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 14:04:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> 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.
Like I said to John N, I'd say they're both encompassed by what we want. The
idea I was trying to present was "we want *something*, and to get that
something is good". That's the fundamental emotion. That something can
encompass both the experience of happiness and the experience of experiencing
(being alive).
As for animals not being self-destructive, I'd say there are possible
exceptions in the animal world (what animals do to satisfy the sex drive,
lemmings going out for a morning run off a cliff, etc) but the real question is
whether they know that the actions are self-destructive. In humans, like with
smoking, drug abuse, playing "chicken" etc.... Since it's not in our face that
we ARE going to die as a result (we don't really BELIEVE we're going to die
sooner or anything) we tend to ignore the consequences. I guess I'm just
disagreeing with the "often do things" you said above. I tend to think the only
"thing" which really consciously goes against survival is suicide, and I guess
I just don't think of that as "often" done. Anyway, just a technicality... I
either disagree with "things" or "often", depending on what you mean by each;
or not at all, maybe, if you bend "often" enough :)
> Animals live by instinct (which is a perfect moral code - we agree! ;-).
Hmmm... again, see Nietzsche... he's big on being 'natural', including
instinct-- "if it's not wrong for an animal to kill another for food, why
should it be suddenly wrong for me to do the same? (like kill a human for food)
Why should it be wrong for me to steal, if when animals do it it's not regarded
as wrong?" Anyway, my response to Nietzsche is that's fine if you want to be an
animal. But I don't want to be an animal. I want to be a human... and if that
means a heightened sense of morality, so be it.
My response to you is somewhat different, 'cause now I'm confused again.
"Instinct ... which is a perfect moral code"? Do you mean a perfect code for
other animals, or a perfect code for humans as well? I certainly wouldn't
consider things like justice (which you acknowledged before) an instinctual
thing...
> 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.
Dinstinction here... do you mean to say that people have very flawed moral
codes, or that their actions are very strayed from their moral codes? In other
words, do you mean to say that by going against their moral judgement they are
flawed, or is their better judgement (what I'm calling their moral code)
flawed?
> 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.
Maybe I'm not clear on what you're referring to as instinct vs. desire. What
specifically makes the two of them distinct? Or is one precurser to the other?
Is the act of desire simply an instinct in and of itself?
> 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.
I don't think I'd qualify the desires as irrational... That kind of implies a
universal scale of rationality (and that what is rational is that which aids
survival). But in essence, you're right. That's simply one of the many factors
that shapes the morality (and everything else) of the child from almost day 1.
Despite the fact that we all seem to go through the steps I lined out, because
of the variance along the way, we all differ, even if it's just in the
slightest. It's rather amazing to me that so many people end up as similar as
we do.
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
|
|
|
|
