Open question, please help

Ok so it’s actually two questions:

Why does viewing morality (and related) as a set of arbitrary rules always seem to get me in trouble?
Could you suggest some reading material so I could learn what the fuck the word ‘offensive’ is supposed to mean? It feels like a very alien concept and I would rather not keep clashing with my environment about it.

---
Need a freelance developer? Email me!

You should follow me on twitter
Follow @Swizec Subscribe to RSS

Jim T

Is morality the rules or the goal that the rules are intended to achieve?

Arbitrary may be a bit strong. Rules of the road are in some sense ‘arbitrary’, but you can’t just decide to make your own, and not all sets of rules would produce a workable system. When you say ‘arbitrary’, some hear ‘free for all’.

What sort of trouble and clashes?
http://www.jurecuhalev.com/blog Jure

I would recommend you look up how the identity of a group is formed by example of “others”
wockerjabi

Morality is subjective, so it’s not arbitrary on the individual level, but it won’t be consistent across any large group. So viewing the compromises people come to as arbitrary is viable. I suspect where you’re clashing is that people assume you are talking about their own morality (not arbitrary) when you are really talking about conventional morality (which probably is).

I am Swizec Teller