New rule

[learnedax]

Morality is not simple, nor is it easy. It is a constantly shifting landscape, and regions of it may well be intractable. Please bear this in mind:

If you are comfortable with your morals, I disagree with you.

Comments

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

I said false rather than weak because to me weak morals codes to weak will when implementing one's morals, which I see as slightly different from morals that you only apply in the abstract. I don't see that as a conflict with my position here (I'm sure you're shocked), and that may be due to a different interpretation of "test" in this context. I meant tested as in "put to the test" in the sense of being challenged to actually apply them. You can, of course, fail to live by your own morals for a variety of reasons, but if you deliberately decide that your morals don't apply to your real life, then you are falsely presenting your morality.

Conversely, changing your morals with further thought or new facts does not present the same problem necessarily. If you run into an unexpected case, regardless of whether it is real or hypothetical, reassessing your morality may well be required. The distinction I'm trying to draw is between evolving your morals and overriding them.

Local comfort doesn't really bother me. What I take issue with is complacency based on Knowing one is in the right.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

OK, I think we have achieved silverwing-age :-)

"silverwing, v.: (1) to argue more than one side of an issue at the same time
(2) to vehemently and tediously agree (3) generally, to debate inconclusively
for the hell of it."

Hm, wonder if we can get Steffan on LJ...

Re:

[jducoeur]

Hm, wonder if we can get Steffan on LJ...

Very good question. I think you've conclusively proven here that he'd enjoy it...