Indeed, it’s something I think about quite a bit. The conclusion I’ve come to involves consent: If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.
And yes, I know there are holes and loopholes in that conclusion, but I think it’s nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.
nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.
Moral belief, I agree with. Framework sounds much more maleable. I think it’s doable but you need tolerances. Since a framework would shape your belief and everyone have to fill in the blanks for themselves. Two different people could have wildly different conclusions working with the same moral outline. We have to allow for failings but also recognize the failings and adapt. If there is some give and allowances for people to be wrong it makes it less strenuous and easier to uphold your own personal morality.
Like or not Christianity deals with this. It’s a confusing system, purposefully so church leaders can police it, but jesus offers forgiveness. They are so confident in it that Jesus can offer forgiveness for things that no normal person would be able to. I’m not saying the Christian implementation is the right one but I think it allowed the religion to flourish.
If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.
Here’s the thing: this statement still hasn’t entered into non-judgment itself. When you use the word “should” you’re already holding one thing higher than the other. And again, this is natural for us to want to do! But who is consenting to this moral framework in the first place?
That’s more than a loophole or caveat – it’s a limitation of all judgment. Judgments don’t exist in the world; they are passed by judging creatures. So the only way to find a world without judgment is to, at the very least, practice separating yourself from your own judgments. Seeing the world for what it is, we can pause in our concern for what ought to be.
Indeed, it’s something I think about quite a bit. The conclusion I’ve come to involves consent: If all people involved in something fully understand and consent to what is happening, then they should not be “judged” for it.
And yes, I know there are holes and loopholes in that conclusion, but I think it’s nearly impossible to have a logically sound and consistent moral framework.
Moral belief, I agree with. Framework sounds much more maleable. I think it’s doable but you need tolerances. Since a framework would shape your belief and everyone have to fill in the blanks for themselves. Two different people could have wildly different conclusions working with the same moral outline. We have to allow for failings but also recognize the failings and adapt. If there is some give and allowances for people to be wrong it makes it less strenuous and easier to uphold your own personal morality.
Like or not Christianity deals with this. It’s a confusing system, purposefully so church leaders can police it, but jesus offers forgiveness. They are so confident in it that Jesus can offer forgiveness for things that no normal person would be able to. I’m not saying the Christian implementation is the right one but I think it allowed the religion to flourish.
Thanks for the response!
Here’s the thing: this statement still hasn’t entered into non-judgment itself. When you use the word “should” you’re already holding one thing higher than the other. And again, this is natural for us to want to do! But who is consenting to this moral framework in the first place?
That’s more than a loophole or caveat – it’s a limitation of all judgment. Judgments don’t exist in the world; they are passed by judging creatures. So the only way to find a world without judgment is to, at the very least, practice separating yourself from your own judgments. Seeing the world for what it is, we can pause in our concern for what ought to be.