Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Post Praetorian said:
When a common morality is absent from neighbors might not such misunderstandings be expected to multiply?
Yes, and force discussion where otherwise such a discussion might be considered taboo.
There certainly merits consideration.
However, just because a common set-in-stone morality might not exist, that is not to say that a common set of laws for a given region shouldn't exist. The lawn ornament thing sounds pretty minor, and not really so much about moral misunderanding as it is about the local code of behavior. Most people can adapt their behavior to match a local set of rules, so long as they don't egregiously violate the fundamentals of their own moral code. It is hard to imagine that this family couldn't easily adapt when informed of the discrepency.
For instance, if I were to visit certain countries, my wife would be expected to wear a scarf - I'm sure we could adapt to that out of respect to the local code of behavior. It would be a different matter altogether if we were to vacation someplace with an extreme religion, and be required to stone a heretic. In that instance, if there weren't such a cast-in-stone morality based on some sacred verse, maybe I would be able to respectfully question the practice without getting stoned myself.
The distinction being made in the above is appreciated as it certainly aids in clarifying the main point:
Does not a realm in which one may assimilate according to a local code and/or convention not already make claim to having same? Yet this inquiry seeks to discover how an understanding may be achieved at such a level where first it may be comprised solely of individuals subscribing to differing levels of moral understanding without first consulting the one with the other.
Essentially, if among one's four fellow companions on a ship in international waters one discovers one who might consider stoning a legal pass-time, another who might suffer no difficulty in absconding with lawn ornaments, while yet a third who may believe in a secular humanistic agenda, and a fourth who might be a pure survivalist, how might one know with whom one is best to place one's trust given no outward sign of each individual's proclivities?
To clarify, if the assumption may be that each might make a logical and fair claim to a given system of belief absent any central organizational oversight or indoctrination, how might the individual riding among them know whether she should be wearing a scarf in the presence of one, hiding ornaments from another, remaining relatively at ease with one, while ensuring she is not left alone with the last?
This naturally assumes no expected interference by a centralized legal convention whose framework might first have been established to resist any such behaviors deemed unfit by a previous generation with a more consistent moral outlook.
Allow one to then partake of a second voyage surrounded by a group of Buddhist Monks. Assume a basic knowledge of the common, identifiable system of belief shared by such fellow passengers may be known. Allow further that each evening these companions spend time in prayer searching for means to serve a purpose greater than themselves.
In which of the above scenarios might one be most likely to be at the greatest ease?