Doing the right thing

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Triedit

Deciding when to act is as important as deciding what to do, what action to take...

If our intention is to help someone (friend or just an acquaintance) the 'help' we offer, or perhaps feel compelled to offer should be something that doesn't have any strings attached... If we're attempting to help someone, as difficult as it may seem, we must remain as objective and as unencumbered with personal dynamics as possible. Empathizing with somone who may be in a situation similar to one we can identify and appreciate as something we (I've) experienced, is absolutely "normal", even if we're translating from a general circumstance to a specific event or situation. The great power and promise in the human condition is the facility we have as human beings to relate the experiences of our life and the attendant conflicts, turmoils joys and blessings that arise from these experiences to the condition or situation that we see happening to other people around us.

If our experiences tell us that "good intentions" sometimes aren't percived that way...or sometimes result in negative consequences, we have to remain available to the idea that we must look very carefully at our personal motivation...or agenda...to help understand how complicated some particular dynamic may be...

Sometimes direct action (or what some could percieve as meddling or intrusion) isn't the most prudent course. Sometimes even when we fear that a situation or circumstance could grow 'worse', affording the people and the dynamics involved a little extra time... before we act....can serve to clarify and observe the details, the nuances that color any situation. When there is the risk of immediate harm or potential harm, this "wait and see" strategy becomes fraught with anxiety and we often feel as though we're not doing something when we should..or could....it is a fine balance and a difficult situation for us all to confront.

If our 'help' has the intention of cultivaing favor or appearing as an act of kindness empathy or focused interest in the well being of some other person with the hidden agenda of currying self-acclaim or striving for a desired acceptance, our motivation is clouded. When we obscure the picture with our personal feelings desires and intentions, we make the decision process much more complicated and often add to the negative dynamics rather than actually 'helping' at all...

We have to balance the impetus we feel to "do what I can...when I can..." with this hodgepodge of myriad ancillary dynamics and remain consistant and "true" to ourselves... The frameworks and guides we've learned throughout our lifetime that informs our conscience when we have a responsibility to act or a responsibility to step back and let "nature take its course"...

It's tough!

No one enjoys the "corner" on absolute "truth"....we are faced with our own fallibility and deciding when and how to intervene or act in any situation is terribly difficult. If we've experienced a nasty situation that has become even more bitter or dangerous, and watched as it spiralled out of control and real harm developed we feel an even stronger compulsion to intervene to act to bring relief and comfort to the people involved.

Selflessness, the notion that our personal aggrandizement or "success" isn't somehow tied to or involved in the situation we're watching, that we're a "disinterested third party" is extremely difficult but nevertheless the best way to adjudicate appropriate action...or simply letting the situation unfold as it will.....

Take yourself, your personal investment in being "seen" a particular way...or precieved as being this or that...out of the equation.

I've acted on impulse to be involved in some dynamic and met with success...and also with failure...

But I make as sure as I can that there is no "I" involved in the situation. When we observe a dynamic like bullying or physical aggression that we could easily turn away from...could ignore becuase this circumstance "doesn't involve me"...doesn't impinge on my well being or my direct experience of life, the question of how prepared we are as individuals to live in a world that tolerates these things can serve as a guide....but only a guide, and not be the "ultimate" reason for our choice to become involved.

To do nothing is easy...anyone can do nothing....

To act with kindness and serve the best interests of someone else without personalities and personal dynamics clouding our vison is the best course.

Remain strong in your decision to live by the standards..the metrics of your own ethics and morality but be careful that you're imposing those standards and that morality on other folk when you act or don't act in any given situation. Balance is the key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: daisygirl

Iamyaya

New Member
May 28, 2007
18
0
1
Hi Robin, How are you doing? You know time heals all wounds. Sometimes stepping back and giving people time is an art in itself. We often think that there is a right and a wrong but just about everything are shades of gray. If you have explained your actions to the people involved then all you can do is give them time to decide if they want you back in their lives or not.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Triedit

If what I've contributed helps at all...no thanks necessary..:)

I'm very afraid for our world right now. We are children (as an ancient Chinese sage once said.."Children playing with axes...not realizing the possible consequences.." and haven't come to terms with the question you've asked as one of the most fundamental questions that every person should be asking themselves'....

Can I pretend that I'm not affected by what's going on in the world? Can I afford to ignore the conflicts and what seems an oppressive ubiquitious apathy emerging from the people of the world to all the grave circumstances that suggest our very existence is in jeopardy?

Does our willingness to ignore the injustices and preventable wrongs that permeate our cultures exonerate me of responsibility for the outcomes we experience? Do I have a duty, a responsibility to identify and name the sources and dynamics responsible? We all stopped caring a great deal about the world in general when we could plug ourselves into the TV. When our appetites became the marketplace and our cognitive processes begame fair-game to an ersatz value structure and counterfeit moral framework. Ethical costructs became fodder for economic and political agendas and we stopped beliving in ourselves.

If we examine, as objectively as we are able, the condition of our planet, the condition and character of our interpersonal affiliations and bonds with every other human being, can we be optimistic about the future that our children will inherit?

Your question is an enormous connundrum and there are as with most dynamic constructs, no simple or "easy" answers.

We have it seems to me to have become quick to anger and slow to forgive and tolerance is garbed as acquiescence to the status quo... even when that same electronic avenue of escape tells us that there are some terribly serious and potentially terminal situations developing around us.

The only thing that makes existence and all the suffering and turmoil that comes with it survivable and in any way tolerable is the investment we are all willing to make IN EACH OTHER.

Taking away the empathy compassion and "othering" that bound us together in our smaller ancient communities has in my opinion de-humanized mankind to a significant degree. Our loss of a sense of responsibility to our communities and each other has permitted and amplified a sense of "alone-ness", a sense that daring to care is an intrusion into the lives and complexity of others.

Certainly, an agenda that would create exclusivity for some and leave little else but poverty and isolation for others has not served us well. An agenda that regards personal perspectives and selfishness as the benchmark for "success" and the hallmark of prosperity...has enormous attendant costs.

We are facing what appear to be insurmountable hurdles, as a species we all have contributed to the despoiling of our planet, the alienation and outright ostracization of millions of fellow human beings on the basis of religious beliefs, skin pigmentation and ideological preferences....

Do we choose to not act even within ourselves to begin to examine the how and why of our shaping of the future, or do we find contentment in believing that we're all somehow not responsible?
 

daisygirl

Electoral Member
May 28, 2007
866
49
28
Ontario
Remain strong in your decision to live by the standards..the metrics of your own ethics and morality but be careful that you're imposing those standards and that morality on other folk when you act or don't act in any given situation. Balance is the key.

Do you not mean "be careful that you're not imposing those standards and that morality on other folk"?
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
15,250
2,880
113
Toronto, ON
Do you not mean "be careful that you're not imposing those standards and that morality on other folk"?


Everybody expects everybody else to conform to their standards. You expect people to not steel your stuff off your table at McDonalds, you expect them not to run a stop sign when you are approaching an intercetion. Our society is governed by expectations of what other members of the society are going to do.
 

daisygirl

Electoral Member
May 28, 2007
866
49
28
Ontario
Yes, but Mikey says that balance is the key which means you live by your own standards but you don't thrust them on others.

The examples you are using are society's standards. For instance, in Canada it is deemed rude to burp at the table whereas in some societies a burp is a compliment to the cook.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
I'd rather be skiing....

You raise an interesting point. When we "expect" folk not to steal food from our table at MacDonald's, anticipate that some other motorist will obey the rules of the road....are those expectations personal expectations or are they the "standard" we as a social unit..a society...a "club", as members of..we accept as binding on our own behavior and then expect that everyone else be bound to those "standards" as well?

I don't have a problem with assisted suicide...as a last wish of a very ill or terminally ill person, nor do I hesitate to put down a horse or dog when their situation becomes one that eliminates everything but pain and suffering... but the horse or dog don't enjoy the facility of language to convey what they 'want"...

I have a great deal of difficulty with someone prepared to rain down terror destruction and death upon me or the innocent and yet...I am a member of a society that subscribes to the notion that failing to act when some other nation or some faction in a remote location elects to prosecute their convictions at the point of a bayonet or a gun....that as a peace-loving human being I support the contention that I have a responsibility to act on the behalf of those less equipped to deal with their sad situation...

While I'm perhaps relativistic when it comes to the "morality" involved in reaching decisions that impact large numbers of folk I don't even know or understand, I make the choice when it's up to me to exhaust all possible alternatives before I entertain the notion of violent response/reprisal...

What authority do we invoke when murder is acceptable in certain situations and not acceptable in others?

We are faced with these horrendous decisions (as thought exercises) while men and women all over the world are faced with them as immediate and real components of their individual experience...

Does the committment that a soldier makes to execute his duties and responsibilities relieve him/her of his/her responsibility to the moral fabric of their understanding and up-bringing...

When does the morality and ethics of government "trump" those standards and foundations of belief and morality that inform that the taking of another life is "wrong"?

What menu of standards and list of exceptions to those standards are published or widely disseminated by our governments before the decision to participate in some "necessary" violent offensive appears imminent?

Why are there one set of rules for the wealthy and the powerful while another for the poor?

The "root" of the question posed...should tweak everyone's thinking....
 

daisygirl

Electoral Member
May 28, 2007
866
49
28
Ontario
Mikey, as an aside, was the word "not" meant to be in that sentence or not? A simple yes or no will suffice. :lol:
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
As an aside...:)

No the word was not omitted by accident.

We make choices and the ramifications of those choices have far reaching consequence. Our expectations of conformity to a standard or at least the climate (moral and ethical) of the times impose expectations on other people. I'dratherbeskiing had it right...

For what it's worth..:)
 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
As an aside...:)

No the word was not omitted by accident.

We make choices and the ramifications of those choices have far reaching consequence. Our expectations of conformity to a standard or at least the climate (moral and ethical) of the times impose expectations on other people. I'dratherbeskiing had it right...

For what it's worth..:)

Nothing on the comprehension of that standard and the addition/omission of specifics due to freewill and self gratification?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Unforgiven

“Nothing on the comprehension of that standard and the addition/omission of specifics due to freewill and self gratification?”

I’m not entirely sure what the question means, but I’ll give the answer a shot and you can correct me or guide me as you feel necessary. :)

Definition


Standard: “A basis for comparison; a reference point against which other things can be evaluated.”

“The ideal in terms of which something can be judged.”

“Conforming to or constituting a standard of measurement or value; or of the usual or regularized or accepted kind.”

“Established or well-known or widely recognized as a model of authority or excellence.”


This variety of definitions of “standard” implicitly connote an objective perspective while critically dependent on subjective judgment…

The nub of our dilemma regarding… what standard? And… why?… Proceeds from trying to synthesize the source, the root or the genesis from which moral ideation arises.

How does a human being know what is “right-behavior” and what is “wrong-behavior”?

A great many people ‘feel’ and/or ‘believe’ that moral ideation is the bailiwick of religion, the doctrine of some particular ‘church’….

This perspective furthers our appreciation for the apparent dichotomy we observe between social organizations who (for the greater-part even if not the “majority”) subscribe to religious tenets/commandments/rules as their guide in exercising and understanding “right” from “wrong”. Guides to behavior attributable to ‘divine enlightenment’ are fraught with inconsistencies contradictions and insidious interpretations.

Christianity (as an example) references the Bible as the ultimate arbiter in questions of moral theses…

"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " Exodus 21:23-25

"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39

These excerpts from the Bible illustrate (there are many many occasions of counterintuitive…contradictory statements and ideas contained in the Bible) and these are but one example.

My familiarity with the Quran (Koran) is regrettably sorely inadequate however I’m prepared to entertain the notion that, as “manuals-for-living” these “guidelines for human behaviour”….works delivered through Holy-Men…from the pulpits and daises of synagogues temples shrines churches and pulpits of all manner…demonstrate that every translation interpretation and perspective whether in fact starting out as the divine word of an extra-phenominal entity (supernatural) or not, become instruments and agents of social conditioning which invariably contain elements of the human perspective and the dynamics of the human-mind. Ignorance, greed, power and a plethora of human-interests that have little to nothing in common with a universal “standard” are inextricably interwoven within these manuscripts and tomes…then embraced by millions as the final or ultimate declaration.

As historical documents, they’re interesting, but their real-world application as the metrics, the parameters and references informing consciousness with respect to the nature of “right” and wrong”, they are as variable and as inconclusive/inconsistent as any other human work. This is the unavoidable and inevitable consequence of establishing a premise or declaring a formula edict or “law” based on temporal vagaries.

The “morality” of issues like: Euthanasia- medical advances and increased longevity have transformed our way of looking at old age.

Abortion:I don’t know if abortions were performed in biblical times (certain procedures may have been used to kill the foetus), but conditions (both medical and social) were very different from the present day.

Gene manipulation: There were no biological/gentics labs until recently.

Contraception: Means of controlling reproduction were basic and simple at the time we accept the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible were written…nothing similar to modern techniques or preventions existed.

In vitro fertilisation and genetic screening never caused a ripple on the philosophical/theological pond two thousand or five thousand years ago….as concepts…as ideas…they simply didn’t exist!

Can a universal non-temporal framework of morality be established in the context of a universe that exhibits change as its only constant? Can a system of “rules” or “codes of behaviour” stand alone on the strength of some particular “authority”…for all time ..and if it can, what is the nature and source of this “authority”?

I personally reject the thesis that an immutable foundation of principles applicable to every human (or extra-human) experience situation and condition present or anticipated at some future time can ever be granted/accepted as the ultimate authority.

Because we (human beings) operate, interrelate, experience and reflect on the dynamic forces present in a constantly evolving universe through only the narrow window of the present…as informed by the past…our moral theses and our concepts of morality and ethics have to be malleable and available to re-examination and re-interpretation.

This contribution has wandered significantly from the original topical content and would perhaps be better entertained in the philosophy threads here at Canadian Content…

If anyone’s interested please state your query in that thread and we can pursue these and other ideas there.










 

Unforgiven

Force majeure
May 28, 2007
6,770
137
63
Well there is morality and then there is law. While morality is taught, presumably by those parents, guardians or caregivers mentoring in whatever way they do, is influenced by environment, the law (societal standard) is separate from all that influence. In theory anyway. But the law is taught also and a bit like morality has the possibilities to lose something in translation.

So where does meaning well, sit within the frame work of morality and law?
For example, the boyscout in doing his good deed for the day, hauls the little old lady across the busy street, which she has just crossed before he came along, with great effort on her part. Where sits the net judgement?
 
Last edited:

triedit

inimitable
Sort of tying this together with Mikey, and NOT as a defense, telling a friend what she (in my opinion) needed to hear was my moral obligation. According to my experience, this person needed a healthy dose of truth. The delivery, however, was wrong. I take full responsibility for that.

Morally, for me, that means I felt she needed a bit of a slap to encourage her to seek help that she wasn't seeking for issues she was ignoring or wasn't aware of. Yes, there was an element of self service there as I (for my own mental health) couldn not continue to support her as a friend unless she dealt with those issues. That was stated clearly as well. It wasn't supposed to be a "shot". It was supposed to be my drawing a line in the sand with a clear explaination of why. There is no doubt that needed to be done, so I feel no guilt for doing so. I do wish, however, I had handled the delivery differently. Even given the information I now have (and didnt have then) I would still do the same thing, albeit worded and delivered differently perhaps.

In the second case, I intervened because I felt I had the "inside scoop" that my friend didn't have to further his goal. At that point I wasn't particularly interested in the well being of the person I was seeking information from. Over time, that changed. I became interested in that well being which put me in a difficult position-one I am still in- of trying to ease the pain of one friend while helping the other be a better person. Fortunately, both these people understand me and my motives and although the friendships on both counts took a bit of a blow, they still remain. It's not a victory by any means, and was never intended to be. I still want to help both my friends. I see nothing wrong with that. It isnt going to happen though. In some ways, Ive had to pull back from both of them. That is a consequence I can live with.

By posting this topic I was not intending to "dig up old hurts" or rehash anything still unresolved. I was simply trying to understand my own situation and make changes to myself as necessary. I tried to do that on another forum but was thwarted at every attempt so my learning was delayed at every turn. I appreciate the opportunity to "think out loud" and get all sorts of feedback.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Triedit

I understand perfectly. I haven't meant to minimize or scorn the situation that provoked your contribution, if I have, I appologize.

We've heard and perhaps experienced the notion of "tough-love", that's often characterized as a "fall-back" position when straightforward adult conversation doesn't seem to have the desired affect.

The issue of spanking children...is it abuse or is it a necessity stemming out of the realization that children (according to Piget and others) don't yet enjoy the facility to internalize instructions before age 7... even when those instructions are intended as means to securing the child's safety and reinforcing discipline..to later of course merge into the capacity for self-discipline...

We reasonably expect that adults have the sophistication of thinking that enables them to reach decisions based on some form of objective "truth", a recognition that actions have consequences and without undertaking careful examination of the contributing elements within the decision making process...mistakes will occur...

Our self-interests, our "feelings" our "desires" our "wants" and our "needs" frequently confuse and frustrate the decision making process. Sometimes getting an objective third-party opinion or perspective on a situation can help people to make better decisions.

Sometimes....

Sometimes those emotional conflicts erupting out of wants and needs pose barriers to clarity and sometimes advice or third-party intervention is rejected outright becuase we aren't prepared to listen..because we can't see or don't have the luxury of seeing beyond our own (sometimes) entrenched perspectives....

Sorry if I've left you feeling I've hijacked this thread...didn't mean any harm...

I've posted in an existing thread in the philosophy section if you'd like to take a look there....

Again I appologize if I've screwed things up...:(