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 15:16:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> <did you snip anything? This is still huge! Took me almost a week to
> reply...>
Yeah, I snipped a bunch from of things from here, the problem seems that the
message's length grows exponentially as more and more points arise that we want
to respond to... then everything gets included for reference... etc. There was
a bunch of stuff I didn't need to reply to, or would be repeating myself to
reply to, but yeah, the message is still really huge.
> 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.
Well, there's a difference of beliefs... Some people find it a moral issue,
some don't. According to justice, I don't think there's a moral justification
to choose way or the other. According to charity, I think a preference based
on morality can be argued for. As for 'nice guys finish last' -- is finishing
last all that matters? Here's the issue again. I'd me more content to be nice,
and so would some other people I know. We can say things like "I don't wanna be
non-charitable because of the guilt I'd feel", but that only works in the
specific case, again. Would you rather be a rich asshole or a respected pauper?
The paupers think that the rich guys feel guilty, but they don't have to (some
might, but I doubt they all feel the horrible guilt that the poor always
describe) Here's a question... I forget it's origin... some philosopher or
another... Would you rather be a rich, famous, jerk that everyone THOUGHT was a
great guy (nice, just, trustworthy, charitable, etc.) but really wasn't, or a
sickly, poor, nice guy that everyone THOUGHT was a jerk?
> You understood why [stealing is wrong out of principle]?
> ...
> 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.
Ok, maybe this might work: Let's suppose that by stealing something from
someone, you could make the world better. Everyone (except this one guy)
benefits from your action. And to add to it, this guy is barely even hurt. The
consequences of the theft are actually BENEFICIAL for life in general, but
you're still stealing. You're still violating someone's right of property. You
had no 'right' to steal it in the first place. As for the entirety of the
action, one might judge it to be overall a good or bad (life affirming/non-life
affirming) action, but I'd like to know whether the decision is a matter of
weight or not. Are you judging the act based on the fact that the action is
purely good, or that the good outweighs the bad? If you're arguing for the
prior of these two, I can't really argue. I can just disagree.
BUT.. if you argue that the good of the consequences outweighs the evil of the
stealing, then you're acknowledging the existence of a bad which precedes the
consequences: "Stealing is wrong out of principle." And HERE is where emotion
stems from, whether or not you follow the Justice or Charity aspect of
morality. If you have a 'right' to property, or even a 'right' to life, or any
'right's at all, then what are these rights based on, other than emotion? Like
with the cheating on your spouse issue before. I think you said something like
'the man and the woman had this "thing" and he/she violated it'. Why is that
wrong? Why does it go against life? Again, I'm not looking for consequences,
because you can make up hypothetical situations that have all varieties of
consequences: good, bad, and nil. If you judge an action solely on
consequences, then you're arguing the former answer "the action is good because
the consequences are good", rather than "the action is good because the good of
the consequences outweighs the bad of the actions". (The actual judgement
statement would be "the action is _A_ because the _A_ of the action and the _A_
of the consequences outweighs the _B_ of the action and the _B_ of the
consequences"... I don't want to sound like I'm ignoring actions or
consequences in either case) Consequences are usually pretty easy to judge.
What I'm looking for is why is the action good or bad out of principle? Why is
killing wrong? Here's a snip from later:
> 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.
Why is abortion or murder wrong? You can say that it goes against the life of
the child, but again, that's really more of a consequence. I could say that by
aborting the baby, its other siblings live because there's enough food for
them, or that the mother will live because she would have died having the
child. Families are out there that have abortions because they know they can't
support the children. You can say 'send them to be adopted', but then let's say
EVERYONE agrees to the new moral, and sends their unwanted children to be
adopted, but now the orphanages are overrun, and the kids die anyway. The point
is that the consequences are alterable to favor or disfavor actual life. But is
murder still wrong? Do you have a *right* to be alive, that I am wrong to
deprive you of? What makes this right? Why does it exist? I present that these
"right"s are a product of emotion. Humans in general *feel* that these rights
should exist; and that is why they are there. There aren't logical reasons
behind rights, just emotional ones.
The other approach is the obvious one. Why is something that is life affirming
"good"? So what if people live? So what if I live? Why is it good? The answer
is the base for the moral code: "good is defined to be that which promotes and
enhances life, evil is that which inhibits or lessens the quality of life." But
how can you say this? You can say it because that's how you *feel*. You *feel*
a certain way when you judge actions to be good or bad, and the moral
definition is based on how you feel. Mathematics, Science, and logic don't
dictate 'good' and 'bad', but emotions do.
> 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 can't really argue. I can just disagree. My only point here might be a
question... how will we know when we achieve the ultimate code? If the code is
unpopular, will it still be right? I think that stems from my a priori belief
that an ultimate code would satisfy everyone, but again, that's just my belief,
we can't debate that much, just agree to disagree. Let's suppose that the
Christian moral code IS the universal code... how would we know? It's
unpopular, and a lot of people seem to think it's right... how do we judge the
ethical code? As said before, I think that morality stems from emotion, and
since peoples emotions are all different, a universal code is impossible. I
think that there are certainly agreed general morals: I don't know any religion
that teaches that stealing is not evil, etc. But there are religions that say
'stealing is justified sometimes', and likewise, people that feel that stealing
is justified sometimes, and there are those that feel stealing is never
justified. Even further, a particular case often produces several different
emotional reactions. If we judge the ultimate ethic by emotions, we can't have
an ultimate one until it is accepted by EVERYONE. And suppose that we are
barred from knowing what the 'ultimate ethic' is... what makes that ethic
correct? How WOULD we know it if it were suddenly happened upon?
> 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.
According to my own theory, unfortunately, I have to concede. I think that what
is morally acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for another. (Why
unfortunately? Because it's hard for most other people to agree with. Most
people DO feel that what's good for the goose is good for the gander...
everyone is equal. It gets me into arguments galore.) The problem with this is
finding what is really right and not right. I can envision someone who honestly
thinks that killing is good-- not just that killing isn't bad, but that it is
actually good... and for this person, his actions are justifiable. I certainly
don't want him in my society, but he's not evil-- He means no wrong (even
though that does sound a little absurd). The counter for this particular
example is that I've neither met nor heard of someone who thinks that this is
right. Even twisted insane people know somewhere that what they're doing is
wrong. They might not know it consciously, but it's in there, deep down
somewhere. But even if this type of person DOES exist, I still hold to my
belief. In general, though, I don't think that the moral code differs greatly
from person to person. While it is concievable in principle, in actuality, the
moral codes differ only within a constrained boundary from one to another.
> 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?
Actually, I've always liked philosophy (religion is interesting, but not as
much so... it's so much harder to _logically_ debate religion) so I took a
bunch of philosophy courses in College. I can't say I minored in it or
anything, but I've read a whole bunch of books on it. Mind you, philosophy is
tough reading... Someone haphazardly reading this post might find it
very difficult to read and understand-- it's not pleasure reading. However, for
the truly interested, there are a lot of good ideas out there to be read.
Nietzche is really one of the only ones you can read once and get a feel for
what he's saying. Other philosophers pack in information so tight that you have
to read the same paragraph several times to figure out what's going on. Couple
that to the fact that many philosophers are translated, and you've got
ugliness.
> 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.
Yeah, Nietzsche is interesting, but nobody believes it whole-heartedly (at
least those that have read and understand all of what he's saying). You can
easily agree with some of his points, but it's not easy to ignore morality
altogether.
> 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 think I agree in some cases. Really I base the respect I have for charity on
the attitude one presents it with. If you go around and say "I'm so great
because I give to charity", then you suck. If you do it without so much as a
second thought, just thought to bettering the lives of those around you, I
respect that. And that's what I respect about the myth of Jesus (just in case
anyone else is reading this, I'm not suggesting Jesus was just a myth, see
prior posts)... I respect that he taught this ethic. It's safe to say that I
respect my image of Jesus... I might not repsect your image, but I don't know
it, so I can't say. That's what's great about discussing things like this.. you
can learn other interpretations that you always take for granted.
> I haven't played with those yet [the Adventures Egyptian theme]. 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.
Yeah, I have to agree... A lot of other themes I don't like as much as the
Egyptian Adventures stuff... and now that some of 'em are getting discounted,
I'm just plain happy.
Anyway, now that I've spent a good hour and a half writing, I think I should
get back to work.
Dave Eaton
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
