Comments on: The Lure of the Inner Ring

By: Largeness

Largeness — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:13:55 +0000

Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation Anyway … nice blog to visit.

cheers, Largeness.

By: david

david — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:35:00 +0000

I appreciate your response. While you already answered the question, I will answer your challenge as well.
I will refrain from speculation about books becasue the argument about which books to consider would go on forever. And, as you stated, one could twist any religion to support one’s point of view. However, when it comes to philosophy there is one overriding truth about them: They ALL support my conclusion about Enron. EVERY philosophy, yes every single one, maintains a man’s self interest (or put another way: a man’s idea of what is right and wrong) is paramount to any external standard. That is the chief goal of philosophy: to describe life without the influence of a moral standard apart from itself (or him or her self).

I too assert a moral standard that is universally known. Where it comes from would be a fine discussion. You, being an MD, would site a physical reality (DNA). And I being a spiritual man, site a soul. As these are intertwined (or at least connected enough to effect each other), I would say we agree on that.

I really didn’t get the “chosen people” part. What did you mean by that?

By: curmudgeonslair

curmudgeonslair — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:26:29 +0000

I am not upset. Discussion is always good. Name me one serious book, philosopher, or religion that would justify the actions of Enron. I guess it would depend on how one would interpret those sources, wouldn’t it? One can justify all sorts of wars or atrocities based on some perverted interpretation of the Bible even. I am not espousing that there is only one narrow interpretation of morality.

However, even the Mek people of Indonesia who have never heard of Plato, Aristotle, Christianity, etc. have some sense of what is right or wrong. You ask, where did this sense come from? I suspect it is part of our DNA, the human conscience, if you will, imparted by the Creator.

This can take many different forms depending on one’s society, level of understanding, education, etc. Down through the ages there have been people who have interpreted their understanding of what is moral. Is one more right than another? I doubt it.

If you are asking if there is one universal truth, how about this: We are all the chosen people.

By: david

david — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:58:31 +0000

I didn’t mean to upset you. I also do not have some secret message. You made the argument that one should avoid sacrificing their ideals/morals to join an “inner ring.” I believe I understand the point. However, your argument rest totally on the implication that there is a right (moral) way to live. Therefore, we are not discussing semantics but justification (or basis) for your argument. I am trying to understand your point-of-view.

You stated some guides to living a moral life were philosophy, religion, and great books. However, one may justify the actions of the Enron (your example) bosses by some philosophies, religions, and books. By implication then (and by your assertion), there are some (or one?) moral way to live (including the sources you stated).

Your point is founded upon your understanding of moral. I merely am trying to discern what you mean by moral (right). Where does it originate?

By: curmudgeonslair

curmudgeonslair — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:57:55 +0000

I think we are arguing semantics here. The point of the original post was to say that there are people who will compromise what they know to be the right thing to do in order to be accepted by whatever “in” group they wish to belong. I never made the distinction between a ONE RIGHT moral compass and an INDIVIDUAL moral compass. That could be the topic of a future post which could prove to be interesting. I invite you to read my post, “A Seeker of Truth.”

By: david

david — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:20:50 +0000

It appears you are arguing both sides of the issue: there is ONE moral compass that is right AND a moral compass that is different for each individual (“live your life as only you decide”).

My first question: Which position are you supporting: one moral (right) compass or individual compasses?

You suggested in your post that “philosophy, religion, or the great books of our time,” is the standard. There are philosophies, religions, and books that support the immediate gratification of the self, i.e. Enron’s behavior, is the right and moral thing to do.

My second question: What is the standard against which you measure if a person’s moral compass is right and good?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:22:46 +0000

You seem to think there is. Please share it.

By: david

david — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:45:56 +0000

Let me also clarify: Is there ONE moral compass?

By: curmudgeonslair

curmudgeonslair — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:34:51 +0000

The Inner Ring is symbolic of the many “inner circles’ in our society, our communities, work, etc. There are people who will do most anything, including compromising their principles, in order to be a member of some inner circle. My point is that it does require a moral compass or whatever you want to call it to say “no” to the temptation to give up one’s character for the sake of being a member of some societal Inner Ring.

By: david

david — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:40:34 +0000

Aren’t you just arguing that your idea of an “inner ring” (“a moral compass, character and personal responsibility…reading philosophy, religion, or the great books of our time. Find a mentor.”) is far superior to others’ ideas?