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 15:36:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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.
No prob. The point deviated slowly, I think, but basically it's just migrated.
The point was morality underlying consequences, but that's moved elsewhere in
the message.
> 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.
Well, the actual question is more about who you would rather be... moral or
immoral? Would you rather be immoral and have everyone think you were moral, or
moral and have everyone think you were immoral? I just added the rest of it
because I think that was part of the original question. One of the described
men was wealthy, well respected, etc, but he was basically Hitler (just an
analogy!) while the other guy was really poor, hated, etc., but was really
worthy of being cannonized as a saint (just saying he was really nice, no
religious implications intended).
To further sidetrack, this question was actually raised to define morality. The
philosopher (whoever said it, I forget) was trying to show that morality isn't
defined by the moral opinions around you, it's based on some 'ultimate'
standard. Anyway, just a sidetrack. As for the 'ultimate' standard thing,
again, see the point which will migrate south in the message
> [snip snip snip]
> 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.
Well, again, the point I'm making is morality underlying consequence. Take the
stealing office supplies/sought after lego piece example. Nobody's hurt in the
example, but you acknowledge that the action is still wrong. Why? You can argue
that in some way SOMEWHERE along the line SOMEONE will get hurt, even in the
slightest, but then you're arguing against your own point. I could just argue
back that every action SOMEWHERE along the line will HELP someone.
I don't really want to get into this one, cause it's easily disputed, but
another thing to look at IS balance. You have 1,000 tons of food, you have to
divide it among 50,000 starving people in either one starving country or
another. Is there a moral right? Let's say you can help more people in one
country, so you choose that one. Are you morally justified to choose that
country over the other? I think so. You helped more people than if you chose
the other country. It hurts many people, but does it make the moral code fail?
I hope not. That's mostly me just being persnickity with your wording though. I
think you handle it a lot like Utilitarianism. You weigh justice a lot higher
than charity. Justice is that which says "I have a right to X, and you are
morally wrong to deprive me of X, even if it makes more people happy".
> 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.
We'll get to that... Basically, I'm picking at rights. I think rights are
stemmed from emotions... I'm still not really sure what you think about rights.
Again, morality under consequences.
> Killing is wrong because it violates another person's right to live.
> Pretty simple.
Well, not SO simple (although very simple comparitively). You have to make a
basic assumption. "It is good to live". That's what I claim stems from emotion.
Why is it wrong? Because it violates 'good'. Why is 'good' good? Because I
*feel* that it's good. Anyway, more to come.
> 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.
>
> 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.
Ok. Point forthcoming. Morality based on emotion. Here we go:
Where does morality exist? It's metaphysical. Hence, science has no say in
morality, science only deals with the physical world. What exists in
metaphysics that might help us? Let's see, there's faith, logic, emotion,
mathematics. That's what I can think of, maybe there's more. I think we can
rule out mathematics, it's of no moral help. How about faith? I'll pass on
this. I think we'd both agree that faith is no means for a basis of morality.
No real need to discuss why it doesn't apply, but we can discuss it if wanted.
We are left with logic and emotion.
Let's look at logic. Let's imagine a statement derived logically: "X is good."
Logic requires 2 things in order to follow the rules of logic. It has to have a
definition for X and a definition for good. The potential 3rd definition
(association) isn't necessary. Associating the two points is defined by the
rules of logic itself. Association is natural to logic. The definition of X
won't really concern us, that can vary. But it needs a definition of good
before it can pass this conclusion. Where does good get defined in logic? You
can put forth the definition of "good is that which is life-affirming", but
that statement wasn't derived logically. That's a base on which to build. It's
a definition, given without proof. Hence, I hold that this definition is based
on something further. Otherwise, it'd just be arbitrary. I could say "what is
good is that which helps me (David Eaton) get rich." And for all intents and
puposes, that statement has as much logical basis as the former statement.
However, we'd all agree that this is no realistic definition of good. If you
can show me a logical basis for the definition, go for it. I maintain, though,
that this definition is based in emotion. It's an emotion that we can all agree
to as humans, but it is an emotional base, nonetheless.
Ok, emotion. (It's the only choice left, right? :) ) Emotion is desire. That's
the realm of morality. Desire to see justice done, desire to see inujustice
punished, desire for people to be happy, etc. Logic couldn't care less whether
or not we all die or all suffer horrible disfigurations, etc. Emotions lead us
to care, as humans. It is fundamental emotion that says "I want to live" and "I
want to be happy" (being happy presupposes living, so I guess I could only put
forth the second one only, but whatever). It is logic which pushes that a step
further and allows us to conclude that other beings exist, and also posess
emotions. To conlcude other people's existence is a logical step (not DEFINITE,
mind you, for all those existentialists out there, but it is a logical step).
This leads us to conclude that other people want to live and want to be happy.
Here is where the crucial step towards morality lies. We, as humans, allow (to
a degree) a want for other people to achieve their desires (to live, be happy,
whatever). We might have some differing opinions about how much we want them to
be happy, etc., especailly when it interferes with our own happiness, but the
fundamental step is that we have a desire for others to be happy as well as
ourselves. Hence, we can make the definition which logic can use. "Good is
defined to be X." So HERE is where life-affirming needs to be defined. In the
realm of emotions. There's more spiel here on it being defined to be ultimate
in its definition, but that'll wait until later.
> 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.
I tend to agree. If there was an ultimate moral code, it would have to be
accepted by everyone. Maybe there would be disputes about some things, but when
it got down to the REAL truth, everyone would HAVE to accept that ultimate
code.
> ...
> 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,
> ...
Again, I think I agree. Fundamental morality is universal "What is good is that
which makes me happy". The next step "What is good is that which makes people
happy (keeps them living, etc.)" is given to us through experience, logic, and
again, some fundamental emotion of desiring for others that which we want
ourselves. The thing I don't agree with is the 'ultimate' ethic, which is
capable of judging every concievable situation (which I think is defined in our
requirements for a moral code). As experience differs from person to person,
as well as logical capacity, not to mention possibly genetic differences, the
fundamental vision of morality becomes more specific; and because we are all
different, we acquire slightly different views on what is moral. We do, I
think, all come from the same moral base, however.
Hence, I don't disagree that there is NO universal code, but the code would
have to be infinite. If you make the claim that "killing is wrong" you can say
"well, I killed to prevent further killing". The rule becomes "killing is wrong
unless it is to prevent further killing." or perhaps you prevented violation of
some other ethic. "I stole in order to prevent killing", etc. Which moral law
takes precedence? The specifics of each action to be judged force a more and
more refined definition of a moral code, until you reach the end of "Killing is
wrong, unless: 1. You are walking down the street and see someone you don't
know who is ... 2. ... 3. ... " etc. My point is that there are always
consequences that seem to violate the code as it is put forth, but need to be
accounted for in the code.
> 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.
Religion is a very useful thing for some people. I'd say it satisfies them. It
doesn't satisfy me, really. Certainly not as put forth.
> 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.
I haven't found one philosopher in particular that I've REALLY liked, most of
them I tend to agree with on some points, and not on others.... or there are
holes left to be filled in. At any rate, still worthy of being read.
> 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...
Yep. As I recall, Levinas was pretty tough (translated from French) when he
tries to describe the 'other' (there are 2 or 3 versions of 'other' in the
text, so it gets really tough. It's a very non-descriptive term, you have to
read it a couple times before you can get a feel for what's what.
[snip jesus stuff, not much to say that hasn't been said already, migrate
north]
Laterz..
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
