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 07:38:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1667 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> 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.
OK, your original point was to show that morally we could decide which
person deserved the bread, and I pointed out that it is very hard, with that
example to determine who is morally superior, and that in any hypothetical
or real situation, it will be impossible to determine one person who is
morally superior, unless there is an ultimate uniform code of morals to
judge by. So, it deviated a little, but I still made my point which I tried
to make over the course of at least three posts. You tried to bring the
different aspects (charity and justice) of morality into it, but I say
charity doesn't have anything to do with it, and neither does justice unless
you have one true moral to judge by. IMO, that true moral won't contain
charity, charity is something of itself, that comes later, in people's
hearts, but not in a moral code used for judging people's actions. I still
say the moral code will be emotionless, and thus can't contain charity,
which does stem from emotion.
> > This new question, whether 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 canonized as a saint (just saying he was really nice, no
> religious implications intended).
Personally, I'd rather be a moral person who is comfortable, regardless of
how people view me. Is that what you wanted to hear? Is that impossible?
No. I don't know exactly what you were trying to find there.
> 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
Oh, OK. I agree with that part. Public opinion is not a good way to
judge morality (or many other things). That could change some day, if the
public ever becomes more than a mindless mob, which would be good.
> > [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.
You asked why is it wrong to steal again. Because it is, OK. It
violates another person's right to his property. It violates his rights.
You want fries with that?
> 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 persnickety 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".
As stated above, I don't think charity is a part of morality. Thus you
can't judge charitable acts the way you are trying to - on a moral scale.
Its an emotional thing, that is up to the sole discretion of the person
doing the charitable act. He knows he can not feed every starving person in
the world, and can choose in whatever way he prefers to help whomever he
wants. It is his own property to do with as he pleases, and morally, he is
not responsible to give to one or either group. Nobody can pass judgement
on that. I guess I should have said that before.
> > 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.
OK, I said I did not acknowledge that emotions are part of morality or
rights. I believe the purpose of morals is to protect people's rights,
which both come from logic. We have rights, because we have logically (not
emotionally) determined that they are necessary (for the common good - not
for any one man, but for humanity). Further, we have determined, that for
things to work right, or the most efficiently, perfectly (to be *good*),
that every one must have the exact same rights, that no person is entitled
to special privileges or allowed to violate another person's rights. This
comes from logic, not from emotion. Whenever emotion is added, the moral
code becomes deformed because we all have varying emotions. So, no matter
how much you would like to incorporate emotion, you can not do so and still
have a moral system that is not broken.
> > Killing is wrong because it violates another person's right to live.
> > Pretty simple.
>
> Well, not SO simple (although very simple comparatively). 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 just said what good was, and yes, because it violates good. Think of
good in the most positive way. Good has a lot of meanings, but in this
argument, it is the opposite of bad (which is a short way of saying evil or
imperfect).
> > 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 unchangeable. 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.
My grandfather was a mathematician - he might have been able to construe
something along those lines, but I can't. I am sure we could hear a lot of
stuff about faith, too, but let's hope not.
> 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
> purposes, 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.
Good is definable. To me, I want to live in a perfect society.
*Everybody* wants to live in a better society (except those who profit by
others misfortune). Its a universal desire among those who are members of
society. Those who don't share that one desire can go off to their own
society, and see how great that is (that would be hell, right?) That
universal desire is the only emotion that comes into this at any point, the
rest (creating a moral code to uphold this universal desire - our right to
live in such a society) depends on logic. The moral code itself contains no
emotion - it must be formed purely logically to uphold our *good* society,
as we want it. So, perfection is what is good (has to be perfect - good
enough is what we have right now, which apparently is not good enough, since
everybody is complaining). It follows logically that the closest to
perfection we can achieve the better our society will be. Mistakes and
intentional actions which oppose perfection are thus bad, and there is a lot
of bad in the world. There is a lot of good, too, though. I am glad of
that. But, there could be a lot more, and there could be less apathy about
the bad. Or maybe I overrate people, but I think they are capable of more
good than they currently show.
Justice comes into it logically, not emotionally. There must be
punishment (not because we desire it, but because logically it is the only
way to keep out bad) and there must be recognition (else there will be no
incentive for good) - that is justice, which must remain emotionless. You
are right that logic would not care about justice, but you are wrong to say
that justice is based on emotion, it is based on necessity. It is a
necessary part of this working moral system - the moral system must be
formed logically, and must contain everything needed to fully support the
only collective aspiration. Logically, we add justice to our morality so
that it will work - it is incomplete without it. The bible is kinda whacked
out on it - some parts say justice is needed, other parts say to ignore it
and let god do it. Letting god do it does not work, we must not depend on
god (fictitious or not) to fulfill our mutual ultimate desire.
So, we said similar things, and you already granted a lot to logic, but I
say that morals are based on logic and you say emotion. Our universal
desire (is there any other universal desire?) to live in a good society is
the (emotion based) reason we have morals. I believe eventually the people
who feel this emotion strongly enough will see the need for an unbiased
moral code, and will employ it mercilessly, to the chagrin of those who
refuse to recognize it. In other words, they will live by a human life
affirming set of morals, or else...
> Ok, emotion. (It's the only choice left, right? :) ) Emotion is desire.
No.
That's
> the realm of morality. Desire to see justice done, desire to see injustice
> 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 posses
> emotions. To conclude other people's existence 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., especially 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.
OK.
> > 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.
Good.
> > ...
> > 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 conceivable 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.
You seem to think the ultimate ethic will need to be the size of an
encyclopedia. I don't know about that. Judges tend to throw out the
extraneous crap and judge the crime only. Every detail of a person's life
is not needed to make a judgment about a mistake he made. At any rate, I
trust my judgment, and do my best to live morally.
> 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.
I don't know. That can probably be put into fewer than infinite words -
like it is wrong to use force on another man, unless he has initiated the
use of force against you.
> DaveE
--
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
|
|
|
|
