<br /><br />There is, on the other hand, plenty of evidence that dwelling on anger only deepens it. Recognizing the anger as your own response to a situation - not something forced upon you at all, but up to you - and then letting it go is best.<br /><br />We sometimes think of emotion as primitive and basic. People talk about the "lizard brain" that sets people off. But human emotional sense is just as evolved as our language and social senses, and just as trainable. But that training does take work.<br /><br />Having said that, expressing your emotions by talking about them is often useful, because that can be a great tool in helping you understand yourself, and whatever problem you might be having, better.<br /><br />As to the original question, thinking a horrible thought isn't in itself unethical, but dwelling on it, or failing to recognize it as a path to an unethical action is. There are different schools of thought on this, but I hold that the essence of ethics is not in stray thoughts, but in interrogating those motivations and in how you actually act. I actually believe why you perform an action matters, but some schools of thought do not.Some people do better dealing with their feelings by experiencing them through thought and letting them go. Would it be better for those people to think about something else rather than to allow themselves to express anger mentally and then to let the anger go? <br />
[/quote]<br /><br />If we are in danger of going way off topic and turning it into a religious debate, the above is by far the biggest fuel for the fire So I will not respond to this, though I've much to say on the topic and see very little truth in the statements above.<br /><br />[quote author=mingshey link=board=13;threadid=594;start=0#5462 date=1062929326]<br />The so called view points of bible is quite well known to many people after two thousand years of propaganda. <br /><br />As for me, I have read bible several times, but unluckily, don't see any better teachings than I can find elsewhere when it has any virtue. Moreover, bible is not merely inconsistent in itself, but schizophrenic. Sorry it sounds offending to whom respects the book, but I find many religious people preferring "happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." to "love your enemy". That is, when you can draw out anything you want from bible, you don't call it giving answer.<br />Okay let's call it my atheistic opinion that would never persuade you.<br /><br />But then, what you mean by bible is no way consistant between people. For Judaists it is such and such set of books, and for Christians(which sect of christian???) it is another. Muslims? They have still another. Did the Christians in the 1st centurey have the same New Testament as we have now? What you think as the New Testament is formed only after the 3rd century, if not 4th, by the Catholic church which is ever reputed heretic by the Protestants. It is another thread of "die unendliche Geschichte", which will never see its end. So, please don't take this thread into a religious debate.<br /><br />I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it. No government can legislate all aspects of morality, and if they did it would be incredibly oppressive and backwards. If we base our morality on whether or not something is punishable by the higher authorities, we're going about it from completely the wrong end, since laws are arbitrary. There has to be morality aside from legality. <br /><br />I suppose if for the sake of argument I were looking for a humanistic, non-religious way to judge ethics, I would have to go by what is best for the species in which case thinking a harmful thought, unacted, would probably not be immoral. <br /><br />(But of course in reality my ethics are based on a different standard.)<br /><br /><br />Rather, how about discussing as if you people are going to make the legal system, provided you can detect the bad thoughts of people. You are trying to decide whether you should punish a man(or a woman) for his/her thought. Take it as a modified version of "Minority Report".
<br /><br />My giggle. Absolutely. (Unfair and wicked insertion. ;D)<br />Regard it just as an example of how a religious debate can take course. <br /><br />the above is by far the biggest fuel for the fire
<br /><br />Yes, morality and legality are two differnt things. But the border between them is not razor sharp. So discussing from one extreme and then tuning the topic to the other end we could survey its various aspects.<br /><br />For example, if the law states that when you think about killing a terrible new greek teacher you are to be sentenced death penalty, will you oppose(if you do) it because just thinking is not bad enough, or on the basis that thinking is totally in the realm of morality? (Or because such a teacher deserves death? )<br /><br />Uh, oh! You support it?I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it. No government can legislate all aspects of morality, and if they did it would be incredibly oppressive and backwards. If we base our morality on whether or not something is punishable by the higher authorities, we're going about it from completely the wrong end, since laws are arbitrary. There has to be morality aside from legality.
<br /><br />Yes. That's the point.<br />If a legislation is for judging your behavior, moral will be for judging your intention. This said, should moral be applied to thoughts that pop up unexpectedly, which is to be filtered by active thought? I think moral is about the active thought and its standards for decision, not to be applied to stray thoughts before it is controlled by your reason.<br />But the borders between action and plan, and between plan and mere thought are fuzzy. Thus this topic arises.<br />well for the sake of argument, thinking and planning are two different things
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests