mererdog

I don't think it does. I believe in objective morality, so I believe how you look at it only determines how likely you are to see the truth. Like the way our opinions about what others deserve can prevent us from having compassion for them... Also, you misread Key's post. Here's a quote with the bit you missed highlighted "In such case, I wouldn't call that being neutral, but rather isolationist. "

Morals are funny that way. There's what we want to believe. There's what we think we believe. There's what we tell others we believe. But it often isn't until following those beliefs have a personal cost that we find out what we actually believe... Or don't...

No offense taken. There's a set of jokes surrounding the way the name is written. You just happened to stumble into one of them.

The goal is to prompt introspection and to compare and contrast our means and ends. The answers are not as important to me as the process of answering. And, for the record, mererdog should never be capitalized. It is a very improper noun.

Right. I was simply pointing out that it is not always. You said it was learned, so I said it can be something else. The tricky part of that is we don't always know the source of our feelings...

But isn't inaction often morally questionable?

I would tend to agree. And isn't it as common to find that sort of justification in a holy book as from personal rationalization? I mean, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have multiple examples of people who acted destructively and then used some leader's words to try and show that they acted righteously. You said earlier that you rely on your belief for moral guidance. Would it be fair to say that those beliefs have been shaped by your own sense of right and wrong behavior? Not a process of self-justification, but of justification of the other, as in "There's an exception to every rule and God's usually it"? I ask because if you take two random Christians and ask them if an act is moral, you will likely get opposing answers, both backed by quotes from the same book. Personally, I suspect this is an example of confirmation bias at work.

Can't it also become self-destructive? As when people convince themselves they don't deserve to live, and so kill themselves?

That does not match my personal experience. Emotion can have nothing to do with circumstance or experience and everything to do with neurochemistry. Think clinical depression or paranoia, bipolar disorders, etc. Also, in your example of the pot, fear tells the child not to touch the pot again, and it is only when that emotional reaction fades that the sort of carelessness you mentioned occurs. Taking that as an analogy, I am reminded of how guilt can fade through the repitition of a morally questionable act, making it easier to act without questioning our morality... And while the analytical power of the intellect is an important and useful tool, it often leads us astray. Cognitive bias can lead to some nasty stuff....

And is not doing wrong the same as doing right? Also, you seem to be saying that when your emotional reaction (guilt, in this case) doesn't match with what you think it should be, you side with your intellect over your emotion. Do you have reason to think the intellect more accurate than the emotion?

So if what you do doesn't make you feel guilty, you assume you did right?

I asked more than one. Perhaps rereading what I wrote would help?

How so? So, are you suggesting that it is a process of elimination thing, where if what you are doing isn't on the list of things you know are wrong,you kknow it must be right?

None of that actually answers my questions?

Do such situations exist in the real world, as opposed to in theory? Assuming they do, how can we tell when bad actions are actually needed, as opposed to when we simply think they are? Is "I can't think of a better solution" morally identical to "There is no better solution"?

How so?

Yet how can you tell that doing those things is right?

How can you tell that what you are doing is right?

Judging Allah and Muslims by the actions of Islamist terrorists is exactly as honest, fair, and useful as judging the biblical God and Christians by the Spanish Inquisition.

So the thing to be wary of is having too much faith in yourself, at least in terms of whether you have enough faith in God to move mountains?

There are no legal limits for religious activities. Anyone can legally run a church, lead a funeral, ordain clergy, baptize people, bless things, etc. The complications arise with activities that either have a secular legal component (like marriage) or intersect with professional licensing requirements (like counseling). And, of course, once you accept money, there are tax ramifications. The specifics will vary by state.

Did you notice the shift from "It is not possible to be %100 certain" to "doesn't claim to know with %100 certainty"? Thay shift is telling, to me, as I don't claim to know whether it is possible to know....

The ULC asks nothing of its members. This means no promises of rewards for staying active, and no threats of punishment for walking away. It also means that any two random ULC ministers likely have nothing more to talk about than any other two strangers. This tends to favor smaller, more localized groups.

It looks connected to an early problem we were having. I messaged the admins, so they should have an answer soon.

Howdy stranger! Its all set up when you're ready.