How do you think morality works?

I look at the callousness in these immigration threads, and it occurs to me, I think some of you people buy into a watered down form of kharma.

Do ya?

Do you think before we're born, we're sitting in a waiting room as ghosts in a ghost-Matrix, and our assignments get handed out by a lady with a clipboard, and she says "well, you were an asshole last time, so now you're gonna be a Mexican, and you, you were good, so you get to be white, and you, you were really good, so you get to be born into wealth, and then get to be president".

Is that what you think?

Cuz somehow, some way, you think everything is deserved.
It may not be the scenario I laid out, but it's something similar.
Something so similar, it makes no real difference.

Only by thinking everything is deserved, can you hate people you never met, and idolize people that demonstrate themselves to be turds.

If you don't believe in watered down kharma....then what the fuck IS going on your head?

What malware is bouncing around in there?

I'd like to know.

While I do think it is important, I do not think that how we treat other people is the be all, end all of personal morality.

What is? From your posting history it seems to be "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior and the rest of you can go fuck yourselves."

I'd appreciate a clarification.

If I recall the verse correctly it says

"Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man".

You recall incorrectly.

Don't read the oath "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution ..." without thinking about what that actually implies.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ecclesiastes-12-13/

There are two bases for morality, which can be conveniently termed "greatest good" and "least harm."

The first one invites everyone to strive toward the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Or in Star Trek terms, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." It's a collectivist, optimistic philosophy that would have everyone working cooperatively to Make Things Better at the expense of momentary personal gain.

The second one is a more libertarian, individualistic approach that invites everyone to pursue their interests, seek their personal happiness, but do so in a manner that has minimal coercive impact on anyone else. It's more realistic and in line with actual human behaviour.

But at root, both bases assume that you're going to minimize the amount of harm you do to others. So whether your approach to life is collectivist or individualistic, be aware of others and their needs and don't stomp on them.

Don't stomp on them. That's pretty much the foundation of morality.

Please refrain from posting pics of @Anna without her permission.

Says the guy who claims he doesn't accept the Old Testament.

Try Mark 12:30-31.

Hypocrite.

The Old Testament is not binding upon Christians.

But it still has some good ideas worthy of study.

According to you.

Especially when it enables you to ignore Mark 12:30-31.

Hypocrite.

Mark 12:30-31 New International Version (NIV)
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] There is no commandment greater than these.”

Why claim I'm a hypocrite? I'm fully prepared to extend to my "neighbor" the same considerations I've been given.

We're callous because we want karma to rape us after we die. Because we're sadomasochists. What better way to engender the wrath of karma than to cause needless suffering in those poor, helpless immigrants.

According to who? I mean the concepts, like "stomp" and "harm." Code of Hammurabi? The Bible? [OT or PT?] Supermajority at the time? 3/4 of popular opinion?

• First of all, it took you two dodges to get to the relevant verse.
• Second, your neighbor doesn't just mean the guy across the road.
• Third, your gloss on "the same considerations I've been given" implies you believe it's nothing more than an eye for an eye. That's not what it's about.

So we can add "ignoramus" to hypocrite.

ETA: What @Quest said in Post #15. But that might be too subtle for you.

According to me. I have spoken. I am not to be questioned.

That is an admonition for personal actions and personal morality.

Not national or public policies.

Still the best Trek movie.

So it applies to you as an individual, and yet you ignore it.

Do you ever notice how the hyperbolic partisans love to use words like "Nazi" or "racist" where they do not remotely apply? They scream bloody murder if criminals are not allowed to bring their families to jail with them, they then cry if the families are allowed in jail with them, yet the hardly ever pay any attention to actual human rights abuses. Stuff like this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/...ns-13000-refugees-sahara-180625064043040.html

It has been going on for years without a peep. Hell, I could pick a half dozen examples any given day yet rarely if ever will any of them speak about these thing or make a thread. So if you think they are highly partisan, hypocritical, and rather ignorant all while raving like mad men... Well, it is because they are.

Of course, they won't like this observation but they know it is true.

And this has what to do with the OP? Or is it a Daytonesque dodge because you have no definition of morality?

What makes you think I don't give a great deal of money to support the poor and less fortunate? You're listening to your own bigotry again garamet.

Up to a point.

It doesn't fit your m.o. Luke 18:9-14.