Ethical Psychology (3). Two Questions

0 22

Written by

SaraEllen

BCH Lover,

1 year ago

Topics: Strategy, Society, Determination, True life, My experience, ...

Article Number: 22
Third Article Of The Series"Ethical Psychology" 
Date May, 06 , 2022 
Friday 
Time: 09:05 PM

Hi, my dear beautiful and lovely readers, have a very good evening and to my foreigner friends, have a very good night. How are you all doing? How was your day? Today i have a busy day, i attended a marriage of a cousin. Then came to home, as you know the month before and after the Ramadan is a season for marriages in Pakistan 🇵🇰. So this is the season when everyday is a marriage day for many Youngsters. My prayers are with you if you are nit married till yet, may you have a beautiful and sincere partner in your life. So after that i came to home, have done home chores like washing clothes, cooking of foods and done many other things. After a long period of time, almost a week, i am going to continue my article series again named as Ethical Psychology. Third article is going to be written now, if you haven't visited the previous two articles, the links are as under.

Ethical Psychology (1) Fair Play

Ethical Psychology (2). Moral Psychology

"A man found a lifeless cat on the way. He picks up its body and transports it home. He cuts off his head with a knife. He plays football with its head. After a while, he gets tired and buries the cat’s body”.

Do this makes you annoying to read this? Why? Did he do something wicked or unethical? Why? He did not murder anybody. No destruction was done to any living thing nor was the cat's body to be cast-off for anything else. And no one recognizes what he is doing. Did he just devoted some time pursuing his hobby? So is there anything in it that makes us disparage his hobby? If so, what is the motive?

Another short story. Later understanding this, recess for a moment and decide if the persons in this story did anything depraved.

"TOMY was a very trustworthy, loyal and lovely dog from a family in America. It was like a family guy. The entire family loved this dog. Every time family members went outside from their home, they would get unhappy. When they get reverted to home, they would joyfully greet it, jiggle his head, and encirclement it.

“One day, TOMY was smash by a car in front of his house. He had heard that dog meat is enjoyable. They cut and cooked TOMY. Tommy's roast was eaten at feast that night with potato stew. It was pleasant.”

If you are like usual person then maybe you are offended by this passage. But maybe when, I in progress answering the question whether it was a decadent action. I started thinking after the first wave of revulsion. Because we have to answer the question from a moral point of view. They did not maltreatment the dog, because he was already lifeless. They did not pinch anyone else's dog. He had his personal dog. We (Muslims) don't eat dog meat, but in many other places it has been eaten normally like any other animal.

You might say, "It would have been better if they had covered up him under the ground by burying him, but we can't call it immoral or unethical."

You may say, "This is an immoral act."

But the point is not to answer such queries. Simply put, ethics is an exact comprehensive subject. And, conflicting to general faith, it has nothing to do with injury or fairness or marginalization. It is correct that the values of morality is dissimilar in every culture. There are numerous motives for this. Some of these are natural, some others are religious, some are local, and some are without purpose and object.

And if you comprehend the modest datum that the standard of ethics and its meaning is not only the identical all over the world but also within a civilization. So this is the first step in accepting the moral instrument of your attention.

If we slaughter a sheep and eat it, then there is no wickedness. We cannot eat the deceased. However, slaughtering also necessitates hurt. The human brain cannot ever set any standard of morality because the human mind is a slave of the self. That is why the Originator or Creator did not leave it to human to set the standards of morality and ethics, but to decide for himself what is moral and what is immoral.

Actually, meaningful in all these stuffs, what the factual morality is or should be, then no single nation, country, state, land, realm, population or tribe can decide it unaccompanied. It can be decided by all together or the time in which time is transitory.

Then the man-eating tribes of the forest will also have morality and in their understanding of morality, eating other humans will not be faulty.

(to be continued......)

Thanks For Reading.