Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:35:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1602 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > (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...
Utilitarianism is very similar-- the consequences of the action are critical.
An action is judged according to the level of happiness after the fact. The
consequences of the action affect people's happiness, even in little ways, and
the overall amount of happiness for everyone is used as the morality meter.
> > 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.
I think you're reading in your own possibilities into my example to bend it way
off the track that I was making a point on. I could have said: "what if there
are two people who want the bread, but one of them is a homicidal maniac and
the other is Mother Theresa?" Who should get the bread? Obviously the moral
better of the two. Otherwise, imagine that one of the people is very sickly,
and the other is really healthy. The sickly one might die even if he gets the
bread, so the healthy one is the logical alternative.
The point of the example was to leave it as is, or more to the point, NOT to
add circumstances that could change the moral implications of the example. But
if you need specifications: There are two starving people. Let's say in the
desert. They happen upon a loaf of bread. (Don't ask me why, it's just an
example). They've got all the water they need, but no food other than this
bread. There is JUST enough bread for the rest of the journey out of the
desert, but for only ONE of the two people. If they share it, they die. They
discover it at the same time. They're just two friends. Same gender. They're
equally smart, healthy, nice, etc. You're one of them. Do you feel MORALLY
justified in taking the bread, and letting your friend starve? Moreover, let's
say your friend offers the bread to you, suggesting that he starve. Would you
feel any remorse at all in your decision to accept it? I think that there is a
natural human respect for charity, or at least on that is honestly charitable,
and this is one of the most important morals in Christianity. I think that
anyone in this hypothetical situation would feel morally bad about taking the
bread. They might still do it, especially if the friend is insistant that you
do, but they would still feel guilt at taking the bread over their friend.
There are many stories like this that are told about concentration camps during
world war II. For example, while being sent out one day, one of the prisoners
found a pipe that had been closed off. It was full of rain water. The person's
instinct was to drink all the water, for his own survival, and did so. But
afterwards, felt horribly guilty for not sharing his discovery with others. It
may have helped him live, and was by all logical means a reasonable choice of
action, but there was still a MORAL issue behind it.
> > 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.
Maybe you're thinking of a different philosophy-- To quote Mill: "actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of 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.
>
> 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?
Here's a problem that Utilitarianism encounters. Why would people do something
if it doesn't make them happy? Isn't that the point of action?
Here's a possible alternative (this is just me playing devil's advocate):
- "I don't do things to be happy, I do things to please God."
- "Ah, but pleasing God makes you happy!"
- "No, I hate pleasing God. He's made my life terrible, I wish I could
completely reject Him!"
- "Then why do you still please him? Are you hoping for Him to make your life
better once you please Him?"
- "No, not at all, He won't change anything in my life that needs changing.
Besides, it's not my place to expect a reward for pleasing God."
- "Then why obey Him at all?"
- "Because it is RIGHT to obey God."
In this manner (and this happens in some sects of Judiasm, mind you) the belief
is not that people do things to be happy, but they do things because it is
God's will, and what is morally right is defined by how well it adheres to
God's wishes. Of course, the Utilitarian view is that these people are really
being made happy when they feel that they are obeying God, and that these
people just don't know (or won't acknowledge) that they're being made happy.
This is where Utilitarianism falls through. If someone (the Utilitarian) can
tell someone who doesn't think he's happy that he IS happy, well then, what
really is happiness? It can't simply be that the Utilitarian has some
"ultimate" knowledge of happiness, or else it turns into: "you're happy when I
tell you you're happy." It doesn't work.
There are other arguments one could pose, but this one works as an example.
> 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.
Wow. Sounds like Nietchze: "Guilt wastes a person's time". Nietchze (I'm not
sure of spelling on that) basically said: 'Morality is a waste of time. Things
are only good insofar as they aid myself. Stealing is only wrong if there are
negative consequences for me.'
Again, let's make an example, with stealing: You want a Lego piece. It's a
really old piece that's only available in really old sets. You've been waiting
for years to find this piece. Some guy who lives close to you has the set that
it comes with, but is asking for $10,000 for it (it's an unopened set, and he
doesn't ever want to open it). You (by some twist of fate) happen upon the keys
to his house, and find out he's not going to be there for a while. You can go
in, open the set, take the piece you want, and re-seal the set such that no-one
would ever know it was opened. (for some reason you can do this). Are you
morally justified to take the piece? You won't get caught (you are guaranteed),
so there are no physical consequences for you; He'll never know, since he'll
never open the set (and he wants to be buried with it or something), so he
won't be hurt; and you'll be happy because you have the piece? Are you still
JUSTIFIED in taking his property? You can argue that you think you'd be
completely justified, and that you'd have no problem, but there are people out
there that WOULDN'T, because it is a moral issue for them. In this way, it's
difficult to say that morality is defined as 'life-affirming'. There are
elements to the common definition of morality which are left unaddressed.
> > 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
Again, you're reading in circumstances that bend the example. Suppose that none
of these happen-- he just has sex with her, nobody else ever knows or even ever
suspects that it happened, and the two of them don't feel guilty. Is it STILL
wrong? Take Clinton and any one of his many affairs-- If no-one had ever found
out, is Clinton actually justified in his actions? The point is that there is
some underlying FEEL of morality that goes against the action itself: "Adultery
is wrong." And that's what I don't see reflected in the 'life-affirming'
argument.
> 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 agree with most of what you are saying-- I don't believe in an 'ultimate'
ethic. Ethics are relative (this is something that Nietzche points out,
something can only be good with respect to something else: what is good for the
wolf is not good for the rabbit... it all depends on the viewpoint) and
enforcing your ethic on others is useless. Your ethic won't be true anymore,
because it's changed reference points. It's being made non-relative.
As for the quote way up there (from Larry, I guess?) "being an athiest requires
a lot of thought": Nah. You can be anything and not think about it. (It doesn't
mean that you DON'T think about it, it just means you don't HAVE to) That's why
a lot of people who don't put a lot of thought into their morals and beliefs
are Christian -- it was the first thing they were handed, and they have faith
in it. They don't want to have to think about it when someone else has already
done it for them. Besides, they have faith in their parents for being right
about it, and faith in all their friends are also Christian... "A million
people can't be wrong". Similarly, if your parents were athiests, and you were
one of those people who doesn't want to bother to think it out for yourself,
you can go be an athiest, use arguments that you've heard all your life for it,
and never really think about it at all. That's what a lot of Christians do...
There ARE Christians out there that think things through, and think them
through well. I don't happen to agree with them, but I can't argue against them
because it comes down to fundamental differences-- logic fails at some point.
And these Christians go and spread their arguments among those who don't think
about these things, who in turn argue back at people like us with good
arguments, but not self-generated. If we make a good point back at their
argument, they can't reply. (or at least reply well) Again, you could take what
you heard from other athiests and simply regurgitate rather than think through
it.
(I'm not suggesting that anyone on this thread does that, though. In fact, I
think everyone that I've read posts from has seemed as though they've put
thought into their own beliefs... granted I haven't read it all...)
Some of what you say does sound very Nietzsche-esque, though-- His problem with
Christianity was that it seemed to want everyone to feel bad about themselves
(EVERYONE'S a sinner) and that a lot of Christianity encourages sacrificing
one's self for the benefit of others. He grants the he himself can't shake the
feeling of guilt, but he has faith in the idea of a 'perfect' man (he names him
"Zarathustra") who feels no guilt.
The downside to this is that these feelings DO exist. Guilt may be a 'waste of
time' but it IS there. And becoming the perfect person turns you into a jerk.
Of course, this is Nietzsche's perfect man, not yours. For all of
Christianity's faults, the underlying morality it teaches has value. You can't
easily argue that Jesus was an idiot or a jerk. There is a certain respect we
have for him out of faculties unknown. Logic may suggest to us that he was a
fool for wanting to be so selfless, but what we FEEL is still respect. We can't
name it logically, but that is a concept that morality encompasses. To define a
morality, we have to compensate for that. Nietzsche escapes that by refusing
any morality at all. 'Morality is unnatural and unhealthy' would say Nietzsche.
But if we seek to define morality, we must account for what we FEEL. If logic
cannot offer a complete solution, we need to incorporate emotion. And THAT's
where it gets tough. "What is happiness?", "What defines good?", etc. And there
the debate will forever continue.
> > (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.
Or, for Nietzsche, try _On_the_Genealogy_of_Morals_
Dave Eaton
|
|
Message has 2 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
|
|
|
|
