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 13:22:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1568 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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...
Well, I'd classify that under what I said, actually... I was trying to pick out
the root desire-- And I'd certainly qualify living as one of the things we
want. Another way to look at it is that happiness presupposes survival. We
can't easily be happy if we're dead :). Anyway, I think I'd say that survival
is encompassed within the "want of what we want".
Instinct is tricky. I think the traditional view of instinct is partially
flawed, though. We tend to think of instinct as that which results without
thought. We pull our hand away from the hot stove out of instinct, not because
we thought about it. However, I think that instinct goes to different levels.
When someone points out an error you've made, you might have an inital reaction
of disbelief, before you actually qualify what the person is saying. Or you
might have an instinct towards anger or sadness when you see people being
harmed. Certainly we've seen this last one reflected in animals, who supposedly
only have capacity for instinct and not for thought. Where is the line between
instinct and reflective thought? I'm not sure there is such a definite line.
One might actually call the action of thought instinctive to humans, which
makes even all the things we think about instinctive. It's certainly one way to
look at it. As for it being the ultimate moral code? I'd have to say no. (Not
just because I discredit the ideal of having an ultimate moral code, though)
Mostly because instincts within humans and within animals differ so greatly
from one to another. My instincts and your instincts differ easily, I'd think.
Also, instinct might lead us towards self-preservation when I think the
ultimate moral code would lead toward societal preservation (charity being one
aspect of that)
> I think the Libertarians are fixated here [towards a view of ethical
> equality], and think this is their ultimate goal.
I'm not sure I know too much (anything actually :) ) about Libertarian views
(any Libertarians out there want to comment?) but it's certainly a lofty and
worthwhile goal. Truth be told, I think I've seen people who hold other
people's wants higher than their own, and even more that have held other people
lower than themselves, but I'm not sure I've met anyone who actually has a
perfect balance. I don't remember what the biblical quote was... it was either
"love thy neighbor as thy brother" or "love thy neighbor as thyself" (or maybe
it was neither, but it was similar) I'd say the latter is more 'correct',
though, in a sense unlike it was intended. The idea of the quote being to get
people to love others more. For those who hold others above themselves, they
need to learn to love themselves more. Basically, ultimate equality. Very
difficult, very noble. Possible? Maybe. I can't say.
> 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).
I'm glad you like what I've said-- I find that most religious people (or just
people that have faith in God) don't like this type of lead-in towards
morality. They usually tend to want an emotional lead towards morality, coming
from God, dictated by faith, rather than a mainly logical approach. I guess
one could argue that the steps taken with emotion could be deemed as from God,
but religious people I've known don't let me get that far before they object.
They objcet to the logical method altogether. It's a relief to be allowed a
logical argument :). Anyway, as for an ultimate ethic, I suppose that I would
agree that once the sense of equality and charity, etc., were fully developed,
this would result in an ultimately ethical person, but according to my own
relativism, I'd say that this person, although accomplished ultimately in terms
of ethics, doesn't have a universal moral code. What s/he holds may or may not
work for other people; but this person could be 'perfectly' morally developed.
> 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
I'm glad they were well recieved, even if they are a bit long :)
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
|
|
|
|
