Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:01:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1686 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes: • <2 days reading - edited for length>
> 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.
I don't know so I can't argue - but life affirming and happiness go well
together, so from your definition, Util... sounds cool. But from other
things I've heard, its not what I am getting at. Life affirming isn't based
on survival or happiness. It is different and if you understand it, having
a very "good" set of morals is not at all difficult, after giving them some
thought. Maybe I should have stayed out of this, as Lar may have a
different meaning himself for life affirming, but I am glad I didn't. I am
sure if he does, he will
state it, but you and I haven't discussed this enough for you to know to
what I
am talking about.
Well, to clear it up. There are 6 definitions of affirm and 20
definitions of life, so maybe its possible we have defined it differently.
Here's how I put it together:
to express dedication to a principle or force that is considered to underlie
the distinctive quality of animate beings.
With this definition, you say so what? Well, animals and humans share a
certain distinctive quality, but humans have distinctions of their own -
such as incredible minds that can reason, as well as many less superior
features, like opposable thumbs. In a sense, we are more alive than an
animal or a tree (although, for our own sake we must take good care of
them). There is much more entailed in living our lives than there is in
theirs. So, simply, I should always say human life affirming, but I don't.
When talking about human life, life affirming can pertain to our personal
lives, our species or our greatest special attribute (our distinctive
quality - that which differs us from other animate beings), our ability to
reason. Using that special ability for its purpose - in ways that enhance
our personal lives or the lives of those within our species - is life
affirming, using it for any other reason is more than likely not life
affirming, and must be determined. Maybe I can find a better word for this
than life affirming which can so easily be misconstrued.
> 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.
No, I didn't read into it. I said whoever made it has the right to it.
Things (like loaves of bread) do not just appear from nowhere - a person has
to put thought into it and make it - that is the person who has the right to
it. Whether that person cares about the other and wants them to have it is
up in the air, but who has the right to it is unquestionable. I took it
further (like these are the last two people) to make a point.
In your example above I do not see how it is obvious... for two reasons -
1) I don't
know who is morally superior (neither person is wholly life-affirming from
my stand
point) and 2) I do not believe moral superiority gives anyone a right to
ownership.
> 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.
No, I don't see a moral issue - I do see a possibility of painful
emotions like sadness and (with the improper moral code) guilt.
> 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."
Sounds OK. Replace "happiness" with "the enhancement of life" and it
sounds better. I think you are taking him too literally on another
difficult to define (so you say) word. Also, he says tend to promote...,
not
"facilitate happiness 100%". Generally speaking, though, promoting
happiness and acting in a life affirming way are very close.
> 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?
I agree with you on that - Util... must have its faults. People don't act
rationally. People act as they have learned to act, which can be quite
contrary to how we are meant to act. I think the reason people go on, is
they don't wish to die, they fear that, among many other things and hope
life will improve. Doesn't mean they are or ever will be happy.
I think those who say (per your snipped example) they live for God's
happiness are demented, and use it as an excuse for being unhappy. These
people are not actively destroying life, but as they are not behaving in a
life affirming way or living by a life affirming doctrine, I believe they
live incorrectly, morally speaking. Like a tree that won't spread its
leaves during rain, they are wasting their lives (trees don't do that,
though, they don't have that option, only people do - people can be and
often are insane, trees never are).
> 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.'
I am not sure how you connected me to that. Hopefully my further
definition above can add some clarity. Using our special attribute called
our mind for things that do not enhance life is not morally correct (IMO).
So, stealing, feeling guilt, being devious, etc, are all bad, regardless of
consequences. Of course, there is always a chance of consequences, and if
you are worried about consequences, you know you are doing wrong. That
makes it real easy! If you consider what possible consequences there are,
and you find one, there ya go - that answers that.
You made an example of stealing office supplies (in Obligatory Lego
form). Of course its wrong. It involves fear, guilt, stealing,
trespassing, deviousness and potential (although you say there aren't
any) consequences. There is no such thing as a sure thing, although the
criminally minded might argue otherwise. Even if it is a sure thing, its
indisputably wrong. If you try to dispute it, the discussion will cease.
> 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?
Behind the husband's back - its wrong. You don't need the Ten
Commandments to know that. The woman and the man have this "thing" and she
violated it. If she is trying to live life in a life affirming fashion, she
will feel guilt. It is wrong for a man to put her in that situation, too.
If she has no morals to begin with, I suppose she won't feel guilt, and she
could say there was nothing wrong with it (and she won't go to hell for it)
but for anyone trying to live morally, it is wrong. If you care about your
self, you live by your morals. If you hate yourself, or are apathetic about
life, you don't.
Some of the people who wrote parts of the Bible were very knowledgeable.
Thus, much of it sounds right and is very believable, especially if those
you trust teach it to you. However, it is only a book, authored by men for
a purpose, as all books are.
> 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.
Hmm. I just listed a bunch of reasons why its wrong. All of them apply
here, too. Our government wasted many of its resources trying to nail
(oops) Clinton and Clinton wasted his resources to defend himself. It
wasn't life affirming at all; it was wasteful. Had he not been caught, it
would still be wrong (even if Hillary is cool with it) because of the pain
he causes those women and the energy he wastes with the whole affair (oops
again). His life is a waste, not that he would have been worth too much
with good morals, but still. Much like "if its not a good thing to say;
don't say it," if its not a good thing to do; don't do it. Good as in, life
affirming, progressing, moving up rather than down or sideways.
> 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.
Whats good for the wolf isn't good for the rabbit, but what is good for
one man should be good for another.
> 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
Point taken.
> (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...)
I think most people who debate these things have given it some thought.
> 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
Well, I must agree with him on that point, and perhaps I should read him.
I believe men are good by nature, and try to find truth, but most give up
too easily, or believe they have found it when they have not.
> (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.
I think its possible. Depends how long it takes to digest guilt. By not
doing things that cause guilt, you can avoid it (only way I know). I can
only feel guilt for my own actions, and I am the only one who controls my
actions.
> 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
I disagree here - the underlying morality is the part that is backwards -
the overt part is very good, but should be concluded by one's self. By
thinking, you can see what is wrong with the underlying themes, and conclude
that it is wrong. As in math, if its not right, then it is wrong.
can't
> easily argue that Jesus was an idiot or a jerk. There is a certain respect
An insane martyr? If not, a work of fiction? Real or not - he was
insane, thought he was the son of a god, and died for believing it. I don't
think its right to kill people just because they are crazy (or for any
reason other than self-defense), but he should have been locked up - look at
all the trouble he caused. He may not have sinned, but he broke laws and
pissed people off. At least he did manage to convince those believing in
false gods that they were wrong, but they replaced there false gods with a
new one.
> 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
Maybe you feel that way. I feel sadness for yet another man who was
insane - there seem to be so many (remember, I'm not crazy; the world is).
I also feel a little fear when I think how pissed off God will be if I am
wrong and he and Jesus exist, but not much, although thats definitely the
authors' intention. I don't respect people who kill themselves - I find
people that do incomprehensible. To some, fear = respect, but I know the
difference.
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.
Up there I wanted to read him, now I think he is a wacko. No wonder I
don't read this kind of stuff.
> 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.
Not forever, only as long as humanity survives, or til it finds the
answer. Which it can! And without incorporating emotion - you mustn't do
that. Thats kinda why I like my life affirming moral code - it is all about
progress. We still have a long way to go, but like making money, I think
the faster we work on it, the better off we are. Philosophy, ethics (which
have not been looked at through clear glass until very recently) and other
sciences have barely developed - although we have used other sciences to do
great things. This is solvable. We live twice as long as we did 200 years
ago, but I think it would be cool if we could live forever, I think most
people feel that way. Did you ever think we weren't meant to die? That
maybe, once your dead, your dead, and all those before us are dead, will
never return, and there lives are wasted? If they hadn't been fighting
wars, but using their fucking brains, they might still be alive today? And
for another thousand years? We could do that. Morons. Oh, my apologies,
directed to no one in particular, I had a sudden burst of inspiration (and
emotion). Egyptians were smart, they thought that way (about the
possibility of living longer). Its more realistic than any god. I find it
sad that we can be so smart and so dumb. Like Jefferson and Washington -
very smart guys, who thought it was OK to own other people; that they didn't
have rights, too. Well, at least we are progressing, but I will always HATE
the apathetic and the stubborn and the ignorant for not pitching in, and the
warlike and the criminals for holding us back. I won't forgive them.
Doesn't matter, though, they don't need anyone's forgiveness, they will be
dead anyway. Their bodies, their souls, all of them, dead, forever. They
piss me off, and they make me sad for humanity. The people who aren't
helping are evil, in my book. They are getting a free ride, which they have
no right to, that they steal (quietly and with an innocent face) by saying
they have a right to it and backing it up with their numbers, then a club,
then a gun and now a bomb.
Did you ever think that those who wrote the Bible did know what they are
talking about? That there is a universe out there for us, that it has all
we will ever need, that if we want to we can all share it and live in
harmony? Of course they know what they are talking about - thats why that
book is so believable. I am ashamed of my race that we have not yet
achieved harmony. That we believe the same stupid BS we believed
2,000-4,000 years ago, which hasn't worked yet.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste, but everyone does. Our morale as a
race is pitiful. We have so much, but think we can do nothing. We can!
All gods tell us we can't, that only it (they) can, but I don't believe
that. Look what we have done, with no help of his! And what we have
achieved has occurred with only a miniscule percentage of people trying to
progress. The rest go through life, but don't live life, they don't make
anything happen. They are nothing...
So many people, not using their minds, not knowing why we are here - it
makes me sick, but they keep on with their futile beliefs. They refuse to
change, they refuse to think. They keep killing each other, they keep
sitting on their asses, and you tell me there is a god? A god who is
guiding us all? Bullshit. There are people guiding us and there are people
who don't know whats going on - thats all. Too many Indians, not enough
Chiefs. (Dean Martin - I wrote it down, didn't even know why til now - now
I remember).
Like your Nietzsche, I despise false (all) religions. They allow people
to be useless and still be comfortable. They thwart progress by giving
people unattainable (and unearthly, inhuman) goals. They make life futile
when in fact its not. They give a false meaning of life. Those believers
steal from those who are turning the wheels; they aren't pulling their
weight, which is evil. The only thing worse is those who pull the opposite
direction, and if you add those together, thats about 99% of the world. It
makes it hard on those who CARE about LIFE.
> > > (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_
are either downloadable?
> Dave Eaton
--
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 has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
