On feeling sorry for people

And how does one do this? By thinking how great you are going to be if you rise above it? That's just more selfishness.It's all about YOU.

What I was saying was that everyone is selfish. The "you" was meant in a general sense, as in the pronoun "one." I didn't know I had any thread on my personality quirks. Maybe I just don't remember.

This comment is very inappropriate and offensive.

My theory, Tusko, is that one rule in Ringo's and Jar's moral code is that one ought to be public-spirited and interactive with people, and so I violated that code.

No need for that. All you have to do is tell me if my theory is correct or not.

What an odd comment. Is your moral code a secret?

Well, ok, if you insist. Here's what I've figured out so far. According to your system, people have to learn to love themselves. If they do, they will then be capable of loving others. The next step is to show this love to others by "just trying." Trying, I think, means helping people. It might be just a small action, like reaching up to the top shelf for the vertically-challenged. Even this counts as trying.Your religion is very inclusive in that it makes no difference what one believes--one can be an atheist or Buddhist--no matter. All that matters is if you try to help others. However, it's not totally inclusive. If one doesn't try to help others, one is wicked and left out of this large group of those who do in fact try.Part of trying is being interactive with others, not just close friends or relatives, but people in general. I pick this idea up from your comments about my experience with the Veterans, both in the original thread and this one. If one is not sufficently interactive with people, one has not tried: thus the criticism about not talking to them and learning something from them. If I were a good citizen I would have talked to them, but this I failed to do.I also get the impression that volunteerism plays a role in your concept of trying. One ought to volunteer sometimes for beneficial projects.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

So everybody has their own personal moral code, and one is not better than another?

Would you say there is a way of determining, even if not quite with certainty, if one moral code is better than another? If so, the standard we would use to determine that would be the part of your moral code than is not personal, but which applies generally. Is there some basic principle that a good moral code must contain?(I understand you believe that morals are subjective---so do I-- but perhaps we can waive that point and just say that we cannot prove FOR CERTAIN that a given rule is accurate, but that we can at least make a good case.)

Let me suggest this (you may not agree): Those moral opinions we have which we hold firmly, not tentatively, are those which are applicable generally and do not just apply to ourselves. For even though our moral opinions are subjective (not provable), nonetheless
we are fairly certain about some of them.Do you hold the moral opinion expressed above about homosexuals firmly or tentatively?Because I really don't understand a moral code that is merely personal.Surely there are moral ideas that we think apply generally.

I don't see how we can characterize an opinion as both strong and tentative.

But to get back to the main question, is what I have written below part of your moral code? Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Sorry, Phat, I meant to ask Jar.

I'll take that as a Yes. I thought you assigned a great value to it. I thought these little things one does constituted "trying," which is a key point in your moral system.

At least you are trying, which is a feather in your cap. That's like saying, "You don't try to be moral, you just try to do what is moral."I would think that if one is moral, one does that which is moral ("right" means "moral").I conclude from the following remark that you think what I did was not right: Interpretation: "You claim . . ." [I claimed I cared but I really didn't, because I didn't do anything].The average person, reading what you wrote, would, I think, interpret the passage that way. And I think that's what you meant, despite your later protestations.I did not "try."