Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?

To me, “Pseudo Morality” is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral.   One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudomorality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral.   The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudomorality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudomoral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.   True morality is not as simple as the golden rule…   True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others.   I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with...

MORALITY: values, morals, and ethics

MORALITY: values, morals, and ethics   To me “morals, values, and ethics” as we standardly think of them are not the same and often are contradictory. Thus, unless they are justified they are not a compilation of truth, other than one’s chosen thinking idea of reality.   I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catlist often motivating our thinking and behaviors. Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal...

One Who is Set Among the Brave

Kindness like a ripe succulent fruit nurses my inner being and gives birth to the grounding confidence of one who is set among the brave. Yes, here I stand among you all, we are at this new doorway of hope and like a rejuvenating warm breeze it envelopes me. This kindness we express is like a sweetened bliss, that is carried out to the world around us...

Easy Definition of Humanism?

My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a...

“Atheists don’t believe in things”

“Atheists don’t believe in things”   I Believe Archaeology not Myths:   As in, I hold the value (axiology) of archaeology (empirical and humanities evidence), which is part of my love for knowledge (epistemology) of the past, adding to our intellectual (rational) awareness of natural reality (correspondence theory of truth) of actual events (scientific realism) understood as involving no magic (metaphysical naturalism). On the other hand, religions and gods are myths (collection of stories) inaccurate accounts of the past (phenomenon perception error) or tails to establish thinking or behaviors, supporting faith (non-rationality) in some unreal belief, behavior or creative fiction of nonevents as well as misleading or overblowing actual events (epistemological problems of perception or justification). Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology argument/challenge...

Do you really know about buddhism?

“Buddhist is not all kindness as there were terrorist buddhists monks in Myanmar are violent, there is at least one buddhist sect that strongly opposes the Dalai Lama and Pol Pot as well as those under him where Buddhist and Pol Pot carried out genocide.” “Well, when some dude’s philosophy gets turned into religion, it’s got potential to go south, no matter how sensible the original philosophy may be. It’s easy to twist thinking.” – Challenger  Ok, do you mean in about 483 B.C.with The First Buddhist Council on or before that? “According to the scriptures of all Buddhist schools, the first Buddhist Council was held soon after the death of the Buddha, dated by the majority of recent scholars around 400 BCE,[1] under the patronage of king Ajatashatru with the monk Mahakasyapa presiding, at Sattapanni caves Rajgriha (now Rajgir). Its objective was to preserve the Buddha’s sayings (suttas) and the monastic discipline or rules (Vinaya). The Suttas were recited by Ananda, and the Vinaya was recited by Upali. According to some sources, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, or its matika, was also included. Also the Sangha made the unanimous decision to keep all the rules of the Vinaya, even the lesser and minor rules.” Ref “By the time of the Fourth Buddhist councils, Buddhism had long since splintered into different schools. The Theravada had a Fourth Buddhist Council in the first century BCE in Tambapanni, i.e. Sri Lanka, at Aloka Lena now Alu Vihara during the time of King Vattagamani-Abaya. However it should be clarified that an anonymous local chieftain had given patronage and not the king, since he was a firm follower of the...