Religions differ on this. That is they differ in the belief someone deserves punishment or not, well to a certain extent. The issue I would like to bring up is one of morale development. In Confusism a child is portrayed as only being corrupted by outside influences, he is not responsible for he’s own immorality and therefore it is not right to punish him. This belief has the effect of the Confucian father blaming an outside influence and not he’s child and he’s child see this. This pains the child as he knows the father is blaming someone else and not him and wants the best for him. The child then out of pain doesn’t want to do the immoral thing. Perhaps this is a good thing, perhaps not, personally I think using pain as motive to be good is not good. The contrast we find most aptly in Sikhism where it is taught a person “can tell” for “themselves” what is right and wrong. This fills people with a strong belief what they are doing is right and makes them strong on acting on what is right. However this make’s people believe someone is responsible for their own immorality and should be punished. So I ask you then what do you think are the advantages, disadvantages of people believing others are responsible for their own wrong acts. Do you think it makes people less forgiving, etc?
There are no moral absolutes, the sooner we get that idea out and understand the nature of moral pluralism and how it can give us ethical perspective the sooner religion will be superfluous, it’ll still exist it just wont be all that necessary to the process of evolution of a mind.
Utilitarianism, Duty ethics, divine command, emotional ethical concerns, liberal ideology, relativism.
And all the rest religious inspired or not are useless as moral foundations, no such thing exists. Only by growing beyond the whole can we become more than the sum of our parts. To this extent “one true faith!” Religious or otherwise is the musings of a mad goat on a lonely hill.
Yes, but I let you have this question. Why do you believe this? What is the roots from which you believe that the tree that spreads the branches of morale pluralism “should” grow? I believe in tolerance very strongly and that morale pluralism should and is tolerated? But at the same time I have my belief in what is “good” and I will try to convince people to get as close to my conception of what is good as possible. I believe this is possible because I read Cicero who was a Roman orator and understand the power of words. I also have some understanding of the source of our ethical development and upbringing? But back to this question? Why? Why the belief that there are many forms of good " Vastly different from each other rather then one" I say vastly because I still believe that what is right or the good for some one can change slightly from one person to the next, yet, as I did say I believe there is an “overall” common good for everyone.
So here there are two possible beliefs, separate but common as being different. These two beliefs are:
(1)The belief “the good” vastly changes from one person to the next.
(2) The belief “the good” is overall common for everyone.
So I ask if we are to determine which one is our right one what must we assume? Well we need some founding values for the basis for all or beliefs. I think as the ancient Greek Philosophers argued, happiness and the alleviation of suffering is our founding values. But can we go into more depth on this?
Do you believe happiness is more important then the alleviation of suffering or vice versa or equally. I believe they are of equal importance and believe that a belief in an overall common good is more in line with this as we have a common “human nature”. Therefore we have common forms of happiness and suffering. You wouldn’t tell a sheep to be kind to be happier as perhaps a sheep can’t be kind, feel that feeling. Therefore because humans have a common nature there must be a common overall good. That is the good is what has the balance of making us happy and alleviating suffering?
However perhaps you do not believe happiness and suffering should be our fundamental values or perhaps you do not believe in a common human nature? So I ask you what do you believe?
To quote a good friend of mine… This kind of debate revolves fruitlessly around everyone’s definitions of “deserving”.
I believe in pluralism. Do you want me to justify the entire basis of ethics in logical formalism. Or just accept we have to agree on something and that is most people can’t really agree on anything about ethics so just sit around scratching their beards and looking deep.
Does anyone ever deserve anything ever?
I deserve a lolly.
Here’s a 
What flavour was that…? I hope it wasn’t lemon.
I don’t like lemon.
It was a qualia flavoured lol ly.
Doesn’t the idea of “grace” dispose of the idea of deserving/undeserving.
As I understand it, grace is pivotal to many religions, especially monotheistic ones.
What is the opposite of grace?
Literally?
disgrace.
fortune, misfortune.
pleasing, not pleasing.
beauty, deformity.
grazia, disgraziare.
grace, disgrace.
It quite literally just means, “the opposite of grace”, so whatever you define as grace, the opposite of it is whatever you consider to be the unsatisfactory, or unsymmetrical counter.
agrace.
You mean.
agrace, or aggrace, means to grace…so no.
Etymologically speaking, disgrace is quite literal in origin.
It just literally means the opposite of grace.
Shame?!
I don’t follow
You are absolutely right about that, morally speaking.
grace/disgrace assumes that is a valid concept.
I’d say that pride/shame is synonymous.
I don’t care; um…sure.
I have no idea what you are talking about actually, but if you wanted to know the opposing of grace, then it would be disgrace, if you wanted to know the opposing of pride, it would indeed be shame.
Is prejudice the opposite of grace?