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 11:45:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1601 times
|
| |
|
|
John Neal wrote in message <37DC9866.54DFFFBB@uswest.net>...
> <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...
My first response, John, is that I can't be sure that humans' desire to
survive does supercede their desire for pleasure. We often do things (which
could be called irrational or insane, but usually are ignored) that are
pleasurable which can be destructive to our survival. Animals don't.
Animals live by instinct (which is a perfect moral code - we agree! ;-).
Instinct is the only knowledge animals have, they can not gain more
knowledge (other than "to know" their surroundings) and they can not act in
a fashion that is not in accordance with their knowledge. Their instinct is
all they have to survive - if that knowledge is insufficient, they don't.
People can act irrationally - they can go against their better judgment -
people don't live by instinct - people can have very flawed morals. My
point, is that animals can not act immorally, while people can. Survival
(and anything else) is a choice for people. Further, instinct and desire
are certainly not interchangable.
Now back to David... if an infant's parents had irrational desires and
lived in a fashion that was not conducive to survival, I would say its
possible the baby is born with, or learns very quickly, to have irrational
desires, as well.
> > 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.
I am not a Libertarian, so I am not at liberty to answer that.
Personally, though, I think its very important.
--
Have fun!
John
Auctions and Trading and More at my Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
MOC,CA++++(6035)SW,TR,old(456)+++TO++PI,SP+#+++++
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
|
|
|
|
