Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:40:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1601 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> > [a bunch of stuff... see off-topic.debate:1822]
<did you snip anything? This is still huge! Took me almost a week to
reply...>
> 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.
OK, happiness is included, but it ain't everything. Utilitarianism, from
the little I know about it, doesn't seem too bad, but we've already shown
some of its failings.
> 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.
This hypothetical question of yours sucks. There is no moral right or
wrong answer to it. FWIW, I have heard that nice guys finish last.
> 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 don't find it that difficult. I suspect most people haven't given it
enough thought.
> Yeah, again, your other definition clears this up. "Stealing... [is] bad,
> regardless of of consequences." That's what I was looking for.
You understood why?
> 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.
It isn't based on an emotion. Its based on the fact that stealing is wro
ng because it goes against life (not an indivual's life, but human life as a
whole). It may be very insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but it
still works against instead of for.
> 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.
OK. I don't agree that sex before mariage is wrong. Because I don't
believe I need permission from the government to have sex or from a fake
god. But, I think its simple to say that abortion (murder) is wrong, and
that people should be responsible for their actions. I have heard all the
so called reasons for abortion, and still think they are only excuses.
Of course, there may be people who do not agree. But because they do not
agree does not mean they are right. I believe, with morals, there is
(somewhere) an ultimate code, that is indisputable. It doesn't matter if
that code is unpopular, it probably will be, but for any system to work for
more than an indefinite period of time, it will have to be that code that is
recognized. I think the bible has a code that fails. It does not mean all
bibles need to be burned, but should be kept for what it does teach (which
is quite a lot). I think the life affirming argument is the closest, the
best yet, maybe not perfect. I am still trying to find its faults and see
it more clearly.
With your argument of Robin Hood, there isn't much of an argument there.
What he did (steal, assault) was wrong. Just because he and his friends
were hungry does not make his actions right. OTOH, the actual story of
Robin Hood (the guy who led a revolt against an evil and corrupt system) was
very noble. The system was improved because a man stood up for what is
right (his and his comrades "rights").
You also said that the ultimate book of ethics would have to be
infinitely long. That isn't so. I bet it would be shorter than the bible.
I maintain that what is right for one man is right for all the others. When
you say thats not true, you are saying that *someone* deserves special
privileges/treatment. Given that all men have the same unalienable rights,
I don't agree with you.
> 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)
The first time I read your post, I didn't see much point in replying,
since we are in debate, and we aren't really arguing. Not too much anyway.
You've read a lot of books... why?
> 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.
Thats interesting. From what I hear, the Nazis kinda got their stuff
from Nietzsche. I don't think they (the ones who gave it thought) believed
it either.
> 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.
I respect charity to a point. Not to the point of being selfless. The
myth also says he performed miracles. What a great guy!
> (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!)
I haven't played with those yet. I might someday, but because of my dark
ages, I have years of sets from the glory days of Lego to catch up on first.
However, the Adventurers are among the most appealing of the current
offerings.
> 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.
I guess thats one way of looking at it.
> 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 don't like Buddhism - waste of time, just like the others. IMO
--
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
|
|
|
|
