As a rule, "partially right, most of the time" is moral.

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:

Gottservant said:

Partially right, most of the time, is moral (selah)

Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism (moral heroism), in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of what could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

Let me give examples.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea? Can you see that imagining you are right, but not insisting, is the best pose to take, when it comes to morality?

 

[Dropship]

Right is right, so all we can do is use our sense of decency and commonsense and make our choice, then keep our fingers crossed that it's the right one..

 

[Gottservant]

I'm just saying: we don't need to beat ourselves up to be moral (as I think you say), neither do we need to go to extremes.

 

[Invisibilis]

A half truth is a deception.

 

[Gottservant]

A half truth is a deception.

Yes, but even a half truth is not wrong, if you keep voicing the truth regardless.

Not to distract the thread, though, do you mean the silver line (partially right, most of the time) is a deception?

I would say being partially right, most of the time, is more than a deception.

 

[Invisibilis]

Yes, but even a half truth is not wrong, if you keep voicing the truth regardless.

Not to distract the thread, though, do you mean the silver line (partially right, most of the time) is a deception?

I would say being partially right, most of the time, is more than a deception.

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The only reason for a half-truth is to distort a truth to keep the lie active.

 

[Gottservant]

Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

The only reason for a half-truth is to distort a truth to keep the lie active.

Yes but a standard of absolutely right, all of the time, is unreasonably excessive.

 

[Invisibilis]

Yes but a standard of absolutely right, all of the time, is unreasonably excessive.

Being true, all the time, is not unreasonable for who we Really are.

 

[Gottservant]

Being true, all the time, is not unreasonable for who we Really are.

I beg to differ.

Faith is not of works.

Giving absolute importance to being moral, in the absence of an application is an example of pride not humility.

But I am interested in how you came to this idea that morality is a burden? Which scripture do you think supports your view?

 

[ScottA]

Yes but a standard of absolutely right, all of the time, is unreasonably excessive.

Yes, and it should be understood that being "wrong" or even only "half wrong", is where we all begin.

Life then is a series of opportunities to see all things as choices of what is good and what is bad, or good verses evil, and of deciding which to lean into in going forward. All of which are small glimpses of that much bigger choice of where we want to end up when we come to the end of days. The whole thing makes it impossible to confuse the issue, leaving no excuse--and if so impressed one will likely see God in the design. At which point a good and wise leaning person will begin to speak to Him, as He will have already won over their heart.

 

[Invisibilis]

I beg to differ.

Faith is not of works.

Giving absolute importance to being moral, in the absence of an application is an example of pride not humility.

But I am interested in how you came to this idea that morality is a burden? Which scripture do you think supports your view?

Who you really are always knows the truth.

 

[Gottservant]

The two questions we should be asking ourselves (if partially right most of the time, is moral) is "is what I am doing 'right'? and "is my doing it consistently, consistent enough?" If we answer yes to these two things, we should be doing it!

 

[St. SteVen]

A half truth is a deception.

I appreciate your transparency in this matter. - LOL
(invisible is VERY transparent)
Sorry, seemed like such a good set-up for my comment.

 

[St. SteVen]

The only reason for a half-truth is to distort a truth to keep the lie active.

"I cannot tell a lie, your victim is hiding in the closet."

There are often very good reasons for nondisclosure of information.

Matthew 10:16 NIV
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Being true, all the time, is not unreasonable for who we Really are.

I used to work with a person that was attempting to be super honest.
A really great person, but this caused all sorts of problems for them and the company.
We had to modify the records to fit the way the company was set up and to correct her HONEST errors.
And they lost money by insisting they were right. But probably slept just fine.
While they gave the rest of us ulcers. - LOL

Who you really are always knows the truth.

Seriously?
We know little to nothing. IMHO

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes but a standard of absolutely right, all of the time, is unreasonably excessive.

Even "pagans" have a God-given conscience. We know when we are out of line most of the time.

Romans 2:14-16 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

[St. SteVen]

Gottservant said:

"Partially right, most of the time, is moral (selah)"

Selah?

Why PARTIALLY right?
I see the poetic quality. (contrast) But, as a teaching about morality... not sure. ???

 

[Gottservant]

"Partially right, most of the time, is moral (selah)"

Selah?

Why PARTIALLY right?
I see the poetic quality. (contrast) But, as a teaching about morality... not sure. ???

The way I see it: God is not unrealistically concerned with us getting everything right, nor does He want us to forget morality, on account of the fact that we sometimes don't get it right.

The point is to keep trying to be moral, and cooling your jets when you have got a consistently moral groove going.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[Ziggy]

"I cannot tell a lie, your victim is hiding in the closet."

There are often very good reasons for nondisclosure of information.

Matthew 10:16 NIV
“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Was it Rahab that hid the spies?

Jos 2:4
And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were:
Jos 2:5
And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not: pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.
Jos 2:6
But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

Was this morally right or wrong?

Kindness... hmm

Jos 2:12
Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token:
Jos 2:13
And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.

So does kindness trump lying??
1Pe 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

And the moral of the story is...

Hugs

 

[St. SteVen]

Was it Rahab that hid the spies?

Yes. Also mentioned positively in the NT.

• Matthew 1:5
  Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse,
  
  
• Hebrews 11:31
  By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.
  
  
• James 2:25
  In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

 

[Chadrho]

Hi there,

So I wanted to present a model for morality that is different from utilitarianism and deontology. That model is simply:

Gottservant said:

Essentially, it builds on an experience of trying to be moral. It does not need specific instructions or specific consequences, but adapts, within the confines of the ability of the individual for effort, viz., moral effort.

The idea is that you take up this cause, with every new Day and bear out the fact that moral choices, vary day by day, depending on circumstance. In this way the individual comes to identify with heroism (moral heroism), in the true sense of the word that it is a burden begun first in the imagination of what could be and a burden that ends in the mind as to what had to have been.

Let me give examples.

The fat man who could stop a runaway cart on train tracks - if you pushed him -, does not pass this test, because this action is partially right but not most of the time: there may be other runaway carts, other people.

Likewise, telling a white lie does not pass this test, because even if you could do it most of the time, it is not partially right.

As to selecting people to enter a bunker during a nuclear holocaust, a broad spectrum of talent would be reasonable, because it is partially right and also, given a small amount of chance, right most of the time.

I wonder how you will receive my moral idea? Can you see that imagining you are right, but not insisting, is the best pose to take, when it comes to morality?

This reminds me somewhat of Aristotelian virtue ethics, which is roughly the idea that we must learn right action through practice until we develop a habit of knowing what to do in a given situation. The overarching goal is to develop habits that lead to a certain kind of life, i.e., a good life. So it's not about duty since situations differ. And it's not about the greatest good for the greatest number. It's about developing a certain way of being in the world through practice, which invariably involves trial, error, and getting it partially right.