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 18:09:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1662 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> [a bunch of stuff... see off-topic.debate:1822]
Ok, I think I'm a little clearer on your definition. That was my original
intent, although I did a rather quick job myself in my first post. Basically,
I wanted to know if 'happiness' was included in life-affirming. Here's what
happened:
Larry said that he was presented with the 'life-affirming' argument, and it
convinced him. However, it sounded to me a lot like Utilitarianism. I thought
that perhaps someone was telling HIM about utilitariansm (slightly altered) and
had deemed it 'life-affirming', since that's certainly more easy to name than
"utilitariansism". I thought that it sounded like Larry didn't include
"happiness" in his definition, and basically wanted to know if it was there.
Like I said before, if it's in there, cool, I agree that it's valid (and very
utilitarianistic). If NOT, however, I have a problem with it, because I think
that happiness and emotion have to do with morality. (I'll talk about emotion
being involved later)
So it sounds like you agree that happiness is included. What utilitarianism
does, though, is instead of grouping "happiness" into "life-affirming", it is
done the other way around. The terminology is backwards. From what you are
saying, a lot of it sounds like utilitarianism; just with different definitions
of terms.
> 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.
Ok, let's jump into the "right to ownership issue". There are generally two
accepted categories of morality - Justice and Charity (Levinas says that this
is the primary difference between Judaism and Christianity)
Justice? That's when you have a 'right' to something.
Charity? That's more of the 'out of the "goodness" of your heart' kind of
thing.
I think I worded the question badly. I agree, actually, that according to
Justice, neither the homicidal maniac nor mother theresa (who's dead anyway,
but hey) has a RIGHT to it. However, maybe this is a better way to put it: Who
would you feel better about having it? I'd rather actually steer away from this
example, since a homocidal mainiac is really a bad choice of person. Just
imagine a jerk and a nice guy. I think that most people would feel morally
better about having the nice guy get the bread. That's the issue at stake.
According to Utilitarianism, you would try and calculate the happiness factor
of everyone in the world after either person had gotten the bread, and judge
according to that factor. The point that I wanted to make, is that ignoring
all consequences, and just seeing it for the moment it's in, we STILL have a
moral feeling that tends to want the nice guy to have it. According to
utilitarianism, we shouldn't have that feeling, but we still have it. You can't
fight the voice in the back of your head that chooses nice people over mean
people. And that's where I wanted to go. Assuming that the overall happiness
and resultant quality of life for everyone in the world is the same either way
the bread is given, whom would you choose? Granted, this is a factor insofar as
YOUR happiness is concerned, and is therefore relevant to the decision, but my
point is to acknowledge the fact that your personal emotion factors into the
end decision.
As for the holocaust example, the guy felt as though he violated charity. And
that's why he felt guilty. The feeling of guilt may not in and of itself be a
moral violation, but its roots are linked to a feeling of violation of morals.
Whether the violated moral rule fell into the category of justice or charity is
a different matter, but basically, I'm drawing an example of a violation of
charity. Again, I just want to acknowledge the existence of a respect for
charity that I originally thought was lacking my interpretation of
'life-affirming'.
> 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.
Yeah, as I said, the terms are all reversed. If you're not sure what he means
exactly by the quote, go read Mill. It's actually a very good read, even if it
does have some logical problems.
> 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).
I tend to agree with you and utilitarianism here. I think a lot of people just
do what makes them happy, which can stem from any number of places, including
twisted childhoods, etc. What makes them happy may be denying themselves
happiness (masochists) or any number of odd things. The problem is that I can't
prove it, or provide a universal method of judging happiness. I can just use my
own judgement to say that I think these people are doing it to make themselves
happy. Figuring out what is and is not life-affirming is the difficulty.
> 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.
Yeah, again, your other definition clears this up. "Stealing... [is] bad,
regardless of of consequences." That's what I was looking for.
> 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.
I'm not disputing that there are no sure things, I'm just putting forth a moral
situation submitted for judgement. Entirely hypothetical. Again, I was pressing
towards the root of the problem: Is it wrong to steal, and why? The underlying
emotion is again, even disregarding the consequences, that "stealing is wrong".
This is what I was looking for in the 'life-affirming' definition.
[editing out affair stuff-- Nothing new to add here]
> Whats good for the wolf isn't good for the rabbit, but what is good for
> one man should be good for another.
That's tough to say. The problem starts to occur when we get to issues like
abortion. What some people consider to be morally good isn't what others
consider morally good. Some people think John Wilson should be banned from
Lugnet, some think he should be restricted, some think he should just be
further warned, etc. Is there actually one _right_ solution? I don't think so.
Basically that's the problem. For years, religions have tried to define a
'universal' moral code. "sex before marriage is wrong" "abortion is wrong" etc.
The problem is that no matter what these 'universal' lists turn out like,
SOMEONE SOMEWHERE will always find a problem with it, whereas someone else will
think it's the best rule there. I don't believe that there is a real universal
code. If there is, I think it runs something like:
"in 1056 A.D. January 12th, 3:03pm, Bob was wrong in robbing the carriage."
In this manner, every event may be possible to judged absoloutly afterwards,
but until all the consequences and circumstances are known, you can't make some
judgement like "it is wrong to steal". Because then someone can make an
exception to the rule, like stealing from someone who is wealthy to feed those
who are needy (here what's good for the rich man isn't good for the poor one).
Eventually, it all boils down to the specific circumstance. Having an ultimate
book of ethics would have to be infinitely long to account for every possible
solution.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
For the most part, yes. Those who don't think about these things either don't
enter a debate, but when they do, they make their point, maybe one or two
rebuttals, then leave abruptly, once they reach a point they can't argue. (see
Hume's _Dialogues_Concerning_Natural_Religion... Demea is a perfect example)
[snip out some nietzsche]
> 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.
I personally don't want to feel guilt, but I think it's necessary. If it
weren't for guilt, the world would be much worse off... it helps to prevent
people from doing bad things, and serves as a constant reminder of one's
morality. Nietzsche's point was basically that: animals don't seem to care
whether or not they kill something else (even one of their own) and we don't
judge them morally, so why should morals apply to people? In order to be more
natural and healthy, we, as humans, should remove morality because it causes
things like guilt, and makes it more difficult to live. Of course Nietzsche
himself even went against his own theories. He didn't believe in them himself.
> 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. • [snip out more of what I orignally said]
> 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.
Actually, I'm referring more to the myth than the man. I don't and won't say
whether or not the two are the same, or even similar. I have no basis for
judgement, and I don't know much about biblical history. The feeling of respect
that I have is for what his teachings were. "love thy neighbor as thy brother",
etc. I admire the myth of a man who would give up so much of himself to provide
a message of peace to everyone. The fact that he was killed doesn't really
inspire me to feel respect. The point I was trying to make was that we as
humans (again) respect charity; and Jesus is the typical example of the apitome
of charity.
> Up there I wanted to read [Nietzsche], now I think he is a wacko. No
> wonder I don't read this kind of stuff.
Nietzsche is very interesting. He bounds all over the place. Some of his points
are very valid, and make a lot of sense. Some of them are just plain looney
(although still logically respectible... just not morally). For a philosopher,
his books are somewhat easier to read because he has lots of energy, and
direction. I get the impression that he wrote things as he thought them, as
opposed to other philosophers who would think of things, come up with an
outline, then write, revise, rewrite, etc. Anyway, he is certainly interesting,
if nothing else.
> > And there the debate will forever continue.
>
> Not forever, only as long as humanity survives, or til it finds the
> answer. Which it can!
Details, details :)
> 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).
(I'm fascinated by Egyptian culture (and particularly architecture!) That might
explain why I own 4 Pharoah's Forbidden Ruins sets :) I WANT MORE
HEIROGLYPHICS!)
> 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.
Well, I can't argue that we haven't progressed philosophically. I think we
have. But that it can achieve an ultimate end? I think I'd stick to what Chaos
theory suggests... we'll keep advancing, but won't ever achieve perfection.
There will always be problems, and the problems we have today seem trivial to
those 1000's of years ago ("I'm 10 minutes late to my meeting! OH NO!" "The air
conditioner is too loud! Heaven forfend!") and the problems of today will seem
immense in the future. Will we advance? Sure. Will we ever achieve harmony?
Maybe by our existing standards we will, but I don't think they'll ever achieve
an end.
> 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).
My personal belief is that people ARE God. I'll make reference to Chaos theory.
Fractal designs have deep seated patterns. You look at the typical view of the
Mandelbrot set, and you see a bug-like pattern. Look a few million
magnification levels deeper, and you see it again. Not exact-- but similar.
Look further, you see it again, etc. The universe is built that way. Quarks
spinning around in orbits, up to electrons spinning around a ball of neutrons,
up to a moon spinning around a planet, up to a planet spinning around the sun,
up to a star spinning around the center of a galaxy up to something we have yet
to discover spinning around something else we have yet to discover. Life is the
same way. The mitochondria (NO clue how to spell it) and the nucleus of the
cell-- two separate organisms living together symbiotically. Cells of different
types living together to create an organism. Ants living in a colony which in
itself can be construed as alive. The form of life differs, and increases in
complexity, but its the same pattern. All humans living together form an
organism we can't even comprehend, call it what you will: "God". God guiding us
turns into society guiding us-- OTHER people in addition to OURSELVES. You can
expand that ever upward, having different hierarchies of gods... which now has
some reflections in Hinduism ('God is one, God is few, God is many')
Just my personal thought on the matter.
> 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 can't say I despise ALL religions-- I just despise religions that won't bend.
Christianity is deeply seated there. Christianity, and particularly Judiasm has
a great respect for tradition. "My father before me thought this way, so I'm
going to do the same." The problem is that the world changes. Every once in a
while when the mentality changes enough, a reform happens, giving birth to a
new religion, which embraces whatever change has occurred. Judiasm gave birth
to Catholisism, which gave birth to Islam, and also to Protestantism. And
Protestantism gave birth two somewhere beyond quintuplets with all the quakers,
shakers, amish, lutherins, etc that broke off. The problem is that despite all
of this, the old religions are still there, and still refuse to change. What is
more, they all try and prevent the birth of a new religion. This works
marvelously with the "societies are living beings in and of themselves" idea;
it is unnatural to go against the life ethic, which is to spread and multiply;
to become diverse (this falls into evolution-- survival of the fittest). Thus a
lot of these religions are quite wrong in my opinion. (I happen to like
Buddhism, though)
> > > > (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?
Hmm... I doubt it. I came across a page saying "Nietzsche's works online", but
it turned out not to be what one would think. Of course I didn't try overly
hard or anything. I think you'd enjoy _Utilitarianism_, though. Despite some
minor flaws in it the underlying logic is very similar to what it seems like
you're saying.
Can you tell I have too much free time at work?
Dave
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
