God created the donkey first and blessed him with fifty years of age. When god sent the donkey on the earth he told him that he is blessed with fifty years of age but no wisdom and he has to carry the burdens on his back. His duty is to carry loads and not to care for himself. Donkey thought that if he is not given the wisdom, and for the whole life he has to carry loads of others so he has nothing to do with those fifty years. He requested the God to take back thirty years and give only twenty years to him. God did so and donkey’s age was set to be twenty.

Then God created the monkey and blessed him with twenty five years of age. God told the monkey that he is given the ability to climb from one tree to another tree and copy others, so he has to do what others are doing, and he will not have the ability to do something new from his own mind and he has to live for twenty five years. Monkey thought that copying others will be very interesting but doing nothing with his own mind for a very long time, i.e. twenty five years will be too much. So he requested the God to take back fifteen years from his age. God agreed and monkey was awarded with ten years of age.

After that God created the dog. Dog was blessed with twenty years of age but no wisdom. Dog was supposed to be faithful and loyal to his master and take good care of his master, eat whatever master gives him and if master doesn’t give him any thing to eat, he ought not to complain for it. Dog agreed to be faithful and loyal servant of his master but he demanded for a decrease in his duty time. Dog felt that twenty years will be more than enough for him so he requested the God to take back ten years and he kept only ten years with him.

After the creation of donkey, monkey and dog, God created the man. Man was blessed with wisdom and was given twenty years of age. When God sent him to the earth he told him that he has to find out the secrets of nature and has to conquer the world by using his wisdom in twenty years. Man said, oh God! as I have to explore the world and conquer it, I’d need much time as this is not possible in twenty years, so do one thing that give me that age which donkey, monkey and dog have returned. God accepted the man’s request and awarded him the returned age of other animals.

Now the early twenty years of age is man’s own life, care free of worries and tensions. In this time period man lives his life at its best. He’s free of any family responsibility or career planning. He enjoys most of his time with friends and family. He takes interests in every that thing which fascinates and gimmick him. Potentials and aims are at their optimum position in this age.

After spending his own life, man enters in the life time gifted by donkey; in this time period (from twenty to fifty years) man has to carry the load of family responsibilities. He starts working for his loved ones. He does not care for himself instead he tries hard to fulfill the requirements of his family. He keeps on carrying loads up to fifty years, where he gets retire from his job and his problems seem to be lessen when he gets free from the educational and marriage responsibilities of his children.

When man finishes the donkey’s life he enters into a monkey’s life. Now he climbs from one child’s house to another’s, he’s not able to stay completely with one of them. He copies the rules and regulations and habits of his child’s family and tries to act at his best. In this age his abilities to generate new ideas and intentions to have vigorous life abandon.

Finally man reaches to a dog’s life whereby he becomes loyal to one of his child who cares more for him. He keeps on caring for that child and his children. Sometimes if his child does not take care of him he doesn’t mind it and keeps on doing good things for him. Now he doesn’t move to one child from another instead he stays at only one place up to the death.

This is all about man’s life average age of seventy five years, twenty his own, thirty donkey’s ten monkey’s and ten dog’s.

This is good piece of writing. Thanks for sharing it. But it seemed to me a 'story' rather than an 'essay'. Anyhow I have read your other essay on literacy also. Your style of writing is smooth and well balanced. I suggest you to study essays written by Bertrand Russel. For example you can consult the book "unpopular essays" by Bertrand Russel. This book is included in syllablus of MA English literature so it is easily available from market. Russel writes in very smooth, simple, clear and stylish manner. This book can be helpful in bringing some extra improvement in your own writing style in a very short time period. Second thing is that try to write some more lengthy essay. Third thing is that avoid writing in seriel wise points in essay which you did in other essay. Instead of giving points, you can write the material in different paragraphs.

Thanks!

What's the moral of the story?

__________________
"The race is not over because I haven't won yet."

Adil Memon
Police Service of Pakistan (P.S.P)
37th Common Training Program

Salaam Adil,
thnx for yur feed back

well, moral understanding consists of two types; internal and external moral understanding. Internal moral understanding is one's personal reflection coming to realize what values and beliefs he holds, his reasons for holding them, etc. And External moral understanding is, trying to figure out the proper sort of normative theory we ought to adopt, or trying to figure out which values ought to be more important than others, trying to figure out how it is that we ought to justify moral norms, etc.

In my opinion these two types of moral understanding work in combination, i.e. one's own reflection and normative theories. But we can't analyse the two types at the same time. first of all we percieve our own understanding and then we formulate normative or positive strategies. So in my post 'An Essay on Man's life', I requested for your comments (your internal moral understanding), so that I could be able to figure out some kind of normative theory(external moral understanding)

Regards
Qurat

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete

AoA,
Well,barring the topic n moral of the story,the essay format n linguistic diction is appreciable..
As far go the topic n moral,it rather seems an eastern,subcontinental man n not universal one..
I wd also ask the writer to clarify ,if possible,how come there two types of moral values?Will he/she change his/her moral values as per our diversified commnts?

Moral values for a person are what his/her society inculcates into him..Its not the man to choose,except for some Divine design like prophetic misssions,moral values for himself,but its the society tht teaches so n expects u to behave so if u wanna survive therein respectfully...All societies have diffrnt moral values n a person is bound to behave according to his/her social spectrum and standards...To show his/her loyality to his society,he/she always tries to adopt such values to the maximum as to be respected n reverned more n more...

In brief,moral values r never individualistic but societal n there is but one type of marality for a person n tht is what the society he/she is born into holds n cherishes...

Regards

Salaam, Mr Shahid,

i appriciate your interest in the topic and comments on "moral values"
first of all let me clarify the difference between 'moral values' and 'moral understanding'. Moral Vlues and Moral understanding are two different areas of study. Moral values refer to an individual's interraction with society in which he is living (interpersonal communication needs), while moral understanding is something different, it is a person's intrapersonal abilities to percieve the preceeding situations in accordance with his own thinking style and understanding abilities.
concisely moral values have an origin of Ethics while moral understanding nearly relates to cognitive approaches.
your explaination of moral values may be right ( i percieve you have misunderstood the term moral understanding as moral values), but i still hold my statement to support my titled post.

Secondly Mr. Shahid, i totally agree with you that the hero 'man' of my writing seems to be a subcontinential. it is because the people whom i m asking for comments (most of them) are having same origin as of the hero 'man'.

thirdly i won't like to go in detail of 'moral values' as this is not associated with the orginal topic.


Regards
Qurat

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete

AoA Qurat,
Thanks for letting me know tht i mistook moral understanding for moral values...
Ok,as u wish, v dont go into details of moral values n restrict ourselves to ur two types of moral understanding...

As m a bit naive at philosophy,but i do use my cognitive capabilities to differentiate between what has been empirically proved n what still needs more socio-scientfc research into..

A little googling really helped me to measure the strength point of ur daringly claimed 2 types of moral understanding, which u completely n almost illogically also separate from moral values...i still wonder how come my moral understanding is different from my moral values...Anyways,v talk abt moral understanding's two types, as u believe in...

So u quoted from "Mumblings of a Platonist"...I re-quote him again n then leave upto u to wonder how come u started believing in still un-born 2 types of moral understanding when the researcher himself is still preparing to carry out his research to prove his two types...

He says all what u have already and exacly copied him in ur post abt two types.In addition he says,what u have conveniently ignored for reasons known to u, that,

"OBVIOUSLY THE TWO R CONNECTED(INTRNAL N EXTRNAL MORAL UNDRSTANDNG)BUT IT DOES SEEM THT ON SOME LEVEL THEY CAN COME APART...AT SOME POINT , THOUGH I THINK THE TWO COMPONENTS OF MORAL UNDERSTANDNG CONVERGE AND THE PERSON WITH A HIGH LEVEL OF MORAL UNDERSTANDNG IN ONE COMPNNT WILL HAVE A COMPARABLY HIGH LEVEL OF MORAL UNDERSTANDING IN THE OTHER......"

He further adds,i mean the would b researcher on the two types of moral understandng tht,

"LIKE MOST THINGS IN MY PAPER,THIS LOOKS KINDA,BUT NOT COMPLETELY,TRUE.OR PERHAPS MORE ACCURATELY,IN ONE SENSE THIS SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE,BUT IN ANOTHER SENSE IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE BORDERING ON NONSENSE"

Then the researcher invites the comments from ppl on his new topic of study i.e two types of moral understanding which u so staunchly belive in

iS'NT IT SOMETHING LIKE TELLING THE FEATURES AND HABITS OF AN UN-BORN BABY TO PPL???

Please acknowledge for confirmation at this end
Regards

Salam Mr Shahid,
thnx for a healthy criticism.
Well in this regard i do agree with you. but in my post, nothing has been eparically proved, i.e. it has not been proved that man lives like this. Secondly the purpose of the post is not to prove it at any cost (it may be proven wrong).

i comprehended the idea(as i am of the same opinion)... i think my statement
is sufficient to hold my belief. i didn't state about persons with high/low level of understanding.( as level of understanding is not the theme)
Concisely, i comprehended the idea to differenciate between the scope of study of moral understanding and moral values.


i think, it is the situation my post is facing.

Mr Shahid, i'll appriciate your explaination on 'moral values and moral understanding are the same subject matters" (may be my opinion of separting the two scopes is wrong)

Regards
Qurat

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete

AoA lil sis Qurat,
Arguing for the sake of just arguing leads to no where..

The matter is very simple n needs no confusion plz...

Adil sahib asked u abt the moral of ur story.....u came up with the idea of two types of moral understanding...by saying confidently tht,"There r two types of moral undrstandng, etc",as if it was somethng tht u read in some socio-philosophy book n all the socio-philosophers agree on the point...

Although v have already reached our goals,but v still feel like dead thirsty for knowledge n tht's y visit this forum for adding somethng new to it,apart from adding a bit to urs,so i went for some more study into it,given its novel type of stature for me...

N what,as u know very well,i found out tht u just postd exactly from "Mumblings of Platonist" where a researcher is asking for comments from ppl tht shud he proceed with his new type of research to prove tht there r 2 types of moral understandng....Now,tht researcher is himself mumbling,n u want us to believe tht there r 2 types of moral undrstanding...

Then when i pointd out this fact already known to u,u again stuck to ur already thumped post...

OK,if u comprehend his idea,why dont u come up with ur own explanation abt the topic,so tht v could have somethng more than just mumblings?

I jus want to emphasize tht try to share the knowledge tht is knowledge in true sense,n not mere mumblings,for it is just like wastng our n your precious time...

Lets bury the hatchet n openly confess I erred while mistaking moral undrstandng for moral values,n u erred while quoting from "Mumblings of a Platonist" as a contextual fact...
Candid confessions of course lead us to higher n higher destinations,n its my moral understndng for my moral values require me to reach higher levels of life....
Regards

Assalam AIlkum Qurat,
Indeed a nice piece of writing but I will go with the verdict it looks like more then a story then an essay ..................... but still i couldn't find the moral of ur essay over all a nice effort.