Subject:
|
Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 06:24:53 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@!stopspam!uswest.net
|
Viewed:
|
3392 times
|
| |
|
|
<FHrMEp.Et3@lugnet.com> <FHssu0.zJ@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David Eaton wrote:
<snip Dave and John discussion of basis of morality, logic vs emotion>
>
> Anyway. Development of the mind, w/ respect to morality.
> The 1st real desire, by humans (and probably most/all animals) is the want to
> be happy. That's not saying much ("we want what we want") but it's fundamental.
> The infant (probably still in the womb, even) experiences both pleasureable and
> unpleasureable experiences. It realizes that it wants pleasure. However, even
> at this stage, what makes one infant happy differs from what makes another one
> happy. One is content to be left alone, one requires constant attention. This
> is probably linked to genetics, I'd guess.
What about the desire to survive? I would say that this is the #1 desire of
animals, and residually, of humans, too. I, however, don't know if desire and
instinct are interchangeable terms or not. Instinct is a wild concept to me; does
it direct the animal to merely survive, or is it broader than that? Is instinct
a perfect moral code? For animals I'd have to say yes. But we are animals,
too...
> The next step towards a higher morality that the infant makes is more or less a
> logical one. It sees itself in the mirror, or it sees its own body, sees other
> bodies, and begins to conclude that maybe these other things around it are
> other selves-- other living beings with their own consciousness. Again, with
> reflection back to Hegel, it's not an immediate jump. The developing mind
> doesn't suddenly leap to the conclusion that there are other beings with
> consciousness.
>
> The next jump towards morality is again an emotional one. I'd guess it stems
> from human/animal nature, but I can't say, really. That is a desire for other
> beings to achieve their own wants. People enjoy other beings experiencing
> happiness. You might counter with the example of power hungry people who want
> to see other people suffer, but I'd say that these people are stuck back at
> self-concern. They have a want for power. Some people want to make other people
> suffer because they want to exercise their control. It makes them happy to be
> in control. They've missed a step I haven't gotten to yet, actually, that of
> equality.
>
> This next step, equality, is the slowest of all to develop. (That's what I
> admire about the idea of Jesus-- I tend to think of him having a very hightened
> sense of equality.. more so than anyone _I've_ ever met) As a child learns that
> other people are people, just like him/her, s/he begins to realize that the
> good of another person achieving their wants is equal to s/he achieving his/her
> wants. I think that this is really where justice starts. The child realizes
> when it hurts someone else, that the other person is feeling pain; an equal
> pain to the pain it feels when it is hurt. Hence the idea of rights. Take the
> right of property. People usually like property. The child likes having its own
> room that it knows will always be constant, and that it has control over. It
> takes pleasure in having a favorite stuffed animal that the child can count on
> always being there, and on being in one piece, in the same condition it left
> the toy. By acknowledging a right to property, we essentially have a social
> agreement. "I won't take your things, but you can't take mine." This limits the
> child from taking/destroying/whatever other people's property (a slight loss);
> but prevents others from doing the same to his/her property (a bigger gain, I
> would argue).
I think the Libertarians are fixated here, and think this is their ultimate goal.
> The next step is one towards charity. When one realizes that by depriving
> him/herself of something, they give happiness to others. Of course, by
> equality, this only works when the happiness that results outweighs the loss by
> you (and by others, in some situations). Again, this is where Jesus wins big.
> Extreme sense of charity that I've never seen the likes of anywhere. A fine
> ideal, even if I don't think it's possible.
Dave, I like the way you have shown the progression of morality because it implies
to me that, as we mature, we become *more* human and less animal. I think it is a
process that takes place between the ears and fleshed out in our daily lives; a
journey to being fully human along which are many stops. Most do not reach this
step of charity which I also see reflected in Jesus' teaching. True, His ethic is
a radical one, but that leads me to believe that it is the *ultimate* one as
well. By the same token, I can see how morality can be relative to the moral
development of the person involved. But I see God calling everyone to this higher
morality as reflected in Jesus' teaching, especially in the sermon on the mount
(see Matthew 5-7).
<snip>
> Anyway, this has been fun.
It has been fun to read your (lengthy;) posts as well. Thank you for the time and
effort you have put into them. *I* have appreciated them:-)
-John Neal
>
>
> Laterz,
> DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
