Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:24:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1608 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> So given that only humans (on this planet anyway) can be non life
> affirming and only humans can choose to be moral or amoral, it follows
> for me that the only good moralities are those that are life affirming.
> That is, we can measure goodness of morality by using the life affirming
> metric.
(I've been peeking at this debate, but have refused to get involved... sigh,
how I weaken)
It almost sounds as if you are referring to Utilitarianism until this point...
Perhaps it's the definition of "life-affirming", which is left a little
unclear. (I won't re-post the whole thing for conciseness' sake) What it sounds
like is that you put forth "life-affirming" as that which best maintains the
species or individual. I think that if this is the case, your argument has a
slight problem. However, I think it's more likely that you intend a different
definition of "life-affirming".
The possible problem: morality need not have to do with survival. Some examples
are theft, adultery, respect, honesty, etc. While you can say that something
like theft CAN lead to survival issues, they do not need to. Also, there is the
issue of survival of the fittest. If there is one loaf of bread left for two
people, "life-affirmation" would dictate that it is moral to take the bread for
one's own survival (or at least want to), in the case that sharing it meant
death for both parties. Morality teaches that it is "right" to offer the bread
to the other person. Further, it teaches us that it is "right" to actually
WANT the other person to take it, not just proffer the loaf half-heartedly.
What Utilitiarianism offers is that what is moral is what promotes the most
"happiness" for everyone. And in so saying, giving the bread to the other
person (or at least offering it) is said to be more moral since it makes the
other person happy by surviving, and myself happy for feeling moral and
selfless. Why should it make me happy to be selfless? This is the trait that is
within our capacity that we don't see reflected in other animals (whether or
not it is there). A human's capacity for this is generally stemmed from the
ability for humans to imagine themselves in another person's place. Some people
(deemed less moral), while capable of such a thing, do not feel a higher
happiness about giving up their direct happiness.
Needless to say, this theory, too, is full of holes. For example, what is
happiness? This is similar to what was said earlier: It is 'proper' for an
animal to want to survive. Similarly "happiness is what makes people happy."
It's a kinda useless definition. But even granting that, there are other
problems. What is moral might not be defined by happiness.
Of course, perhaps you were edging towards this Utilitarianistic belief... If
so, I hope this cleared it up for anyone else who might have been confused. If
not, well... I disagree with you: Morality is something more than just
"life-affirming" (although it does encompass such characteristics). Whether I
have sex with my neighbor's wife behind his back has nothing to do with
'life-affirmation' but has a great deal to do with morality.
(I feel like I'm on PBS for saying this, but: "To learn more about
Utilitarianism, read _Utilitarianism_ by John Mill")
Dave Eaton
|
|
Message has 20 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
