Quote:
Originally Posted by idi banashapan
Not at all. My meaning is that I would rather be kind to others and inquisitive because in my opinion, that is the right way to behave, rather than do it because otherwise I may be judged by a higher being. Why would one not be just as concerned about what one’s peers feel as a result of one’s actions?
I don’t feel the need to behave in a certain way to appease a prophet or deity - I’d rather do it because I want to. Because I can be a benefit to fellow people, even those I don’t know. Because I might be able to make better someone else’s day. I won’t ask for anything in return. I won’t do it because I fear any kind of eternal damnation. I simply do it because it is simple to do, and costs me nothing at all.
|
Which rather illustrates my point. What you’ve provided here is a set of prejudicial assumptions. Tweetiepooh didn’t say any of these things. None of them are necessarily implicit in the post in question either. You are absolutely free to construct an ethical scheme of your own choosing of course. But you are patently failing to live up to it. Your reply was not kind and it was not inquisitive - had it at least been inquisitive you could have dismissed it based on a disagreement over what it actually is, rather than what you assume it is, which would arguably have been at least somewhat kind. But a brief dismissal opening with “Yeah.” ?… not so much.
I will add more later on the importance to European civilisation of the ethical scheme that does actually arise from what Tweetiepooh posted.