Does my ethical system need to be something that can be written and read and does it require rigid prescription for certain situations.

I have myself a system and it is far from rigid and it prescribes nothing more to any specific situation than vigilance and thought.
A situation at first glance may appear the same as another and if it were that simple rule/guidelines could be prescribed.
Unfortunately thing aren't always that simple.
There is almost always a bigger picture and in a lot of situations that whole picture will not be able to be observed by one self.

i.e.
I am walking down the street and I'm approaching an elderly woman who due to the slope on the path is struggling with her shopping trolley. Being young and stronger than she, and having that I am in no rush to be anywhere I believe that it would only be right to help out. It causes me more pain to see her struggle than what it would to help her.

But would I be right to blindly force what I think would be the right thing onto her.

In many cases I'm sure the elderly lady would be grateful for assistance.

I would certainly approach with intentions to help but would exercise vigilance. Paying close attention to how she responds to my aproach. There could be many reason why she would not like me to help.

She may have preconceptions of what my intentions are due to the way I appear. If she believes my intention could be of a sinister nature my approach would not be welcomed.

She may be going through an emotional time where she is down on herself because she is struggling with life and feel like a burden on everyone else. My approach would only add to her pain.

She may have experienced abuse in a similar situation previously.

Her culture or religious beliefs may prohibit her from engagements with me being that I am a stranger or of a foreign nature.

The list could go on and on.

I would cautiously approach the woman with a desire to help her but I would pay very close attention to how she reacts to my approach. I would do my best to interpret her reactions and possible reasons for them and then decide what I believe would be the best way to proceed. Upon proceeding I would then exercise the same evaluations and actions continuously.

I find that most situations I encounter in life could consist of countless variables and having a rigid system will not suffice.

This is not to say I don't have a system.
I have my morals and what would they be if I was not to utilise them. I conduct myself in a ways that aligns with my morals. My conduct strongly encompasses vigilance and understanding of the infinite variables that situations can hold.

For this reason I think written rules or a rigid system would be unethical.

I do think that I use my "system" constantly in life.

I also believe that Philosophy for me would be a fruitless exercise if it were not to be used as means of guiding my life. Guiding my life would be difficult without morals/ethics ensuring continuity of actions benefiting choose direction.

Me: that’s BS and you are an idiot. — MysticMonist

A statement lime this in my opinion would not be decent.
Saying - "I think that's BS" and following it up with your reasoning.
I think that would be fine, if someone takes out of that you implying they are an idiot, that is on them and out of your control.

I agree letting 'rip' will often make one defensive/emotional and impede and fruitful discussion.
Like I said being mindful of others feeling is an honourable trait, I just think 'tippy toeing' around something could remove meaning from a comment or discussion.

I usually spent quite some time thinking about what I've postafter the fact and consider all the different ways this could be misconstrued, I really don't like the possibilities that go through my head, again I have little control over how others receive my comments, I feel if I curve my statement too much in order to avoid offending someone there is more chance that I have not clearly expressed my opinion.

Wow, like u said yesterday I should really take extra time and make corrections to my comments before I push send. Sorry

How another perceives our comments is out of our control and I don't think one should over concern themselves with the chance that one might take offence.

That is to say within reason

hink an amount of care should be taken with how we word thing I don't think we should allow this to impede the ways in which we deceive our views. — Another

Describe our views

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying we shouldn't express disagreement, even strong disagreement, with others opinions? That we shouldn't expect someone who puts their beliefs out onto the forum shouldn't expect to have to defend them? I certainly disagree with that. I do endorse civility and open-mindedness - a willingness to be convinced.

By the way, you posted this twice. — T Clark

Not sure what happened with it getting posted twice.

Yes you did misunderstand me, this may be my fault.
I meant the exact opposite, as much as I think an amount of care should be taken with how we word thing I don't think we should allow this to impede the ways in which we deceive our views.
To a degree I think in this forum we should be able to give our unbridled opinions.

Just to make sure we're still talking about the same thing, when you say "both of these," — T Clark

OK my comment were mostly aimed at numerology.
And I didn't say I thought it was BS but that it doesn't hold value for me.

I often see people jumping to the defence of others and suggesting that we should be more charitable/sensitive to others feeling and I think this is an honourable trait and these types of comments have on occasion helped me to re evaluate my position.
I do believe however that it is very difficult to predict or control how someone perceives even the most benign comment. Especially without intimately knowing another history and emotional status.
I do think to a degree unless asked for it one should keep their opinions to themself (obviously there are moment where advise should be given without request). I think in a forum like this 'forum' and especially when someone has engaged in a conversation that they should be willing to listen to another unbridled opinion. As much as another opinion would often be misunderstood I think if one holds back and try to hard to dress up an opinion this would only add to the chance for misinterpretation.
Personally if I'm offended by anothers comments I can quickly detach myself from any offence in understanding we are all very different hold different truths and it is only me that give another thoughts any bearing on my own.

I often see people jumping to the defence of others and suggesting that we should be more charitable/sensitive to others feeling and I think this is an honourable trait and these types of comments have on occasion helped me to re evaluate my position.
I do believe however that it is very difficult to predict or control how someone perceives even the most benign comment. Especially without intimately knowing another history and emotional status.
I do think to a degree unless asked for it one should keep their opinions to themself (obviously there are moment where advise should be given without request). I think in a forum like this 'forum' and especially when someone has engaged in a conversation that they should be willing to listen to another unbridled opinion. As much as another opinion would often be misunderstood I think if one holds back and try to hard to dress up an opinion this would only add to the chance for misinterpretation.
Personally if I'm offended by anothers comments I can quickly detach myself from any offence in understanding we are all very different hold different truths and it is only me that give another thoughts any bearing on my own.

The impulse being seeking or expressing truth? I suppose then you’re right. But they both BS at least in the sense that they don’t tell us the whole story, just a distorted piece at best or meaningless jumble at worst. There are a lot of people, the majority I think, to whom Plato is a meaningless jumble. — MysticMonist

I personally don't see a lot of specific value in both of these. What I see is is a need for ones personal perception to make meaning of them, I often think that this may be by design.
I think one may be inclined to subconsciously assimilate/attach a broad statement or idea to a part of their life which somewhat subconsciously requires more thought or attention.
My opinion - A nudge to reconsider or take a different view on ones role in a certain situations is certainly something which holds value. For that reason I would not want to discourage someone who wishes follow them.

Fair call, Something I'll keep in mind in future.

I don't risk sounding crazy, I strive for it. — Wosret

This is awesome.
When I start a statement with 'at the risk of sounding crazy' it because I envision a percentage of people writing off what I say as nonsense, I accept that and I wish to make the statement despite this.
I don't take offense to anyone thinking I'm crazy, in honesty I question my own sanity at time's.
This is not something I'm embarrassed of.
It seems in this forum I'm not completely alone with that and I've heard more rational conversations here than I have for most of my life.

I guess this would just support a case where it is that our memories are fallible and cannot be relied on as fact.

No one remembers a little drawing of a dinosaur in there though, or remembers the monopoly man being a red neck, or indian chief. — Wosret

I thinks it's hard to say what one person to another does or doesn't retain in their memories.
I agree with your point about us telling stories, piecing things together and filling in gaps with what we assimilate, So in some situations I think this would be an accurate explanation.

At the risk again of sounding crazy, When there is a situation where I have two conflicting memories of the same event. Both memories being my own, and I seem unable to decifer which one is correct to what would I attribute this? And if one was a correction of the other why has my mind not overwritten the first memory with the corrected one, But instead left traces of both despite their contradiction.

You can to a degree, people like to call it the Mandela effect sometimes. Go to a place you were years ago, watch a movie you saw years ago, or read a book or something, you will find that both detailed recollection, and whole picture apprehension to be distinctly different now than you remember. I've sure you've experienced that. — Wosret

Yes this is a fantastic point.
I do find it peculiar that with the Mandela effect and if it is a change our memory that in a lot of situation the change in what we remember is shared by many.
For example the dash in 'KitKat' or 'Kit-Kat'. There are so many examples like this where many people have experienced an identical alteration of memory.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Epilepsy and drugs are not at all necessary to experience Déjà vu. But... IF one is epileptic, OR if one uses certain drugs, THEN one might experience Déjà vu as a result. But experiencing Déjà vu is no indication whatsoever that one is either epileptic or uses certain drugs. — Bitter Crank

I didn't take it that way at all.
I took your the comments with appreciation and looked into what you were saying. The information I found I now use as evidence to build a better understanding of this subject because I think the information holds substance.
These are exactly the things I was hoping for when starting this thread.
I really mean it when I say Thank you.

Not really, I was just being cute, one of my specialties. I don't experience deja vu, I get jamais vu -- it's the feeling you get when you realize that those that are closest to you have been replaced by exact doubles by the FBI, or aliens... not sure, I'll tell you how the interrogation goes. — Wosret

Interesting please do.

I don't despite that some of these experiences and sensations could simply be a manifestation of misfiring in my brain I just find it hard to take as explanation in all situations, I have previously had a very strong onset of undefined sensations well before an event has occured.

I think I've seen this topic before... — Wosret

I'm new to this forum and must have missed it sorry. In your recollection what did you take from previous said thread?
Please

Certainly a thought which hold substance for me , Cheers

There are explanations for these types of thing.

Your example of seeing certain number constantly for instance is one which I have spent quite some time looking into and there are many explinations. The better of which I found to be a scientific one which in short leant towards our predisposition to recognise patterns not unlike our tenancy to recognise faces in inanimate objects.
Although these explanations made a lot of sense they did not explain every instance and did not satisfy the sensation that came with the experiences.
Just like these theories with Dejavu, I see that they make sense and I think it would be arrogant of me to rule out as BC said the endured and tireless efforts people have put into studying this subject and the theories their efforts have led the to.
I still find however that these theories don't satisfy my curiosity, One because I don't believe I have epilepsy two because the strongest experiences I have had with dejavu was at quite young ages and I had yet to experience recreational drug and was not on any medication in most instances of dejavu. Three during a handful of my experiences of dejavu I was not only accompanied with the feeling that I had done this before but I also had memory of the imminent future which on different occasions I have both watch that memory play out and gone about issuing change. These experiences are often more than just vision but accompanied by sound, smell, emotion and a strong feelings of intuition.

I understand the fact that these explanations don't satisfy me does not in any way mean that these theories are wrong.

I'm simply saying that don't work perfectly for me, I have had other experience in my life which could not be explained by science or study. And from the way I see it they could only be explained by theories that most would quickly laugh at and I would almost certainly be labeled crazy, For that reason I keep the details of these experiences and my theories mostly to myself.

The Theories that I have been lead to read about dejavu (Thankyou for pointing me in this direction BC) have me wondering still about different dimensions or matrix if you may. Is it crazy to think that epileptic episodes or seizures and the interruption of neuron firing could be caused be interference from another dimension.
With the explanation the dejavu is often brought about by drug usage, I've read many articles and listened to many accounts where drug usage has supposedly opened up a gateway for people into what could be described as a different dimension/paradigm. Use of drugs in the history in a more primitive time was widely know to be used solely for the means of reaching these enlightened states.

As always I am not saying anyone is wrong and quite the opposite, your answers have provided me with more prices to my puzzle, unfortunately I still need a few more prices before this puzzle is complete. I am so excited to see the whole picture.
Thankyou for your help.

Your comment have certainly inspire thought and study, Thank you.

If I think I understand you — MysticMonist

Yes it seems you understand where I'm coming from quite well.

I know my thoughts are extremely fallible and I am on this forum to learn not to teach, I need to remember that when I become emotional.
I hope my indiscretions don't stop you from engaging me in future.
Sincerely sorry.

I thought your response was insulting and disrespectful. — T Clark

I can see that now and I am remorseful so please accept my apology.

Thanks Michael,

'My' main struggle is deciding what is 'right' and what is 'better', certainly I not unlike others have intuition which steers me to what seems to be undeniably right, the issue is that at times (often whilst engulfed by emotion) my intuition strongly pushes me to oppose what yesterday I thought was right. This often has me questioning wether what I think is right is all part of me being institutionalized.

"confronting your arrogance and rigidity"

Wow OK I hope sincerely hope you found satisfaction in your response, like all of us I to find arrogance a meal hard to stomach and appreciate you pointing it out, I don't see that I was being completely arrogant however you are probably correct in implying that I should take a step back.

I personally don't identify as a atheist, I not unlike yourselves have taken from life experiences that there is undoubtedly extreme powers and meaning in this world that I don't understand and I'm not sure I ever will as a mortal.
Because I can't clearly define my beliefs I don't profess them, In turn I find it frustrating when someone expects me to accept and understand theirs in reasoning.
I find it frustrating when some expects me to acknowledge their beliefs as fact but refuses to acknowledge my questioning the fact.

This being said maybe it's me that should refrain from engaging in these conversations.

I don't perceive that either of you mean any harm by your sharing and I hope you understand the same from me. I do get carried away at times.

Thank you both for the your thoughts.

If you can prove as you are trying to that I’m internally inconsistent thought, you would disprove me, yes. — MysticMonist

I did not set out to disprove you however in your endeavor to explain your reasoning you contradicted yourself on numerous occasions and this is not of any assistance to my cause however I do feel that pointing them out to you would be beneficial to you because it seems evident you don't see the contradiction.

I am actually so glad you said this! I don’t think either of us really want to get into it. I respect your views and your reasons for believing what you do. — MysticMonist

I entered into this discussion in hope of seeing this from a view I have not heard before and one that made more sense than what I have already used in rationalisation.
Unfortunately I have not found this.
And sure you have your beliefs if you did not want them questioned why would you engage in discussion about them.

I did posit a brief defense of God and Monism — MysticMonist

You wrote.
"I really would agree with you. God is the source of all goodness, meaning, and true joy. If God doesn’t exist there is no unified source of meaning and the only thing we have is philosophy which is our collective and individual search to find or create meaning. If nihilism is right and this philosophy is pointless, giving up is also pointless and I say it’s better to dream and hope than to dispair."

Philosophy doesn't give u a definitive answer so you think that justifies believing in a dream and something that seldom offers continuity.

Meh, OK maybe I did just loose care, enjoy infallible logic and your firmly grounded beliefs.

You say I'm lucky? And u suspect I probably don't really care.
If I didn't care I wouldn't respond.
Is this an example of you superior skill of deduction or are you simply superior because you care more than me.

“God exists and is the source of all goodness.” I can’t define that down any further, it’s a given. — MysticMonist

It's not a given!
You started this thread by highlighting a contradiction within the realm of a world where "god" exists.
Evil is non existent you said but you can't explain why without using evil within your reasoning.
Good doesn't need a counterpart you said. Then what would it be that is opposing god "goodness".
If there is nothing opposing it the god would just be , not as good or bad. Just is. This would mean there is no good and no bad on this premise what would you form morals or ethics on?

I think going into why I choose to believe in God is off topic and is sort of a given for even discussing hell. — MysticMonist

Off topic and sort of a given? It's your belief and the contradictions within your belief that started this thread.

When speaking to someone who thinks you're idea off god if extremely fallible, You think using god as reason rational.
If you are content with being close minded about your ideals and are unwilling to question your beliefs you will find philosophy a difficult exercise.
Questioning your beliefs is not to mean that you set out to prove them wrong but to better understand them, If the answers support your beliefs it will help solidify them if they don't support your beliefs this would be reason for more investigation or a change in your beliefs.
To avoid this would be foolish.
When unwilling to engage in these discussions with yourself what possible good would come from discussing them with others.

Please note the absence of question marks.
This highlights the rhetorical stance these question have.

Let's break it down and make it simple.

1 question

What is good?

No. Actions aren’t metaphysical, they happen outside of a individual — MysticMonist

What are you saying. I am sperate from my actions, so who's to say my actions are mine, or just because I completed those actions it doesn't mean it was my decision to do so.
So what we do has nothing to do with who we are?

OK this seem in productive u still haven't defined good then! And in an attempt u have repeatedly mentioned evil which you said did not exist, you are deflecting which make me think you can offer no fruitful discussion and are unwilling to suitably assess my questions for what they are. If you are unwilling to ponder these ideas why would you engage in the conversation in the first place. Would your next reason for your beliefs include 'faith'?

— MysticMonist

If all being are good. And there is no evil. As I asked before when talking about a 'being' what would the 'good' have as its counterpart.
How do u define good without a counterpart.