide a basis for continuous moral progress towards an ideal [impossible].
Your ideas on morality is too flimsy and rickety.

You don't really understand. Do you? People have all rights in their lives. We are not allowed to give a general prescription about how they should live.

If the above is what you believe, then you cannot condemn Hitler, the Oct7 monsters and those who commit evil acts because you accept they have all rights in their lives.

I am proposing humanity should have a vision and strive to achieve ZERO 'humans killing of humans' in the future; the ZERO target is merely an ideal and not a likely achievable target in real life but the striving towards the ideal will facilitate a trend continuous improvements.
Something is wrong with you in resisting such a goal of driving a trend of continuous improvement.

You are condoning evil acts [those who insist their acts [genocides and the like] are their right].
Your views on morality do not have any leverage for a continual progress of morality.

Where did I 'give' or insist in giving prescription about how they should live.
I wrote above;
"BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s]."

What I have recommended is to enable the naturally inherent moral functions and competence within each individuals to improve within oneself on a voluntarily basis based on critical thinking and rationality.
It is already too late for the majority of individuals at present due to their current psychological conditions.
The concern is for individuals in the future.

[bahman]

Your above view is bad thinking which is not effective for human progress.
Everything is situational but there are degrees to the criticalness of matter and issue in relation to the issue.

" Killing is neither good nor evil" it too loose that enable subjective thinking [like Hitlers evil and the like] to creep in.

It is obvious the killing of humans by humans is an aversion and repugnance [in varying degrees] to all humans and a taboo to the majority of humans [except to the malignant psychopath and some others].

Since it is a majority view, within morality-proper, "the no killing of humans by humans" must be established as a standard of absoluteness without exception. There is nothing 'good' that can arise from humans killing humans.
Therefore, the killing of humans by humans is immoral.

BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s].
Thus, is a real situation, the killing of humans by humans may be allowable provided there are solid justifiable reasons to do so; how this provision for killing of humans must be accompanied by the mindfulness that there ought to be striving and effort to prevent such killing of human from the root cause in the future.

If we have to kill terminally ill patients at present, we must strive to prevent terminal ill type of diseases in the future so that we do not have to make a decision that is immoral.
Note this thread:
Abortion is Not Permissible, Period!
viewtopic.php?t=42514

Whatever evil [immoral] acts that we do out of wisdom & rational necessity at present, humanity must strive to prevent it [at source, root] from arising in the future, so we do not have to fire fight it.

This is the effective framework and system approach to morality that provide a basis for continuous moral progress towards an ideal [impossible].
Your ideas on morality is too flimsy and rickety.

You don't really understand. Do you? People have all rights in their lives. We are not allowed to give a general prescription about how they should live.

If the above is what you believe, then you cannot condemn Hitler, the Oct7 monsters and those who commit evil acts because you accept they have all rights in their lives.

I am proposing humanity should have a vision and strive to achieve ZERO 'humans killing of humans' in the future; the ZERO target is merely an ideal and not a likely achievable target in real life but the striving towards the ideal will facilitate a trend continuous improvements.
Something is wrong with you in resisting such a goal of driving a trend of continuous improvement.

You are condoning evil acts [those who insist their acts [genocides and the like] are their right].
Your views on morality do not have any leverage for a continual progress of morality.

Where did I 'give' or insist in giving prescription about how they should live.
I wrote above;
"BUT, the above is ONLY a standard and a guide within the human based moral system. It must be not enforced on individual[s]."

What I have recommended is to enable the naturally inherent moral functions and competence within each individuals to improve within oneself on a voluntarily basis based on critical thinking and rationality.
It is already too late for the majority of individuals at present due to their current psychological conditions.
The concern is for individuals in the future.

You misread. When I say that people have all rights in their lives I mean that each individual owns his or her life and can decide about it. Others have no right to his or her life so they cannot tell how she or he should live.