SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: one_less who wrote (65981)4/10/2018 4:53:10 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 360241
 
If you are going to challenge the notion, it is on you to provide an exception.

An exception? Interesting approach.

By definition, a moral system is a function of a particular person or society, which is utterly different from morality being "universal across time and circumstance," which is why I questioned your assertion. I questioned it at the concept level and rather expected a response in kind. Some individual moral notions seem to have fairly well stood the test of time and place but there are lots of exceptions.

Generosity and patience has always and everywhere been a morally good characteristic to hold.

If you want to discuss this at the micro level, perhaps you could tell me just what is it about patience that makes it moral or immoral.

For your amusement:

theatlantic.com The Dangers of Reading in Bed
Nika Mavrody

Lord Walsingham’s servants found him in bed one morning in 1831, burnt to a crisp. According to a notice in The Spectator, “his remains [were] almost wholly destroyed, the hands and feet literally burnt to ashes, and the head and skeleton of the body alone remained presenting anything like an appearance of humanity.” His wife also suffered a tragic end: Jumping out of the window to escape the fire, she tumbled to her death.

The Family Monitor assigned Lord Walsingham a trendy death. He must have fallen asleep reading in bed, its editors concluded, a notorious practice that was practically synonymous with death-by-fire because it required candles. The incident became a cautionary tale. Readers were urged not to tempt God by sporting with “the most awful danger and calamity”—the flagrant vice of bringing a book to bed. Instead, they were instructed to close the day “in prayer, to be preserved from bodily danger and evil.” The editorial takes reading in bed for a moral failing, a common view of the period.

The link between morality and mortality was reasonable, in part. Neglected candles could set bed-curtains ablaze and in turn risk the loss of life or property. And so, to lie wantonly in bed with a book was considered depraved.

<snip>
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext