Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 05:08:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1639 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> > 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?
OK, you've deviated from whatever we were discussing, but its still
interesting to a degree. I agree, that according to a moral system based on
justice, that neither guy would have any more moral right to the
hypothetical bread than the other. From the standpoint of charity, I don't
see a difference either. With charity, I like to see my charity going to
people are worthy of it. Whether one is a jerk or a nice guy doesn't have
much to do with it - I mean a lot of leaches are nice guys, which is why it
is so easy for them to leach off other people. The jerk might be a jerk
because all of his nice guy buddies are always hitting him up for money, and
so he doesn't think too highly of other people, doesn't respect them and
doesn't treat them nicely. So, I still can not say one guy deserves the
hypothetical bread we were arguing about.
This new question, wheteher I would prefer to be rich and liked or poor
and hated, I can only say I would prefer to be rich, regardless of what
others think. What others think of me is not important. Whether I am rich
or poor is important. I don't need to be filthy rich, but I am unhappy
without a certain amount.
> 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.
No, its just like my thought on the justice system. It is wrong to lock
someone away who is not guilty. It is better to let any criminal go free
opposed to letting one innocent man be convicted. That is why "beyond a
reasonable doubt" is so crucial. Its the same with stealing for the benefit
of the majority. If it hurts even one person, then its not right. If our
justice system fails one person, then it is broken. If the correct moral
code fails one person, then it is wrong. The life-affirming moral code
doesn't fail anyone. You might argue that every action has to in some way
hurt another person, but that is false.
> 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.
At the beginning of this immense paragraph, you said I acknowledged
something - in my paragraph that preceded it, I said I did not acknowledge
it. So that gets me out of all that.
> 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:
Killing is wrong because it violates another person's right to live.
Pretty simple.
> > 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.
I don't think "rights" come from emotions. I think they come from logic.
Emotions tell us it is OK to kill someone who has in some way pissed us off.
Our logic tells us that its wrong, that there will be hell to pay, and keeps
us from doing it. Our emotions can be said to be our instincts, which is
the same thing we have in common with animals. Our logic is what
differentiates us from animals. Animals do not have or recognize rights.
People do because we have logic. Unless we allow the people who are more
animal than human (those who survive by use of force) we will have rights.
If we let our emotions control us, we won't have rights; if we use our
logic, we will. I use my brain, and therefore I believe I do have a right
to live and one other right, not to be forced to do anything against my
will. I think everyone who uses their brain has the same rights. Those who
refuse to use their minds, who choose to live by force, forfeit their
rights, as they have forfeited that which gave them rights in the first
place.
> 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.
Again, we disagree. Only through logic can you know what is right or
what is wrong. Its not based on feelings. Everybody has different
feelings, but what is right and wrong is unchangable. I think we are
superior to animals, because we can think. We can determine what is right
and what is wrong. Animals can't. We can choose to do what is right or
what is wrong - animals don't even know the difference. Animals do have
feelings and instincts, but they do not have logic. We are only superior to
animals if we implement our minds - we are only animals without it.
> > 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
Well, its not. Its a given that it will be unpopular - so many like to
live by a false set of morals, that if they saw a true set, they would hate
it. But that doesn't matter. The truth is the truth, if it is found, it
will have to be accepted, there will be no choice, no argument. Those who
accept it will know it is right, those who don't will perish.
> 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?
Who knows?!
> > 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.
I think everyone would know, after giving it some thought, that the
ultimate moral code was the real deal if they found it. I think we all fall
into one code or another, because of how much thought we give to it and what
fits the amount of thought given. So, some people accept their parents
choice in morals, others find new morals to live by, but the majority are
all very close. People don't pay too much attention to the details, and end
up living by a flawed code. Everyone has their own little code, but I bet
we are all born with the same thing, and if there were a perfect code, it
would be pretty hard not to accept it, and even harder to devise an
imperfect one, if everyone else were following the perfect one. If, for
some reason, some guy justifies killing people, he does indeed know
somewhere in his soul that it is wrong. Since there are so many moral
variations right now, it is easier for someone to justify his murderous
actions and easier for him to hide the truth from himself. It would be a
lot harder for him to justify murder and hide the truth from himself, if
everyone else was living by it.
> 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
Since I know that religion is fiction, I find it very hard to debate it
logically, and very pointless to debate it hypothetically. I believe the
purpose of religion and the concept of god is simply so people can make good
jokes. Some people enjoy their deluded debates, but I find those funny, at
times, too.
> 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.
I don't recall any philosophy classes in college, maybe a logic class. I
haven't liked most of the little I have read about it. Since some of it is
less ridiculous than others, I must assume that if I read enough of it, I
would find a philosopher I liked, but as of now, I haven't cared for much of
it.
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.
Yeah, I believe that. With translations, how can you know if thats what
the guy was getting at at all. I mean I have made all my posts in fairly
good modern American English, but I don't know if you or anyone else reading
has understood what I am thinking. Going through translation, I bet a lot
gets lost or mixed up. Like the bible. I read a post the other day in a
joke group - Prince songs put through Systran (translator at
babelfish.altavista.com) and then back again. Its hard enough to understand
what someone is trying to convey in your native tongue much less through
someone else's (or your own) translation from a second (or archaic)
language. But I digress...
> 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.
So, Jesus had good manners?! I respect people with good manners, too. I
respect myself and have decent manners. Manners equal respect, AFAIAC. If
he had taught to be respectful, I would like it. And so if he was real and
I knew him as a man, I would respect that part of him. But, the "myth" of
Jesus has generated into a lot more than having good manners. And those who
follow him seem too zealous.
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
