Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00132)

M K Ramadoss wrote:

>         I guess that once one is able to start logically and objectively
> think about being in any nation or any situation, I guess one may develop a
> set of values/morals that one is comfortable with. Such a set of
> values/morals is likely to help us in our dealings with everyone we come
> into contact, by what ever medium. It is very hard to be an original thinker
> when we are faced with enormous pressures brought on us by the social,
> religious, governmental, "morals", which in the eyes of an original thinker
> could be *immoral*.

	Essentially, everybody has a set of moral axioms. Some are pretty much
universal (such as "it is wrong to kill human beings"). However, in most
situations, there are several moral axioms that come into play, and
there is almost always some conflict. Then one must calculate the
relative importance of these axioms, how heavily they weigh on the
situation, and come to a decision. It is not so much moral relativism as
it is moral fuzzy logic (using "fuzzy logic" in the sense of the
mathematical system called "fuzzy logic", not the popular sense of
questionable logic).

	The Mahatmas, in my opinion, pointed their fingers in the right
direction, when they expressed the importance of intent. If one's
actions are well-thought out and intended to make the world a better
place in which to live, then they can be said to be moral.

	Bart Lidofsky