What are morals? What is morality? Who gets to define this mess?
So ... Hmmmm ... I am going to try to write this without using sources. This will be entertaining.
Morals are those things that one believes to be right or wrong. The fun thing is the variances between what is considered right or wrong. Another amusing aspect is the way some are applied making the person a hypocrite.
That being said morality would be the application of said morals.
So now I am going to pick on one "moral" all life is sacred.
There are pro-abortionist who think the death sentence should be abolished.
There are those who support the death sentence who are against abortion.
Then you have those that believe their life or their religions followers or their ethic background or some other ideal should be the only one and then proceed to kill, yet these very same people will be against abortion or the death sentence or both.
How can one profess that all life is sacred if they support killing?
And this is where I get the resounding "BUT .... " with their justifications as to why one is ok and the other is not. While I do not like the idea of a rapist roaming free, one cannot support killing said person if one wants to pull the all life is sacred line... In my opinion anyway.
But even more fun is the who gets to define what a moral is.
Religions cannot seem to agree on a set list of morals. Even those that share the same holy writings cannot pick a similar set or so it seems to me. Even those "morals" like killing are not universal. So who sets the moral standards when they seem to be like fashion styles? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe it is the collective that decides what is right and wrong. If that is true then all it would take is a drastic, yet unified decision to abolish just about any wrong.
It would mean that as a race we are ok with people starving, people going without shelter, people dieing of easily cured diseases ... The list goes on and on of things that would take a collective change to fix.
Interesting
Monday, November 18, 2013
On the Clock / Off the Clock
A blogger I follow http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/?m=1 posted a bit about having an internet signature or history.
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)