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 21:34:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1413 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> 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)
We all do. I should probably stay out of this, since it is someone
else's argument and words...
> 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".
To me, having a moral code that is life affirming also brings in a lot of
smaller issues than mere survival. (I guess you said that - although it was
not too clear to me what you were getting at). It has to do with cause and
effect - every little thing we do has effect (positive effect or
consequences) and through action and reaction, you can see if the first
action is life affirming or not. Ultimately, every action does effect one's
survival, although maybe only trivially. So, morally, that which is
life-affirming (that which will not in some way effect one's or others'
survivability or happiness) is good - that which causes one or others
detriment is bad. I have some examples below, but first...
> 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.
You mean Christian morality, I suspect? Mine certainly does not tell me
that! According to my morality (from discussion I have noticed it to be
much more like Larry Ps than any Christian's), the person who put the
thought and work into making the last loaf of bread is the only person who
would have any right to the bread. If I made it, then I would have a right
to eat it. My morality wouldn't tell me to give it to the guy who didn't
provide for himself. That would be pretty stupid - he couldn't keep himself
alive without me, how will he do it if I am dead?! How will the species
survive if we are the last two, and I give an idiot who can't make a loaf of
bread the responsibility of maintaining our species? Of course a lot of
man-kind doesn't live by the same morality as me, and if I were with one
person and we were the last two, I surely hope I can fight better (in self
defense of course, because his demented morality says its OK to kill this
guy (me) so that he may live) than he does for that last loaf. Anyway,
Christian morality is backwards, not life affirming and I don't buy it. The
strong may survive, but not very long or happily without those with (and who
use their) intellect.
> 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.
I don't think Utilitarianism has anything to do with happiness for
everyone, but I could be wrong, I will check out your book and get back to
ya.
> 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.
Well, happiness is different to everyone, and a lot of people don't seem
to mind being unhappy. For me, happiness is LEGO, among other things.
Another definition for happiness is the feeling felt while doing that which
is pleasurable. I guess its a step or two above satisfaction, and a few
steps below ecstacy. You can't be happy all the time, but I'd hate to be
grumpy all the time. Life affirming can be explained a little more now.
The goal of anyone rational is to be happy as much as possible. In this
world, different things make different people happy. Some things money
can't buy, but for everything else there's Mastercard. You can buy a lot of
stuff that makes you happy - it varies for different people. Working can
make you happy, too. Whether its the knowledge that you are going to be
able to spend your money on something that makes you happy or the work
itself that you enjoy, working is life-affirming and brings happiness. If
it doesn't, then why do people do it? People may argue then what is wrong
with stealing, if you can use the money to make your self happy? Well, 1)
it doesn't make the victim happy, 2) the thief will feel guilt 3)
consequences. Consequences - these aren't life affirming. Most people
don't get away with crimes. They suffer consequences, which do not lead to
happiness. When you pay a fine that is much higher than what you stole, its
not life-affiriming - it makes life harder to live. When you sit in jail
for months without working its not life affirming - it makes life
unenjoyable and harder to live. Back to two - feeling guilt wastes a
person's time - you can't feel guilty and happy at the same time. Back to
one - I may only have a minimal amount of respect for most people (because
they do not seem happy or even seem to be trying to be happy - I understand
why they don't just end themsleves now...) but I know stealing from them
will not make them any happier. This can be applied to just about anything,
not just stealing - and thats how you create a moral code. If something is
life affirming, it has no negative consequences - it also doesn't hinder
survival.
> 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.
That example is not life affirming. There are numerous possible
consequences to that type of action. Negative effects from an action can be
called consequences, and consequences are not life affirming. If your
action has only negative effects on someone else (I don't think that is
possible for a thinking and feeling person), it is still not life affirming.
Here are some possible consequences:
Death - husband kills you (or her)
Mutilation - husband beats you (or her)
Guilt - whole people can't enjoy or avoid these feelings
diseases can spread - shortens life
one man (or no man) raising another man's child - makes the guiltless work
harder or the child's life harder
So, my chosen moral to live by is in every way life affirming (2) -
meaning my actions should not hinder my own or another's progress through
life (or their "pursuit of happiness"). Larry is right - being atheist
requires a lot of thought (you have to figure out what is right and what is
wrong all by yourself - its not written out for you - also you must have
faith in your own mind and ability instead of something that doesn't exist -
so you must blame yourself for your mistakes, not a figment of you
imagination - and you have to make your dreams come ture yourself, and not
put your hope in that figment), and although it does make for happier living
(by not living according to a code of backwards morals) it also makes
feelings (such as guilt, which Christians must become numb/accustomed to
over time) more noticable (as Larry said, in so many words - it makes you
more human). When you live by morals that are inhuman, you become less
human. When you live by a moral that says its OK to steal (which
Christianity does by not allowing a person to construct their own moral code
or by making people steal from themselves for undeserving others) you can
not remain completely human, you must detach a part of your humanity. No
wonder there are so many Christian hippocrites; if I was a Christian, I'd
certainly be a hippocrite, too. The basic morals we are born (1) with make
a lot more sense than those of Christianity, and if given some thought, can
really be useful, however those morals of Christianity will always leave
Christians feeling fear, guilt and powerlessness in addition to contempt for
non-conformists. That must not be a great way to live - do you have any
time for happiness after all those unhappy feelings? Sorry, I got to get
back to work now.
> (I feel like I'm on PBS for saying this, but: "To learn more about
> Utilitarianism, read _Utilitarianism_ by John Mill")
Thanks for the suggestion.
> Dave Eaton
(1) - how many adults actually share their favorite toy?
--
Have fun!
John
AUCTION Page (More soon!)
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/2-many-toys/
TRADE Page http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego/index.htm
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+DU--#+++++
ig88888888@stlnet.com & IG88888888 on AOL
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
