Moral Outrage/Righteous Indignation--When is it appropriate???

[quatona]

Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

In trying to find out, Philo, why your question struck me as loaded with ideas I do not share:
"Outrage", "indignation", "anger" etc. appear to me to be emotions/emotional responses. Emotions, however, reside in a completely different sphere than ideas of "morals", "rights", "righteousness", "justification" etc..
I´d recommend to keep these strictly separate, and to express them in a way that matches their nature.
Greetings!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In trying to find out, Philo, why your question struck me as loaded with ideas I do not share:
"Outrage", "indignation", "anger" etc. appear to me to be emotions/emotional responses. Emotions, however, reside in a completely different sphere than ideas of "morals", "rights", "righteousness", "justification" etc..
I´d recommend to keep these strictly separate, and to express them in a way that matches their nature.
Greetings!

Yeah, about that. I don't think the left brain hemisphere works in a completely differentiated and disconnected way from the right hemisphere, unless one is somehow not enjoying the benefits of their corpus callosum. Hence, I don't "do" sheer idealism, and I don't separate the real from the ideal by any kind of super strict set of classifications. No, I think its better to understand all of this in a rather wholistic way by applying our analyses from within the Hermeneutical Circle.

As a Christian, of course, you and I will disagree on how all of this works out in the "real world." And to some extent that's ok, and I expect this to happen as I'm sure you do, and I therefore don't think you're a terrible person if you don't see eye to eye with me, quatona.

 

[gaara4158]

Would it be too much for me to say that in some sense I've applied myself to being a "slave" of Christ? [Meaning, I don't just get to pick my own morality out whole cloth and wear it [or calculate it] any way I see fit. Nor do I just get to express my irritation (or anger) at the world around me any way I see fit, either .....]

Hmm, then it seems I understood you well enough the first time. You relinquish your right to exercise moral judgments in deference to what’s mandated by Christianity. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to defer to ancient wisdom when facing moral dilemmas. I’m just interested in what happens when (if it ever happens) you, in your heart of hearts, disagree with, don’t understand, or dislike Christianity’s stance on an issue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm, then it seems I understood you well enough the first time. You relinquish your right to exercise moral judgments in deference to what’s mandated by Christianity. It’s not necessarily a bad thing to defer to ancient wisdom when facing moral dilemmas. I’m just interested in what happens when (if it ever happens) you, in your heart of hearts, disagree with, don’t understand, or dislike Christianity’s stance on an issue.

That's a great question, gaara! I'd have to say that at the present time, I don't have to struggle much to acknowledge most Christian/New Testament ethics, other than to pray and to ask God to reveal to me as to "how it is" that I'm supposed to love my enemies and as to just what this might mean or can mean on a daily basis, particularly when I have to face off against diversely minded people. The struggle is in following through and actually "doing" Christian ethics ...

As for the gnarly ethical situations we find in the Old Testament, most of which get tossed about for extreme scrutiny and debate these days, it took me a long time, many years in fact, to come to a place in my studies where I felt the O.T. could be explained. Fortunately, hermeneutics and other forms of philosophy have helped me to deal with my struggle to unravel the whys and wherefores of all of that 'gross' Old Testament stuff.

As for Christianity, I don't think I have any qualms overall with the social sensibilities that are inherently expressed in the New Testament (other than those which have to do with proprieties surrounding the ways in which we might appreciate womanly beauty---something which most guys in today's Western(ized) world have to wrestle with in an unprecedented way.....................)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

I think it's justifiable when we're speaking about an "injustice" or "wrong" that is not a result of an inherent attribute of humanity itself...but a moral/ethical failure of a specific person or group....which is perpetrated deliberately and with intention.

The outrage should be proportional to the offense committed....the damage caused by the offense should be real/measurable...not transitory, emotional, or in any way dependent upon the mental frailty of the offended.

I'd be happy to give examples if you like.