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 23:47:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1607 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote in message ...
> 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.
Actually, the original posts were about what is a life affirming set of
morals (the one Larry accepted when it was presented to him). It took me
awhile to explain it to you, and if you can keep everything together that I
have said, or if I can shorten it, you might get it. Anyway, below, in this
post you show surprise that I include rights. When our argument first began
and you made a bunch of examples, my first retort was that each was an
example of the infringement on anothers rights. That was the reason each
action was not life arffirming - but you wanted, or I thought you wanted, a
big definition of life affirming as well as a bunch of other things (like
consequences). Maybe I am just not a good debater or writer, but we came up
with a gaggle of sub-debates from there, which were for the most part
interesting. If I omited rights somewhere long the way, I can only say I
did so because I take them as a given. Our universal desire is to live in a
good society. Recognizing others rights is a logical imperative, without
rights, we can only have chaos.
> > 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.
How does it? My opinion is that making charity a moral issue weakens the
moral code. You say you disagree, but how can it improve the moral code by
adding charity. How can you add charity? If a moral code is only a matter
of personal opinion, then it serves no purpose. In that case, I am forced
to agree that there is no need for morals at all, as Nietzsche thought.
> > 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.
You are right, I am not a consequentialist. I was trying to give reasons
why the previous examples were not life affirming. It can be shown that
there are consequences for all of those examples, and thus none of the
actions are life affirming. That was a simple test to see if an action was
moral or not, but you tried to say it was not so simple.
> > 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.
Not saying it because it is so obvious. Sorry if it was not obvious to
you.
> > 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.
Really? You disagree wit me? No way!
> > 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'"!
I knew that would get twisted.
> > 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!
Why? You never came back to it.
> > 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"!
Yeah, whats your point?
> > 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?
Yeah, I did, I read down, and came back up and said we are saying about
the same thing. We aren't though. You still contend that morals are
(because of this single universal desire?!) relative and can vary and still
be correct. I say thats hogwash - that morals are useless if they have
variance. According to you, it is acceptable to choose any morals you like
and live by them and they will be correct - that could make for a very short
life.
> 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.
You probably better expound; I hope you won't stop already.
> > 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.
This from what I wrote - we want to live in a good society. Justice is a
requirement of that. Without it, the society would not be good at all. Its
not because we want justice, its because we want good. Those who don't want
good, don't need to be a part of the society whose goal is to be good. I
wonder if anyone wants to live in a good society?
> > 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.
When?
> > 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.
I still disagree. Simply because someone has formed a moral code that he
can live by does not mean that it is the correct or best code for him to be
living by.
> > > 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"?
Not the only choice, I showed you how the other choice (logic) worked.
> 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!
So what? We have lots of desires, we each have different desires. One we
all share is to live happily. Since we all share that same desire, we must
work together so that we can fulfill it. Those who don't share it are
flawed, and don't have to participate. Those who do need to devise a way to
make it workable. So, we created morals. Morals are evolving, and to live
in an ideal society they must fully evolve. Ideally, once the perfect moral
code is found, one that will work for everybody, we all will live by that
same code. If we live by various morals, then things get messy. I think
the moral code Larry uses is beautiful, and the closest thing to perfect
ever devised. He has more experience at conveying it than I, but its
simple, not infinite. If we all lived by it, we would have a lot less to
gripe about and almost all of us would be a lot happier.
If we get emotions from our desire or somewhere else, it doesn't really
matter. We can't allow our emotions to hinder our judgment, or impede on
our morals, which make it possible for use to cohabitate in this univserse.
> > 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.
Well, you are talking about laws or rules - a moral code can be as simple
as the golden rule. You want a book that says what is morally correct in
any hypothetical situation, which would be a waste of paper. Anybody whose
morals aren't flawed can deduce what is right in any situation. I trust my
own judgment. I would like to trust the judgement of others, but how can I
when they believe in things that they can not prove exist, or try to tell me
it is OK for them to violate my rights (often the two go hand in hand). I
don't take that first reaosn as an automatic reason to distrust someone but
I certaily am wary if they advocate the second. However, I do trust the
judgment of those who stand where I stand.
> Laterz,
> 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
|
|
|
|
