Values...a thing of the past.

Not sure really where this would need to go but I find myself struggling with this often. I am a black and white kind of person. There are gray areas but I tend to look at things in one way or the other; I stay away from the middle and pick a side. I understand that 9/10 of a persons perception substantiates their reality but is it really so unusual for a person think this way? I mean right and wrong is simple. Honor, justice, integrity, commitment....why have these just become words? Why is it most people, in my experience, throw these under a doormat and ignore them? I get so irritated when I see these values thrown aside. Is that so different? Should I get irritated? I only ask this here simply because I find myself struggling with frustration to the point of anger sometimes over this. Maybe I am just a naive idealist....but for example, I have no question that I would give up my life to save another, that others should be treated with courtesy at a bare minimum, that your significant other should be treated with honor and respect, that owning your mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions is a must; is this crazy of me?

I don't see things as being much different from what they have always been in my experience. I think that transgressions just get covered a lot more due to technical advances. If you let it get to you to that extent then you are going to spend a great deal of time being very irritated. I envy your ability to so clearly and easily distinguish between right and wrong.
In your experience is there always a right side? It's been my experience that life is full of subtleties and nuance.

You simply but the difference between what we see George. "It's been my experience that life is full of subtleties and nuance". To me there are VERY few, to say none would be an over generalization. To answer your question, "In your experience is there always a right side?", yes there is. To be fair their are always different sides to each equation, but there is always a "right side" depending upon what view one would take of a situation. I would bring up an instance from my workplace but I cannot due to confidentiality of patients. However simply put, I see a right and wrong to practically everything.

An example would be politics. I am not going to get into specifics because the last thing I want is a political debate. However recently a federal court ruled that appointments the President made during a "recess" of Congress were unconstitutional. If you go by the letter of the law they were. Why exactly did the President or none of his aides say, "Wait we can't do this, it's in the Constitution". Because no one had the person integrity to do what was right, rather they simply wanted to do what they wanted. There was no personal honor to uphold their positions truthfully or lawfully. There was no personal courage to say, "That's illegal you can't do that". Some would say there are subtleties there that you have to taken into consideration. To me, no there are not. Either the law allows them to do something or it does not. Granted that is one narrow example but it applies to what I said.

I'm sorry but there is a grey area in your example. The US Constitution states that "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
George Washington was the first pres to make a recess appointment.
It isn't so simple to see the right side is it?

Actually the right side is simple and clear. The problem being that the Senate was not officially in recess when the appointments were made. Therein lies the problem. Otherwise the court would not have ruled the appointments unconstitutional. Once again, not wanting to get into a political debate. Simply pointing out that by the letter of the law, word for word, what was done was done incorrectly.

Tell you what, let's get away from politics. Here is theoretical scenario for you. A man hits the woman he is with, striking her so hard she falls to the ground. She does not resist. What do you do? Basically you have two options, intervene or do nothing.

I see. Well, you said the appointments were made during a recess. I think there's a lesson there
Do you believe that right and wrong are always objective? I mean is your view external or internal... a legal, religious, or personal concept?
If a child was starving and the parent was caught stealing food for her would you vote guilty if you were part of the jury?
If you were alive when slavery was legal would you report a runaway slave because it was the right thing to do according to the law?
At any rate the point is that like it or not, there are going to be many situations that aren't black and white. It's your choice to spend your life being extremely irritated.

Is it simple and clear? I read about the case. Most past recess appointments would be illegal under this interpretation... and it is an interpretation albeit one with legal weight. It is subject to being reinterpreted or ignored when it becomes financially and/or politically expedient.
And if you want to get even greyer the case was filed by a corporation in an attempt to protect their financial interests rather than being a case filed because someone was outraged that constitutional law was being broken.
Okay... lets say the couple were married. And if the man did this because the woman was suffering from psychosis and was on her way home to kill her children? You intervened and held the man for the police. Meanwhile the wife goes home and kills the kids. I mean, if we're going to get hypothetical lets go fullon

"I see. Well, you said the appointments were made during a recess. I think there's a lesson there" - No, I used the word "recess" in quotes because that is the main point of contention and what most people identify the situation with.

"Do you believe that right and wrong are always objective? I mean is your view external or internal... a legal, religious, or personal concept?" - My view is simply right or wrong.

"If a child was starving and the parent was caught stealing food for her would you vote guilty if you were part of the jury?" - Yes, because she was guilty. However I would recommend the sentence be of one that would rehab and assist the parent and child, and yes that can happen.

"If you were alive when slavery was legal would you report a runaway slave because it was the right thing to do according to the law?" - No because that would not be the right thing to do. My example for the political side was pointing out that government officials so not follow laws the bodies they are a part of have passed.

"At any rate the point is that like it or not, there are going to be many situations that aren't black and white. It's your choice to spend your life being extremely irritated." - My irritation stems from those that flip flop on what is right and wrong.

"Is it simple and clear? I read about the case. Most past recess appointments would be illegal under this interpretation... and it is an interpretation albeit one with legal weight. It is subject to being reinterpreted or ignored when it becomes financially and/or politically expedient." - You answered the question: It is subject to being reinterpreted or ignored when it becomes financially and/or politically expedient. Using this rationale means they have no honor.

"And if you want to get even greyer the case was filed by a corporation in an attempt to protect their financial interests rather than being a case filed because someone was outraged that constitutional law was being broken" - Because no one in government had the courage to make this an issue.

"Okay... lets say the couple were married. And if the man did this because the woman was suffering from psychosis and was on her way home to kill her children? You intervened and held the man for the police. Meanwhile the wife goes home and kills the kids. I mean, if we're going to get hypothetical lets go fullon" - You are making a multitude of assumptions. At what point is it acceptable for someone to strike a mentally ill person or any person for that matter? I merely presented you with a situation from an objective view point and you dodged the question with another. I laid out the basics of the available choices so you could see where I was going with it, not to provide a yes/no reply.

Here's a moral dilemma for you... I use this a lot as a sort of loose litmus test for psychopaths...

So ... You're standing on a bridge under which a trolley is barreling toward five people who will certainly die if no one intervenes. The only thing that will stop the trolley is a heavy object set in its path. Conveniently, there is an overweight man standing in front of you, leaning over the bridge. He is the only object in your immediate vicinity that is large enough to stop the trolley.

Do you push him?

No, I put myself in the path of the trolley.

Six people die.

At the point where it prevents something worse from happening.
Look if you want to see everything as right or wrong, black or white, then that's your choice and you're welcome to it. I've just tried to show you that the world isn't that simple.
And no... I didn't dodge your question. I just went with your hypothetical situation to show you the possibilities that you don't seem to be able to see. I don't think you are a naive idealist. You seem somewhat rigid, conservative, and conformist. That's all fine and good but you have to learn to live with that irritation and anger you spoke of. And with that I'll leave this in Michael's capable hands. I wish you well.

Hi OR82............saw this last night. It is something I often wonder at these days.

Your OP:

"Not sure really where this would need to go but I find myself struggling with this often. I am a black and white kind of person. There are gray areas but I tend to look at things in one way or the other; I stay away from the middle and pick a side. I understand that 9/10 of a persons perception substantiates their reality but is it really so unusual for a person think this way? I mean right and wrong is simple. Honor, justice, integrity, commitment....why have these just become words? Why is it most people, in my experience, throw these under a doormat and ignore them? I get so irritated when I see these values thrown aside. Is that so different? Should I get irritated? I only ask this here simply because I find myself struggling with frustration to the point of anger sometimes over this. Maybe I am just a naive idealist....but for example, I have no question that I would give up my life to save another, that others should be treated with courtesy at a bare minimum, that your significant other should be treated with honor and respect, that owning your mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions is a must; is this crazy of me?"


"Values" are based upon individual perception...I will not even look up Mr.Wicki on this...
My "Value" System = what feels instinctually to be "right" (what is "right" anyway??? what is "wrong???--these are individual perceptions for the most part===Gray Area in the world at large...) to me!
ie: What I can live with...my behaviors, my acts, my me==="MY ACCOUNTABILITY"

My reply to you, imo?

NO. not "crazy". NO="irritated"..do not permit yourself to lose your peace of mind because others do not take accountability for their actions...that is on THEM, not you! & Kudos!!! On a BRAVE thread, asking a brave question with some real meat on it!

In other's opinions? "Yes"...but hey, can't please everyone, can ya?
Only one you need feel at Peace with=YOU (imo)!!!

Their opinions are unimportant in the grand scheme..(so long as you don't break the law)

"Only YOU CAN PREVENT FOREST FIRES!"....only you can feel good inside yourself......because you know you did what you felt to be the correct thing, and are willing to be accountable for it...

So glad to meet you!

PAX..............VIRAGO aka SMOKEY THE BEAR? LOL