What is the the moral/ethical dilemma that occurs when subjective principles or distractions are substituted .

Question

for foundational principles, etcetera. just a question, not a judgement

Answer 1

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very
real sense we have two minds, one that thinks and
one that feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional
Intelligence, Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996,
page 8). This rational mind is also called the
faculty of logic and reason.

The Upanishads say that these two are opposite in
nature. Modern psychologist also have observed it,
but they are not very sure about it:

"At the same time, reason sometimes clearly seems
to come into conflict with some desires (even
while not being in conflict with others) giving us
the impression that reason is separate from
emotion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

The distractions are handled by the emotional mind.
The morals are handled by the rational mind. However,
logic used by the rational mind has a drawback:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.

http://www.search.com/search?q=godel+incompleteness+theorem

The number of arguments provided by the theorem
cause dilemma. Use of intellect enables one to overcome
that dilemma.

(1) The pulse rate in a new born baby is about 140
beats per minute. This pulse rate gradually reduces
during the Koumaaram period and settles down to it's
stable value of 76 beats per minute after the age of 24
years. Different sects in the world have different
criteria to declare a person to become a youth. The
Indian tradition says that a person becomes a youth on
his 25th birth day, taking the stable heat beat value
into consideration.

(2) Modern psychologists treat the period from 35 to 40
years as middle-age crisis period. Most of the people
may not feel much during this period. However for those
few persons who experience its full intensity, it will
be like a mini-death. In English, 'flourit' means the
age of dawning of wisdom; it also means the age of 40.
(See a multi-volume dictionary in a library). Energy in
the body will be at its highest during the youth period
from 25 to 40 years of age. Generally, Buddhi
(intellect) starts funtcioning after the age of 40
years, but it may take longer for others. You can not
blame a teenager or a youth for not having it. It is a
general observation that only person aged beyond 40
years are called intellectuals.

(3) The period from 40 to 60 years is called the
declining period of youth-hood. It is also the period
of gaining wisdom.

Answer 2

In a nutshell it can be summed up by, "Where do I draw the line?" Once the subjective is allowed to creep in and affect the definitive criteria-based system or process, now new criteria must be developed "On the Fly" to deal with a different situation.

Further complicating the matter is that this must usually be done in the dynamic ebb & flow being experienced when objective guidelines are allowed to be compromised. It is difficult to establish modified guidelines while the situation being assessed is still evolving. Subjectivity is an open-ended plenum which results in a lack of fairness when it is allowed to take root. Ultimately, it may even rob its victims of their humanity when it is unfettered and unfurled.

Answer 3

The extra enlightened truthful Atheists could probable call it a subjective opinion. some could desire to call it a theory in step with faith besides the reality that they could mistakenly experience it is in step with no faith. i do no longer think of all and sundry could desire to be silly sufficient to call it scientific actuality. Even Atheists as "on hearth" for no god as Dawkins could desire to concede this could't be proved. If some thing can't be shown it may't be actuality. good question nevertheless. It gets human beings questioning. Atheists regularly think of of themselves as enlightened and people who don't trust them as having an inferior theory device without objectivity. notwithstanding what it comes right down to is interpretation of actuality. there is fairly some information to assist clever layout or introduction over evolution and whilst this could now no longer be skipped over and swept below the carpet Atheists without notice loose a number of their conceitedness and could concede that they do exactly no longer understand purely like believers do. people who are not truthful with themselves tell themselves they understand the solutions. people who're truthful admit they do no longer understand each and everything yet and function come to this end because of the fact ________ yet could desire to nevertheless be incorrect.