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 13:40:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1612 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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.
My original point was to figure out your stance on morality. Your initial posts
seemed rather ignorant of charity, and focused on justice solely. More
specifically, on consequences of actions. Anyway, yeah, the point modified
itself.
> 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.
Here, fine; we disagree. I'd say that charity fits into morality, you don't. No
problem. Just a difference of opinion so far.
> 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.
Well, yes; but that was more of a sidetrack from the original idea about
goodness based on consequence. If you were a 'consequentialist' you'd probably
want to be immoral and rich, well liked, etc., rather than be moral, poor, and
hated. At any rate, I think the area has been covered. I don't really think
you're a straight 'consequentialist'. Mute point.
> 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.
I heartily agree. Again, stale point.
> 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?
AHA! You're acknowledging rights. That's the point I was trying to get you to,
again, because earlier you were saying that it was wrong to steal because
someone gets hurt; now you're saying it's inherently wrong because it violates
one's right of property. I had suspected that you MEANT this answer before, but
just weren't saying it. So I've been trying to figure out whether you recognize
rights or not. Hence all the examples. You recognize rights. Cool. Now we just
need to define their origin.
> 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.
No problem. Again, we just disagree.
> 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).
Again, AHA! "Necessary for the common 'good'"!
> 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.
Remember this quote!
> 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.
> [snip snip]
> 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).
> [snip snip]
> 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.
I think the faith debate is going on elsewhere in this thread... I won't repeat
that stuff here... at least not unless it becomes necessary...
> 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.
(One more time for emphasis) AHA! "desire"!
> 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,
(And now the mother of them all:) aaaHAA! THERE'S the key! THAT's what I'm
getting at! Did you write this before reading what I wrote later in my message?
I think I covered that, just with different words. The emotional base may be
something we all take for granted, but it's still there! The only thing we have
to argue about (if you indeed acknowledge this universal desire) is its effect
on the resulting morality. I think the minute differences lead us to a varied
but correct moral code, whereas you think they drive us further from the one
truth. Perhaps I will expound later on why I think this, but I'm not really
inclined to now. That starts to blend philosophy and psychology... Not to
bring another author into it, but M.M. Ponty (Maurice Merlou Ponty I think?)
said a lot about it (see _The_Primacy_of_Perception_). I agree with him on what
he said on this.
> 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.
Is this off of the same basis that we all "want" to live in a just society? Or
is this a different thing altogether? If so, I don't see a logical base other
than an arbitrary one.
> 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.
No real comment yet.
> 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...
Yes, we do say similar things. Again, I say that the differences in that
fundamental emotional base lead us to individual, but still correct moralities,
you say they lead us further from the "truth". There's little more to say.
> > Ok, emotion. (It's the only choice left, right? :) ) Emotion is desire.
>
> No.
"No it's not the only choice", or "no emotion isn't desire"?
I'd go with budhism here... emotion is stemmed from desire. Again, "STEMMED
from"! The base may be only in desire for an instant, but it's still there!
> 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.
Well, in spirit, yes, the size of an encyclopedia. Really, infinite. The
problem with a static set of 'ultimate' morals which are written down is that
they are left to interpretation; and humans have a wonderful capacity for
interpretation... just visit law school to find out.
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
|
|
|
|
