Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Hello, Morality for any individual cannot be extricated from experience .. its a combination of values placed by virtue of conditioning by parents/society, personal experience and greater awareness ... auromirra19 <nalini2818 wrote: Dear Krishnanji, What you say is correct.I believe what is practiced can always be debated or discussed-if you beieve in pedantics. The main issue was to bring out various views,opinions and individuals'perceptions. I am sure Tanvirji meant to go about a healthy debate and would not mind a few digressions. Morality can never be constant, it is ever changing, it is in the individual as he perceives it. Morality is not an "experience", it is a way of life, and even if we are mostly old adults to learn, it is better late, than never. Nalini , vattem krishnan <bursar_99 wrote: > > Dear Nalini ji, > Morality as a constant factor becomes less tenable.For a humanbeing ever willing to learn(need also delearn yet times) by comparitive knowledge can always come out with balanced and acceptable views. > question how and when this can be possible:I some how even if we debate there is nothing wrong but must be open to know the good and bad of his views/practices. > Morality is only practised but not preached or other way it is only preached may not be true.it is an opinion or at best a view as one feels or understands.Ther is always room for it's variability whether one wishes or not. > For me morality is more a social concept but very personal and is not to encroached upon unless one comes up with his own views and is open to modifiaction. > Infact what ever taboos in society are more or less existed are only from some moral perspective .if not to instill morality. > so morality can be preached,practised and modified based on attitudes.The debate is not bad but be given an opportunity for conveying views and opinions only to analyse and understand. > what Shri Tanvir ji initiated has certainly stimulate many members and it is now for him to find how much deviations he has noticed as compared to others.if willing he may bring in necessary moderation. > krishnan > > auromirra19 <nalini2818 wrote: > True should be practiced, but when in doubt discussed:-) > Should be because it has been going on for quite some time and I > jumped into the bandwagon quite late in the day. > Nalini > , "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@> > wrote: > > > > Should morality be discussed or practiced? ;-) > > If/when practiced -- where remains the need for discussion? > > Morality is learned/incorporated when very young. Assuming most > here > > are young or old adults, the opportunity for leaning morality is > > gone, in the past. > > I am sure everyone here availed of the opportunity! > > > > This is a statement, my belief and not a desire to start another > > beating of gums (figuratively speaking -- given that I am typing > and > > so are most others! I am sure some techie-heads are using dragon > or > > via voice!!) > > > > RR > > > > , "auromirra19" > > <nalini2818@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear all, > > > We are discussing Morality, here. Tanvir ji himself has said it > is > > a > > > vague(said vogue, a typo? and I have assumed he meant vague) > idea. > > > What exactly is it, how do you define it, unless it is precisely > > fit > > > into a definition, how do you apply it to an action. > > > Is it not a relative term? Does it not mutate if I may say so, > > over > > > time. What is moral at one time is not moral at another. Man in > > > another point in time killed and ate flesh raw and in the raw > (pun > > > intended). Did he debate whether it was moral or immoral? His > sole > > > instinct was survival and animalistic in the sense that it was > not > > > governed by the viveka so associated with humans. He has > evolved, > > > physically, socially and also morally? because we are now > debating > > > what is moral and what is not. Over the period he has found > > > alternate sources of food and how that has evolved is evident. > > > How and when did Man find the need to wear clothes? does wearing > > > clothes make one moral , if so is the prehistoric man immoral? > > > Then, is Morality, Socially accepted behaviour? > > > Let us come to contemporary periods: What is moral in one > culture > > is > > > immoral in others. Marriages among cousins has different > > > implications in the fabric of morality in different > > cultures.Dating, > > > living together have different connotations in different social > > > cultures. How morality has, can I use the term , evolved???, > when > > > unconventional in terms of marriage , was inter caste/inter > > > religious, love etc.( people indulging in such were dubbed > > immoral > > > and sometimes ostracised) Is it the same now? In most places > > > unconventional now, may mean Same Sex marriages. > > > Like in science, all others assumed constant, can we apply the > > same > > > yard stick to morality. But is morality Constant, it is a > > variable, > > > at most it can be a varying-constant(can there be one in > science? > > it > > > can be in English - an oxymoron. > > > These are my humble views and not meant to denigrate or > criticise > > > others'. > > > Regards > > > Nalini > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , "panditarjun2004" > > > <panditarjun2004@> wrote: > > > > > > > > dear surya garu > > > > > > > > logic is something which is applied by the native to support > his > > > or > > > > her own theories irrespective of whether these theories are > > right > > > or > > > > wrong. > > > > > > > > when painter M.F.Hussain painted various hindu goddesses and > > > bharat > > > > mata in nude and put it up for auction to earn quick and fast > > > name, > > > > fame and few crores by selling the moterland in nude, he > applied > > > his > > > > logical thinking that a painter has the freedom to paint > > anything > > > in > > > > nude be it the goddesses of other religion or the motherland > > which > > > > gave birth to him. on the other hand an organisation in UP > put > > an > > > > award of rs.51 crore to slay this famous painter applying > their > > > > logic that he is a germ for the society. these people when > > > > interviewed by the media for taking an extremist posture asked > > the > > > > media to apply their own logic by venturing to ask the painter > > if > > > he > > > > finds it logically correct to paint his own mother in nude. > > > > > > > > so logic is something which is applied by both good and bad > > people > > > > to support their own theories. > > > > > > > > with best wishes > > > > arjun > > > > > > > > > > > > , surya vishnu > > > > <surya_prakashvi@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > There is a very famous book in Telugu called "khandana > Khanda > > > > Khadyam" ... it extensively deals with application of > > > > logic/arguments to prove everything and disprove > everything ... > > > Just > > > > amused > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tanvir <ultimate@> wrote: > > > > > Dear Maniv Ji > > > > > > > > > > I like the idea that you are coming forward with what you > > think > > > to > > > > be correct. As I always say, I am always open minded and would > > > > accept any new idea that I feel logical and practical. I think > > > > without this quality, one can never learn anything. If one > only > > > > believes what he is taught in childhood, knowledge stops there > > > > forever. I am always open minded and would welcome any logical > > > > discussion to find an answer (even if different from mine) and > > if > > > > one can convince me, I am open to take that without any > > hesitation. > > > > > > > > > > Now let us go back to the original topic. > > > > > > > > > > #1. You write- > > > > > "'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones > sustenance, > > > > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is > not > > > > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat > does > > > not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > MY ANSWER: Do you really see what are you saying? > > > > > > > > > > "Indulging in the consumption of meat does not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives" > > > > > > > > > > If you say this then it clearly means that you are taking > that > > > > plants have NO LIVES. You are saying that eating meat does not > > > fall > > > > in this category BEC OTHER ALTERNATE IS THERE but what I AM > > SAYING > > > > is that the other ALTERNATES are killing AS WELL so they are > > SAME. > > > > So entirely you fail to understand my simple point and base > your > > > > argument on this misunderstanding. My argument is simple that > a > > > > plant has life like other living beings and it wants to live, > > and > > > > does not want to die. So destroying it's life is killing there > > can > > > > be no doubt or sane argument against it. When you are arguing > > with > > > > the above point it means you understood nothing of my original > > > mail > > > > and going back to an idea as if plants have no lives. > > > > > > > > > > You entirely fail to understand my simple point. > > > > > > > > > > My another point is that, we really NEVER KNOW if killing a > > hen > > > is > > > > MORE BRUTAL than killing a plant or tree. Repeating again, > just > > > > because a tree cannot yell or moan does not mean it feels no > > pain > > > > but throughout it's all the silent acitivities it clearly > shows > > it > > > > wants to survive like any other living beings. > > > > > > > > > > So if you want to speak about these ALTERNATIVES then you > > should > > > > either say that trees have no lives or they do not feel pain > or > > > they > > > > do not have the desire to live. Only then you can say that > > killing > > > a > > > > plant is better than killing a hen. To say that first you have > > to > > > > prove something like trees have no desire to live or no lives > in > > > > themselves. But as we do not have ANY EVIDENCE as of now to > say > > or > > > > CLAIM that a tree's life VALUES LESS then we cannot really > ever > > > say > > > > that killing a tree is better than killing a hen. In that > cases > > > they > > > > ARE alternatives but they are EQUAL. > > > > > > > > > > This is our MERE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERCEPTION that a tree cannot > > > shout > > > > in pain so even though we know that it has a life, we really > do > > > not > > > > apply this idea in our deeds. Same thing happens when dogs are > > > > killed, no one really cares that much comparing to killing a > > human > > > > just because the dog probably cannot speak of it's grief and > > pain. > > > > Vedic tradition goes to step further from common sense and > > forbids > > > > killing animals to eat them. But then with the same logic that > > > Vedic > > > > tradition is using it is also came as a fact that even trees > > > deserve > > > > the living right. > > > > > > > > > > If I hit two persons and one cries out in pain and another > > does > > > > not, it does not really mean that the one not crying is not > > > feeling > > > > pain or anything, but in BEHAVIOUR we follow such things which > > is > > > > WRONG. > > > > > > > > > > I gave ample examples of lives being of equal values but > then > > > with > > > > your first point you go back to the previous position as if > you > > > have > > > > never read my original post. > > > > > > > > > > If you feel no pai to kill a plant it is for the fact that > you > > > do > > > > not hear it's moaning of pain, but that is WRONG perception. > > > Because > > > > you do know it has a life and it wants to survive. THAT IS > WHY, > > > > killing plant IS an alternate of killing a hen but in NO WAY > it > > is > > > a > > > > better alternate who people using either alternate (Whether > > > killing > > > > a plant or a hen) are SAME. Because both have lives and want > to > > > > live. One can express it's pain, one cannot. But this > expression > > > > does not make ANY difference to THE FACT. Please as a human > > living > > > > in this 21st century do not only see the expression or be a > hunt > > > of > > > > wrong perception. As we perceive the Sun rises in the east and > > > goes > > > > down to the west does not really mean that the Sun moves > around > > > the > > > > world ALTHOUGH by seeing this PERCEIVED movement of Sun the > > people > > > > of ancient times believed that Sun moves round the world ! > Even > > > > Galileo had sacrificed his life for it but they never > listened, > > > > because they believed their perception. As you and most of the > > > > > people doing the same, never thinking about the lives of > > trees > > > > because they cannot moan and yell. If you really thought > > logically > > > > you could never claim that there are ample alternates, which > you > > > > seem to suggest as better ones in terms or morality. > > > > > > > > > > #2 You wrote- > > > > > > > > > > "So while a vegetarian would be 'killing' > > > > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the meat- > > > eater > > > > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection." > > > > > > > > > > I again have to say that this is a wrong understanding and > > > narrow > > > > vision of yours. How many types living beings you kill is at > the > > > end > > > > of the day, only KILLING. If I kill one American and one > Indian > > > > (Total two) and you kill two Indians (Total two) can you say > > that > > > > you are less immoral than me (OR vice versa) ???? Think over > it > > > > carefully. > > > > > > > > > > To answer the above question If you want to say that you are > > > less > > > > immoral than me then you must say that an American's value of > > life > > > > is MORE than an Indian's life's value. BUT if you say that an > > > > American and an Indian has the same value of life then you > must > > > > admit that we are same immorals because does not matter which > > > > nationality we killed, but we killed SAME NUMBER of LIVES. So > we > > > are > > > > same guilty. > > > > > > > > > > As per the example unless you can first prove that killing a > > > plant > > > > is less immoral, you can never say "killing only plants" is > > better > > > > than "killing plants and animals". Because killing is killing > > only. > > > > > > > > > > RATHER, IT WORKS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. > > > > > > > > > > How much immoral the killing is will depend NOT only the > type > > we > > > > killed BUT the NUMBER OF LIVES. In the above examples we both > > > killed > > > > two persons so we are same guilty. If you kill only one rich > > > > American and I kill two poor Africans does not mean you are > more > > > > guilty because you killed the rich one. I am more guilty > because > > I > > > > killed more numbers, IN OTHER WORDS I DESTROYED MORE LIVES > > because > > > > each of the African people had SEPARATE LIVES. > > > > > > > > > > In that sense when a vegetarian eats 500 grams of vegetable > he > > > is > > > > responsible for killing more than one plants (generally) but > > when > > > a > > > > non-vegetarian eats 500 gm of meat he is probably responsible > > for > > > > killing only one animal. In that case MOST OF THE TIMES a > > > vegetarian > > > > KILLS more number of INDIVIDUAL LIVES than a non-vegetarian > > though > > > > they eat same amount of food. Yes, there are plants only of > > which > > > > offers more foods than one small animal, but it is not > general. > > > Most > > > > of the times a single plant offers smaller amount of food than > > an > > > > animal. This is especially true for people who eat big fishes > > like > > > > Ruhit etc. or eat pork (pigs), beef (cows) etc. So, in > general, > > a > > > > vegetarian is DESTROYING MORE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LIVES than > a > > > > nonvegetarian by eating same amount of food. > > > > > > > > > > #3 You wrote - > > > > > > > > > > "Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > > > > survive; > > > > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic is > > > > really > > > > > straightforward, and transparently rational." > > > > > > > > > > Again like before, your vision is very narrow and > incomplete. > > > > Before you prove that plant lives are less valueable than > > animals > > > > lives, you cannot say that. It depends not upon the type of > > > killing > > > > but the amount of killing and non-vegetarians are in that case > > > > BETTER because they kill less number of individual lives. Only > > by > > > > killing one big cow or only by destroying one life many people > > can > > > > eat but those same amount of food coming from veg source would > > > cause > > > > a lot of plants killing, ie individual lives. > > > > > > > > > > A man living on totally plant based foods is no better than > a > > > man > > > > eating both plant-based and animal based foods. Saying again, > do > > > not > > > > be confused with the wrong perception as trees cannot yell. Do > > not > > > > believe in Sun moving around the world as it appears to be. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Tanvir > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What cannot happen, can never happen. > > > > > Which is mine, is forever mine. > > > > > > > > > > http://www.jyotish-remedies.com - Vedic Astrology (Jyotish) > > > > > Predictive astrology with incredibly powerful problem > solving > > > > remedies > > > > > Where relief and solutions are found > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > maniv1321 > > > > > > > > > > Wednesday, March 01, 2006 7:34 PM > > > > > Re: Morality > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mr Tanvir, > > > > > > > > > > I would refute the perspective you have purported with > > regards > > > > to > > > > > vegetarianism. > > > > > > > > > > 'Killing', as you label it, for the sake of ones > sustenance, > > > > > especially when there remains no practical alternative is > > not > > > > > immoral in any way. Indulging in the consumption of meat > > does > > > > not > > > > > fit this criteria as there exist ample alternatives ( > which > > > have > > > > > been scientifically proven to be far conducive to superior > > > > physical > > > > > and psychological health). So while a vegetarian would > > > > be 'killing' > > > > > only a minute fraction of living entities (plants), the > meat- > > > > eater > > > > > would be 'killing' unnecessarily a far wider selection. > The > > > > > proportion of 'immoral' behaviour that the meat-eater > would > > be > > > > > indulging in is thus substantially greater than that of > the > > > > > vegetarian. > > > > > > > > > > Without the consumption of plant-based foods man would not > > > > survive; > > > > > without the consumption of meat he can survive. The logic > is > > > > really > > > > > straightforward, and transparently rational. > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Maniv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND > > > RELISH > > > > THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology > software > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Terms > > of > > > > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mail > > > > > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. > > > > > > > Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software > > > > > > Visit your group "" on the web. > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > Relax. Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses! > > > SURRENDER JOYFULLY TO THE WILL OF THE ULTIMATE DIVINITY AND RELISH THE TASTE OF ABSOLUTE BLISS. Vedic astrology Astrology chart Astrology software Visit your group "" on the web. Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.