If we slander someone's integrity to prove a point we will only strengthen their perspective and the perspective of people who agree with the perspective we wish to change. You have simply made a martyr. Not only that, but we encourage others to slander people as well. We have the power to shift perspective if our approach warrants communication as opposed to separation. We all have the powers of influence and inspiration. Are we using ours to incite divides between humanity, or to build bridges?
Hate+Hate does not = Peace

Darn wrong thread. Hahaha

:yawn:

You want me to move it or delete it?

The few left behind bitch about the US only because they missed the boat. — Hanover

Oh well, I'm sure we'll get another chance to board the Trumptanic when you get your buoyancy issues sorted. :up: :flower:

Everyone with a complex enough belief system has ideas about acceptable/unacceptable behaviour. Some are better than others. All instantiate morality. Returning something accidentally acquired is admirable behaviour, particularly when one suspects that the item in question has value, meaning, and/or some other type of remarkable significance to the rightful owner.

One who finds oneself in the accidental physical possession of something that does not belong to them is faced with a moral judgment that has yet to have been made.

One knows that it is not theirs.

How does one measure the morality of such a choice?

Look at the consequences of everyone doing the same thing. Would the world be a better place?

That's a good start.

I said "what is good cannot be a matter of definition" not that the word "good" has no definition. In any case I agree with what you say there; it's true that dictionary definitions reflect common usages.

The book you cited may be of interest, but I already have way too much on my list of books to read. :smile:

I said "what is good cannot be a matter of definition" — Janus

What is good, is defined as good. It is nothing but a matter of choice upon what action, person or object to bestow that definition. The choice is the people's.

The book is like a dictionary, you can read the history of the words a few at a time. Quite interesting where some words come from and how the have changed over time.

What is the most important perspective of "good" for the longevity of the human species?

Is it the individuals perspective, the societies perspective, the international perspective, the global perspective, or an unnamed perspective?

ok yeah, I would need to clear up ownership and possession. Now in a sharing economy possession is moral where the the rest of the community has warranted a continuation of the possession or every person gets equal amount. But taking of possession is amoral for there is nobody to even if there was a way to divide up the world equally. but like i said your possession can be scrutinised by the whole community and if you still have it after that it would be moral possession. Why is ownership different? well ownership today is absolute possession based on contract or deed. This originated as a system of ownership where the person with divine right from god (universal moral authority) could bestow possesion to one person and thereafter he would have a right from the deed (way over simplified probs tok 3-4 centuries of bullshit reasoning). In old roman law possession could be decreed from a court in the same way, but you could still lose possession afterward if the state of your possession had changed. With absolute ownership there is little you can do/not do to lose possession. The hideous hierarchical moment of man is everything I hate about society.... anyway my point is that possession can be moral after a judgement from say a democratic court, but it would have to be judged moral after the taking of posession which is amoral or if you like before moral. In todays world the contract or deed is full of shit for it stops the challenge of possession. therefore everything owned is simply possessed before decree and therefore amoral or before moral. my argument is something like just because you obtained the ring outwith contract, makes no moral difference to the possession because if you had a contract that absolute ownership has no moral basis either. but I feel ive used a little sophistry to associate my reasoning with my prefered pithy comment.

What is the most important perspective of "good" for the longevity of the human species?

Is it the individuals perspective, the societies perspective, the international perspective, the global perspective, or an unnamed perspective? — Lif3r

Are you using "good" here as in morally good, or good in the sense of beneficial? It makes a difference.