A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

how likely it is that you will forego a relationship, to abide by a rule of ethics?
be it work related, relationship related or related to the social group of which you are a member?

best,
Dushwari

2

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Wow, you always get my brain thinking! Hmmm i think i will definately talk it through with the concerned person and make them realise what is wrong. But i may not be able to cut out from them but relationship might not be the same either depending no the intensity of the situation :@:.

3

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

& you are an excellent reader, dear Maham S. mashAllah very nice and practical viewpoint you shared here.

yes, abrupt disassoication without explanation is an inaction of people who are not responsible.
in case of letting go a relationship because of one's ethics, one will and must proclaim that ethical boundary and then create a distance. but that closure, this reasoning, is essential. because at some point in time, two people did have a good time together, in any relationship - familial or work related or in school or in personal relation, but somehow when someone is not observing ethics, the more aware an sensitive ethical person, might have to place ethics before a relationship.
some intense situations could be dishonesty, hurting someone and so forth and in these cases, when someone is enjoying the pleasure of being dishonest or hurtful, in that case, there is obviously only one warning and then the links must disband.

you're right, the relations may not remain the same afterwards.
but it is a difficult yet possible task that both can o successfully, if they are able to finally understand the need for that change or if each works through on their own parts, to not violate the ethics but also remain in contact for the sake of the relationship, as caring humans.

best,
Dushwari

4

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Peace Sister

It is often necessary to forego a relationship with an ethical rule in order to abide by another rule of ethics.

5

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

makes sense, brother psyah. espeically when things are not clear or when clearly a relationship is unethical.
thanks,
Dushwari

6

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Relationships that are not ethical to begin with, based on what we know from our guidelines in our religion or value system, will encounter problems as they progress. It is always best to forego any equation founded on shaky grounds.

7

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Peace Sister

I did say ... 'Relationship with an ethical rule' .. i.e. our attachment to truth for example, that needs to be foresaken in the face of 'preserve his reputation'. Often no?

8

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Depends on what the relationship and what the particular ethical principle at risk is.

If your child is starving seriously and you see a roti unattended you will take it.

If your child is well fed and aspires a candy bar you cannoy buy, you wouldn't take it.

As psyah pointed out, you are priority ranking ethical principles

ps: I like your topics too. Please keep'em coming for it brings me back to earth

9

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

relativity in ethics or utilitarian?

10

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

isn't all ethics ultimately for some purpose

11

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

some purpose has to be ethical. noble end get sought only through noble means, no?

12

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Peace Sister

Permissibility and Capability needs to be played off against Ideality.

In truth we must all aspire to the Ideal even if our capabilities are not up to it and even if there are relaxations in the law or perceived human set of ranked values.

We can be harsh on ourselves but should we put the same expectations on others even when we know that capabilities differ and there might be a permit to situationally compromise ones principles?

13

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

brother psyah, there is a difference in controllable and uncontrollable situations and they make use of that vagueness when in reality could ably control their lives and make a better decision every step of the way, but they choose not to.
some people make use of their unease and laziness to change.
some people are just ignorant and can only be led by what they are not able to see. and some are 'ideally-incapable.'
there is no permit for them, should there be?

14

Re: A MATTER OF PRINCIPALITY & ETHICS

Peace Sister

Of course you are right. What I am trying to say is that every person should ask themselves "Can I do more?" and for others ask "Have you done your basics?" So theoretically every lazy person should not base their "performance" based on what others ask of him, but rather of what he asks of himself. Which will be "Can I do more?" and then do it.

So there is a principle for 'me' and a different standard of the same principle on the 'others' and there is a universal principle looming over all of us, which is actually at least be the same as 'others' requirement, but strive to attain the 'me' requirement.

Also we need to be aware that not all people have the same capabilities. It may be true that they could have made better decisions but Tawfiq speaks of something and also we have no means to judge others, we can only judge ourselves. Just because I can do something does not mean others can do it and vice-versa. However, if others can do it I should strive to do it but better than them if it is good and if others are not doing it, but I am doing it then I can provide them patience and excuses that at least they are meeting their basic requirements.

Of course if they are not meeting basic requirements then more can be done to persuade and encourage.