Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00307)

Tom Robertson wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jan 97, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@sprynet.com> wrote:
> 
> >       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.
> 
> Perception of morality would be meaningless if there was no objectively
> existing morality to perceive.  There is a standard by which to measure
> human perception of morality.

	There are societal standards, which tend to be so ingrained into people
that they don't even know there can be another way. In other words,
prejudice.

> >       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.
> 
> Intent guarantees results which conform to them eventually, but intent
> cannot be separated from results.  Anyone who says that intent is all that
> matters, and that results do not matter, does not have genuine intent.

	Consider Aleister Crowley's, "Do what Thou Wilt, let that be the Whole
of the Law." Without proper understanding of intent, then that statement
says, "Do whatever you want". A proper understanding of intent shows the
sentence to be a statement of the obvious. 

	Or, if the intent is genuine then the results will be correct.

	Bart Lidofsky