The need for common measurement to our morals (P2/4)

Usually the establishment of morals and ethics between people is claimed to the fear, in case if we look to the matter from the logic of powers to renouncing. And as an explaination; their fears from being oppressed hamper them from transgressing on others. In other words; to push themselves to doing what they aspire to get in return as a deal. And this kind of agreement -they had approved- could make people living safely together, based on their fears of course.

They can be committed to such agreement to protect themselves to avoid every punishment they may deserve. Although we could guarantee some stability into the group of people, but we can’t guarantee totally the rightness or wrongness of the things we do, but we can’t decide what’s acceptable to do and what’s not.

Because the concept of life is based on living it to the fullest since it is just one life, and the success of the individual is justified according this concept, regardless the harm and damage that may others get even if they’re billions of people, but their personal view -to this life- is enough to please them as they think it is.

The question is, what would be; if there was no fears within some ones, whereas they got enough means to be far away and out of every punishment or social judgment that can threaten them? Moreover; since they even don’t care what their environment may think about them. In such scenario; what can stop these people if their pleasure and joyment comes from the wrong and bad things they do?

Humanity could make the civilization when people have invented the system of writing. and if we try to tell this story from its beginnings; we can say that the need to communicate properly and to easily make the exchange between people, they needed to do so, the idea was to draw symbols and figures able to referring to certain things when everybody else can see, he will understand easily. Some languages which they still use same old systems of symbols. And with ages these systems of writing got developed and updated to be easier until we see now. It’s in the same way like we see now the signalization in our streets to facilitate the traffic.

My point for that is; the system which is used here was able to make a common mechanism of principles and rules to guarantee the people life in groups wherever they’re. And same for the morals between people they should be in common aswell.

The need for common measurement to our morals (P1/4)

I've said before about the troubles that can be due the differences in interpreting the facts and reactions towards, when people confuse the terms and they differently determine them which can lead to contradictions.

I give another picture for that, the Bosnian schools for example, and even in same city, they have different lessons for history subject, because the different perspectives towards the last war they've had, and each community teaches the subject in starting from its personal view and not necessary to telling the truth most of times. Such situation can show the gap that exists into the depths of the same society to be fragile, moreover the troubles that can happen because of that (like the national pride or national spirit as one of common issues which isn’t in fact and that may destabilize the country). because each side reads the events in a way different than the other side, different reasons, different excuses and different consequences, we reach - at the end - different measurements while everyone has his own system to evaluate facts and situations, because they started from different platforms to treating the issue, those different measurements don't bring harmony, neither to stabilize enough the social life of people although the same circumstances they share.

I stopped last time with a question, which measurement should we rely on to define properly the platform (for all people who share same situation) with clear principles and based on morals we've to share?

When everybody is living life according his personal principles, and each one is looking after his happiness ad success through certain perspective -based on some interests- which can be completely in the opposite of someone else. And what someone sees as a good thing and fulfilling the happiness, someone else may see it horrible and kind of corruption. Such difference is what breaks the harmony of being in social life and prevent the civilized progress.

If we look after the morals and their beginnings, people appreciate generally certain values but they can be different sometimes until being in contradictions while someone appreciate something whereas the other appreciates absolutely the opposite in fact. we find out that one of the reasons and the explanations of beginning; it was to guarantee the social interest to living into a group of people (society) through certain rules and without neglecting the individual. Because if every individual started looking after his personal satisfactions, and to getting his own benefits; then it'll be hard to establish a society, because there is be transgression on others and their rights aswell.

For this fact; it was necessary that everyone must renounce some of their demands and requirements willingly to guarantee the safety (from any transgression) and the freedom (to dreaming and looking after goals), that kind of balancing between issues can lead to the peace between people of the same environment.

That renouncing can be in many different ways, or all together, such as discussions, learning about, experiences and measuring the consequences from. The next question is: on which bases we can be sure that the renouncing is fair and just for us as same as it's for the others? And how do we realize and guarantee that others also are ready to offer that renouncing?