Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:07:44 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
JOHNNEAL@USWESTspamless.NET
|
Viewed:
|
1445 times
|
| |
|
|
<FHoBwu.8wJ@lugnet.com> <FHp4oz.Gny@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
I appreciate everything you've said, David, but I have a question. If there is no
"ultimate" ethic, doesn't it quickly become relativism? What if doing something
bad makes me happy? Does that make it good? We are all morally flawed [1] to
some extent or another, so don't we need an ethic that is beyond how we feel?
> 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.
The Hebrews began with a moral code, the 10 Commandments. They quickly learned,
as you suggested, that all kinds of corollaries were needed to clarify the law
(Torah). You get something like the book of Leviticus. After many years you end
up with the Mishnah and Midrash, but I digress.
My point is this. God gave these codes as *guidelines* for moral conduct. What
happened was that people started paying more attention to fulfilling the law
rather than how they were treating each other. Jesus' message hits this idea
hard. Hypocrites! He cries out to the religious leaders of the day. They *were*
following the law, but it wasn't near good enough. God knows our hearts, our
innermost desires. *There* is where the "ultimate" ethic lies. We may be able to
hide the truth and our true intentions to each other, but we cannot fool God.
-John
>
>
>
>
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
