|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 29 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/6/2004 at 06:35 PM |
| First off, I should mention that I am not a nihilist when it comes to
religion, only religious morality actually all morality. Secondly I don't
believe that "virtue" has anything to do with ethics. My definition of
"virtue" and my answer to the initial question of this thread reflect my
stance on this subject. ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
feralucce
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 1810 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/6/2004 at 07:38 PM |
| I can see your point squiddo... but when dealing with humans... NOTHING can
be judged in absolutes... when people see an accident... there will be many
different stories as to what happened... since ALL is perception... ____________________
The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
|
| |
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/6/2004 at 08:49 PM |
Oh, here we go again...
Yoo do realize that stating that there are no absolutes is an absolute,
right? ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else to
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic   Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 23/6/2004 at 11:34 PM |
Looks like I am going to be typing awhile again. Good thoughts, all, even
if I disagree with most of 'em. Let me just toss that qualifier out there.
Okay... first off, the easier stuff...
Feral: "...just examples of the flexibility of the nature of
virtue... Just being honest..."
I am aware of what you said and what you meant, but perhaps I was unclear
in my response. I did major in anthropology and I could probably
find more examples in the books lying around on the floor of my apartment
regarding how different cultures view things than you could throw at me,
but that isn't what this debate is about. I am not interested in what this
or that group of people consider to be praiseworthy. I am interested in
what, in your opinion, makes us better human beings. All "cultural
tolerance" aside, people are people after all, and some things are regarded
as universally better for them than others. The folks at Rapa Nui (that's
Easter Island to you and me) thought it was virtuous to deplete their
resources by making large statues dedicated to their clans until now the
island is practically uninhabited and uninhabitable. I don't care what the
Rapa Nuians thought about it; deforestation and conspicuous materialism had
the last word on their cultural beliefs. It didn't make them better
people, it made them practically extinct and increased their suffering and
decreased the quality of their lives. Ergo, not a virtue. Just being
honest.
Squid: "First off, I should mention that I am not a nihilist when it
comes to religion, only religious morality actually all morality. Secondly
I don't believe that "virtue" has anything to do with ethics."
I'm not sure whether or not I dislike nihilism generally or selective
nihilism worse. I've gone on about this one before, but, once again,
perhaps I wasn't clear in my response. On what grounds can a person
possibly know that they don't believe in anything? Just as you
objected to Feral's absolute against absolutes, the position is inherently
faulty and untenable. But this kind of debate has been going on for
milennia, and I would do better to let those more qualified than I am speak
for me:
"If anyone thinks that nothing is known, he does not know whether this
proposition can be known either, since he admits that he knows nothing. It
seems, therefore, pointless to argue at all... Nevertheless, suppose I were
to grant that he does know this, then I shall go on to ask him this one
question: since up to now he has never seen any truth in things, how does
he know the difference between knowing and not knowing in particular
instances?What was it that gave him the concept of the true and the
false?What evidence was there for drawing a distinction between what is
doubtful and what is certain?" Lucretius, Book IV 460 ff.
But you have gone a step further than even basic nihilism by stating that
you do not believe in ethics or morality (and specifically
religious ethics and morality... which are so closely tied to one
another as to almost be redundant; if not to guide our behaviour and
support us through difficult times, what else could religion
possibly be about?) So you believe in things generally; you don't
object to reality so much that you won't deny the point of even discussing
it, but you don't believe specifically that one action or attitude is any
better or worse than another. Well, I don't believe that you don't believe
that. I've seen you object to things other people have said and done. If
you didn't believe there was an underlying ethical and moral guideline for
our behaviour, it would not make one bit of difference to you what anyone
did to or around you. That would, in fact, make you the very definition of
a Stoic. Since you do get upset not only with people's actions,
but even things people say, since you do prefer one thing to
another, you must have some sense of what is acceptable behaviour and
reasonable ways of thinking. Ergo, you are not a "moral nihilist" at all,
but merely someone who wishes to leave his options open or one who
particularly resents the idea that there are things he knows he should and
should not do.
And, I'll go ahead and send this installment before the site logs me off
before I continue... ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
feralucce
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 1810 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 12:04 AM |
Squiddo: I site the principia discordia when it says "all statements are
false... even this one."
Mono: then am completely lost...LOL ____________________
The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 12:33 AM |
Okay... smoke break over. Time to continue.
Squid: "I was under the impression that a virtue is something within a
person's character which dictates a pattern of behavior that others respect
if not admire. Is this not correct?"
Actually, no, that isn't the way I was using the term. I began the
discussion by asking which qualities people respect and admire as a means
of establishing which qualities other people regarded as being virtuous. I
can see now that it was a poor decision on my part and I would have done
better to be more direct in my approach. I am trying to determine which
qualities improve a human being in every instance. These
qualities I would call "virtues". I am prepared to follow the chain of
reasoning wherever it leads, provided it remains an unbroken chain. I have
discounted the criterion that others necessarily have to admire and respect
a quality for it to be virtuous for three reasons: First of all, feral has
pointed out that things that are regarded as praiseworthy are culturally
and geographically determined. This does not help us establish anything
about human beings as a species. Secondly, we must admit the possibility
of people who are admired and respected being complete scoundrels who are
just able to put on a good show. Thirdly, we can not get merely members of
this site to agree on the colour of shit, much less expect that any idea we
come up with will be universally accepted as praiseworthy. Therefore, it
is incumbent upon us to discover if the question can be answered without
regard to popular opinion on the matter. I do agree that defining our
terms would be a good place to start since we have already run into some
confusion. In what ways are human beings to be improved? If we have a
goal, it would be easier to narrow down those things that might help one to
achieve it.
And now the toughie...
Schiz: "(Forgive me for bringing a Bible passage into the discussion,
but I think it is a pertinent quote.) ...I think the bitch most people here
have about Christians is that they lay down a certain code of "virtues"
that they like, and expect everyone to keep that code at all times, no
matter what the circumstances."
No forgiveness necessary, Schiz. Anyone who objects to a resource simply
because of their own bias is commiting an ad hominem fallacy. Actually, I
am glad you did bring religion (of whatever stripe) into the debate since
religion is one of the few institutions we have that professes to have the
answer to this very question. I don't agree entirely about the reason that
most people here have a bitch about Christianity, though... they simply
haven't rubbed elbows with enough self-righteous members of the other
religions to realise that they wouldn't be happy with much of any faith
they had to share with their neighbour. Anyway, on to business...
"To everything there is a season, and a time for everything under the
sun." In other words, there is no right and wrong, only timing. ...The
problem with trying to pin down one virtue is that you will always find a
scenario where it ceases to be virtuous. Where the timing, or the degree of
the virtue is wrong.
Let me begin by saying that I have always objected to that passage for the
same reason that I described to callei regarding "escape clauses". Rather
than providing guidance, that particular passage only creates confusion and
has been used to justify everything from chronic alcoholism and spousal
abuse to acts of genocide. Any time I want to do something I know will
create harm, I can open up a Bible to that particular verse and get
Christianity's stamp of approval to go for the gold. Situational Ethics
(the same thing as "Ethical Relativism", or, more commonly "winging one's
way through life") provides no clue as to what a suitable or desirable
course of action is, and that verse from Ecclesiastes goes as far as to say
"anything goes". I might catch some flak for saying so, but I believe that
people need some restraint and not a blank cheque to do whatever they like
whenever it suits them. That is a quick ticket to Thomas Hobbes'
"...nasty, brutal and short" life.
"Even honesty with one's self isn't so much a virtue, it's just a
smart thing to do. How can you judge what you are to do with this moment,
if you don't even know who you are?"
~laughing!~ And I thought that I was Shmeng's greatest splitter
of hairs! I am not sure that I see a difference between cultivating a
virtuous quality and doing the smart thing. If virtues are helpful things
to have lying around one's personality, then I would say there is no
difference. The problem here as I see it is this: if we have no criteria
for what is helpful and what is not in every situation we encounter, how
does being honest with ourselves help us to reach the correct decision? In
that case, we can only honestly appraise what is going on and honestly say
to ourselves: "Yep. I honestly have no idea what I should do."
But you did hit on something that I think is important... knowing oneself.
Honesty with oneself may or may not be a "virtue" (although unless or until
someone can give me a scenario in which it is harmful in some way to be
honest with oneself I will say that it is a quality that is entirely
positive, and that alone fulfills my definition of a virtue) by itself, but
it is imperative that it be applied when exercising any other
virtue. In other words, without being honest with ourselves as a starting
point and in our dealings, it wouldn't matter if we discovered a criterion
to determine whether or not a thing is virtuous since we could falsely
apply that criterion to whatever we liked. That, I think, is a damned good
start.
"There are generally a fairly wide range of things that are "right" to
do in any given situation, and several that are definitely "wrong". It's a
personal thing, and the trick is to choose the path that gets you where you
want to go without screwing over people who aren't trying to screw you
over. And if you want, you can help some people along the way, if you think
they're worth it. Whatever furthers this aim is "good" to me. Whatever
keeps this from happening is "bad." And that's as far as I want to
go."
Schiz... you are beautiful. I'm not convinced that there are necessarily a
wide range of options, or, if there are, that those options do not have a
common denominator that we can discover by applying our reason... but...
this business about not wantonly screwing people over is gold to me. I
would take it a step further and say that you shouldn't screw over someone
even if they "started it" (can you tell that I have been teaching
kindergarten classes yet?), but you should definitely help others
when it is within your means to do so. I don't think this is a "personal
thing" at all... and if it were, we would not have any basis to have a
legal system, much less an organised religion in the world. I think it is
a damned good place to start to say that it is preferable to promote rather
than destroy other people. Does this virtue have a name? Compassion leaps
to my mind. (Avolakitasvara be praised!) If anyone can give me a
legitimate argument for hurting other people that is not petty, selfish,
spiteful and ultimately counterproductive, I have yet to hear it. And in
return for your insight, I will throw a Bible verse back atcha (one of my
personal faves!)...
Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude
of sins
1 Peter 4:8 ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 12:49 AM |
There are no "God-given rights." There is no such thing as good and evil.
Things are only right and wrong as far as thigns either work or don't work
(ie yoo cant start a car with a banana) but beating-up my kids isn't
wrong I don't beat up my kids because that is not who I want to be
(also because I dont have kids, but never mind that). That is what it all
comes down to in the end, the only God who judges yoo is yorself.
How is that not nihilism? ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else
to
/>
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 01:14 AM |
Squid: How is that not nihilism?
Ah, let me count the ways. If things "...either work or don't work", you
are already applying predicates to your knowledge. A nihilist would say
that you have no means of knowing if things work or not since you can't
trust your senses. But if things work or don't work, and things
consistently work or don't work, then there is a cause for things to work
or not. This cause would be necessity. You can call necessity "nature",
"reality", "samsara", or "the grace of G/god/s", it amounts to the same
thing. If you don't beat up your kids because you don't want to be that
person, then you must have had some basis for reaching that decision based
upon reason. You have decided, based on whatever you have internalised
about the world around you, that it is not in your best interests to be
that person and that decision comes from some prior knowledge. A nihilist
would say "I just happen to not beat up my kids, and there is no underlying
reason for it", when, in fact, his reason for not doing so would be that
his kid ran away five years earlier because he was sick of his father's
self-righteousness. What you have described is athiesm, not nihilism...
although even this athiesm aknowledges a "higher power" in that, for some
reason, things work or they don't and we can predict which one of those it
is going to be.
Incidentally, I could start a car using an orange, but you are probably
right about the banana. Even with a gun to my head, I would be hard
pressed to do that. Necessity (that mother!) apparently decreed that
bananas were not ideal ignition devices.
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 01:45 AM |
| Hahahaha, I can assure yoo I am very much NOT an athiest. ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else
to
/>
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 01:54 AM |
I can assure yoo I am very much NOT an athiest.
I never said that you were. I said that is what you described. I also
said earlier that I didn't believe that you honestly believed in the
positions you were describing. But that is neither here nor there. It
doesn't matter to me how you identify yourself. The only thing I object to
are dogmatic statements that aren't bothered to be defended and/or straying
from the topic.
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 02:58 AM |
It is true, Mono, that religions of all shapes and colors tend to lay down
black-and-white codes of behavior, no matter how "open-minded" they claim
to be. Wiccans, for example, can be every bit as judgemental as
Christians, and it's only worse because they often get pretty
self-righteous about how open they are. Christianity, however, tends to be
the poster child.
I kind of think that your point about my Bible quote only proves my point.
For everything there is a season, even a season to quote "for everything
there is a season." Just because something can be misused does not mean
that it has no true use. Only that it was used out of season.
It is also true that people do need restraint, in general. But that is
only because they lack self-restraint. It has been a problem that
humankind has been working on since they started to exist. How do we keep
those who will not restrain themselves from ruining things for the people
who do, while still giving those with self-restraint the freedom to do
their thing? It's a problem I certainly haven't found a solution for.
Yes, by your definition of virtue, honesty to one's self is definitely a
virtue. I wonder, though, if I could think of an instance where it would
be "out of season".
I know, it sounds a lot like I'm promoting situation ethics, but I'm not
trying to. I do have ethics that do not depend on situation. It's hard
for me to pinpoint them, though. I am still fighting through the binding
cobwebs of Christianity, and trying to find my own reasons for what I do,
instead of the ones that have been set up for me. As a result, while I
have definite ideas about what I want to do, I am much more nebulous on why
I want to do it. It's coming from somewhere inside of me, and I'm trying
to track down the source. I think this discussion is getting me a bit
closer to discovering it.
But definitely, inflicting harm for the sake of inflicting harm lands
squarely on my no-no list. But not inflicting harm at all - I would not go
that far.
Perhaps instead of "good" and "bad" I would like to use the words "sick"
and "well". Some people do actions that are sick, diseased. Some people
practice these things to the point that they become diseased themselves.
Some people are so diseased, that they may as well BE a disease, as far as
it is safe to be around them.
Some people are doctors and surgeons. It is their job to protect and cure
people from disease. If a disease cannot be cured (or until it is cured)
it is their duty to quarantine the disease so it cannot harm those who have
not already caught it. Some diseases have very drastic cures, that entail
further damage being done. This damage is justified because it prevents
damage that would be even worse as time went on.
I have used this analogy before, because I think it is a sound one.
How do people become surgeons? First they have to have a natural aptitude
and desire. Next, they need extensive training. And lastly, they need to
want to do this, not just because they like cutting things up, but because
they want to heal.
Another criteria for a surgeon - he or she must be free from communicable
disease themselves. It would do no good to cure a man from his disease if
you only ended up infecting him with your own.
How does this apply to our discussion of virtue and ethics? For some
people who are so spiritually diseased that they are destroying themselves
and those around them, drastic measures are needed. There needs to be, at
the very least, a restraint of the diseased person, so that they cannot
harm those around them. And then the disease needs to be eradicated. This
is the work of the spiritual surgeon. The person with the will to heal,
the aptitude to heal, and the training (formal or otherwise) to heal. The
person who is free from the sorts of spiritual disease that would lead them
to only create new problems.
So you say - how many people try to be spiritual surgeons when they have no
business doing so? I reply - millions. But just because something is
being done in the wrong way does not mean it has no legitimate place.
Spiritual surgeons (and where surgery is refused, spiritual quarantiners)
are few and far between.
For example, many people think they can sing, as the American Idol try-outs
proved. (Some would say, even the AI finals proved that). That does not
mean that there are not a very few people who really CAN sing.
My long and rambling point - there is a time and a place for harm to be
done. A very small, controlled, easily misused time and place, but it
exists.
Perhaps that falls under your verse. To "love each other deeply", even as
deep as the scalpel needs to go. But all done in love and wisdom.
____________________
"You can tell by the scars on my arms and the cracks in my hips and the
dents in my car and the blisters on my lips that I'm not the carefullest of
girls." - Dresden Dolls, "Girl Anachronism"
|
| |
IamSquid
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 658 Registered: 27/5/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 11:57 AM |
| Well then let's bring it back to this: I don't believe in ethics therefore
I don't think that "virtue," by yor definition or mine, has anything to do
with ethics or morality. If yoo are looking for qualities that imporove
the individual hands down no question then yoo must seperate the question
from ethics altogether because of the objectivity reqired. And objectivity
is often impared by most individuals' proconceptions which are often
borderline if not completely Manichaenistic ideals of what is and what is
not beneficial (ergo total bullshit). ____________________
i wanted to die, and then it progressed into wanting everyone else
to
/>
die so i could watch, and then me die.
-ickgirl
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/6/2004 at 12:28 PM |
"In what ways are human beings to be improved? "
I am sorry to have to ask, but do you mean as individuals or as groups or
as a species?
I dont think that the same qualities or behaviors that make a person a
better person are necessarily the same ones that make the species "better".
I say this because the things that make one person more at peace with
themselves (my personal definition of "beter") include things like
non-situational honesty, but it doesnt do a 2 year old any good to be told
all about relative ethics as a reason for why they shouldnt spit on the
dog. I also dont think that a single person has the right to kill anyone
else because of thier beliefs, but as a method of species betterment, we
would probably want to kill off or at least force sterility, in much of the
population. And when it comes to a group, i lean more towards virtues that
make the group more secure and promote harmony between the members of that
group, so killing becomes case by case. ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
|
| |
Alugarde
Member   Posts: 185 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 25/6/2004 at 11:03 AM |
Mono: Schizo said that they key you were looking for is that there is a
time for everything, but I think that is only half of the key. The other
half is benevelonce. A genuine desire to do that which is right. And with
benevolence comes a genuine desire to find out what is right so that right
can be done. With benevelonce behind one's actions, situational ethics
suddenly become alot less flawed, because, to touch on what callei said a
while back, an escape clause is not an escape if one feels an exception is
genuinely necessary to do the right thing.
callei: I can see where you're coming with the seperation of individual
betterment from group betterment, but it seems to me like a slightly
unnecesary distinction. I tend to think that if you achieve one the other
will follow. Whynot focus one's efforts on either one or the other? In a
fight, (and for the purposes of this metaphor this could be called a battle
of morality) focus fire can be quite useful. I have to give that a bit more
thought myself, but it seems like a valid strategy to me. Again, though,
benevolence is necessary to keep it from getting misused. ____________________
l33t is the bastard cousin of contractions.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/7/2004 at 04:19 AM |
Schiz: " I have used this analogy before, because I think it is a
sound one."
I agree that it is a sound analogy... but then, so has nearly every
philosopher in the past three thousand years or so. The medical analogy
for philosophy (comparing the art of healing the body with the art of
healing the soul) has been traditional since at least the time of Thales.
I think it's a good 'un. In that spirit, you suggested using the terms
"sick" and "well" in place of "good" and "bad". I also agree that those
would be more to the point in most cases (especially in light of the fact
that, since Nietzche's day, we should be getting "beyond good and evil"...
and those terms really only serve to limit us and foster discontent),
however they are both still a little charged with emotional baggage. How
about "productive" and "counterproductive"?
The two main points you raised that I would like to comment on are your
observations about "qualified" people to give advice and the contention
that there are times when you must "be cruel to be kind". I disagree with
neither of these. In the first instance, It is doubtful that there has
ever been anyone who has managed to achieve the status of sapiens
(wise men) or, if there have been, and I am thinking here of the Buddha,
they are not present currently to take our calls. We are pretty much all
of us proficiens (works in progress), and anyone who claims to be
otherwise should have their shit together one hell of a lot better than
anyone I have spoken with to date. While I am not claiming to be a
sapiens myself, I will suggest that there are those with more
experience and more insight into the Universe than others. If you have no
ability to reason for yourself, though, you will have no means of
discriminating between the helpful and the blowhards. What it boils down
to is that a person, no matter how dire their need for help, needs to
expend some mental effort on their own or there is simply nothing even a
very adept proficiens can do for them. In other words, as
somebody who should know said: There's no saving the Clueless. Do your
best, try your best, help as many who can and will be helped, and accept
the rest as a write-off.
The second observation you made (viz.: the "cruel to be kind" observation)
was very persuasive that there are, in fact, times when you should be
hurtful (if your intent is to help). What is still lacking here is a rigid
and codified criteria for when this is acceptable. Lacking this, it is
still too tempting to use this as an "escape clause" (thank you callei for
that wonderful turn of phrase!) and degenerates into situational ethics
again. You can be pissy to everyone you meet and think "I'm just using
tough love. It's not my fault if they don't get it." Until we figure out
some parameters for when it is acceptable to do this, it might be best if
we don't try... that is, until we become one of the "qualified" caregivers
you mentioned. ~smile~
Squid: "I don't believe in ethics therefore I don't think that
"virtue," by yor definition or mine, has anything to do with ethics or
morality. "
You have said, repeatedly, that you don't believe in ethics. Nobody
misunderstood you. What I don't understand is why you keep
contributing to a conversation when all you are saying amounts to a
disqualification from contributing to the conversation. Unless or until you
provide some underlying grounds for your argument that "there is no such
thing as good and evil", your statement remains an article of faith (which
is just as persuasive as someone who tries to make a point by saying "It's
in the Bible!") You have interjected your opinion on the matter and I have
seen no reason to accept it. Fair enough. If you have anything to back up
your opinion, then persuade me... if not, you've thrown in a few tuppence
and you can let it go. If you believe that there is no reason to
investigate or think about these issues, you still aren't injured by
allowing someone else to ponder them.
callei: "...do you mean as individuals or as groups or as a species?
I dont think that the same qualities or behaviors that make a person a
better person are necessarily the same ones that make the species
"better"."
I'm not entirely sure how this question differs from the one that was posed
and addressed earlier. Since a society is nothing more than a collection
of individuals, I fail to see how something that is bad for the group could
not be bad for the individual, and vice versa. In your example
about the two-year-old dog spitter, it may not help him or her to explain
the reasons they shouldn't do it, but it certainly doesn't harm them to be
told, either. I'd prefer to take the small chance that my effort would be
helpful when there is no potential for it to be harmful... and, who knows?
It might condition them at an earlier age to appreciate that there
are reasons for the way things are... even if they don't quite grasp
them yet.
As for the other part of the proposition, regarding society sponsored
homicides and/or sterilizations... I know that had been specifically
addressed earlier. As long as the state sponsors murder, the individual
will feel that murder is acceptable and, while the imaginary modal citizen
might not commit one on their own, the entirely tangible outliers mostly
definitely will. And what criteria does this society use to weed out their
"undesirables"? I would hope that it would be more stringently regulated
than the sterilizations and exterminations that actually have been
carried out by those like-minded United States citizens in the 1920'2 and
1930's during their "eugenics" programs. I'm not sure that a case can be
made that an individual serial murderer is worse than a state-sponsored
"Final Solution". Rather than exterminating the "undesirables", why don't
we think more about issues like the one I am trying to flesh out which
would make people more desirable?
Alugarde: "With benevelonce behind one's actions, situational ethics
suddenly become alot less flawed, because, to touch on what callei said a
while back, an escape clause is not an escape if one feels an exception is
genuinely necessary to do the right thing."
Benevolence, however misguided, is preferable to the alternative. That is
not where my reservation lies. The problem, as I see it, is that everyone
wants to hedge their bets and leave the door open, but nobody wants to
propose guidelines to be followed regarding what constitutes "one of those"
situations. This comes across as an abuse waiting to happen. For example,
it was an easy, easy sell for the US administration to tell people it would
not observe the Geneva Convention because these were "extraordinary
circumstances". As a result of not wanting to place limits on their own
behaviour, US servicemen (and the world at large) are now subject to
hideous retaliations. More "extraordinary circumstances". I have a friend
who refuses to live on a budget because they think that imposing that kind
of limitation on themselves is a punishment. Need;ess to say, they are
always broke and have a monstrous amount of debt. Restrictions are not bad
things in and of themselves, and what I am suggesting is that if there are
to be "extraordinary circumstances" which permit us to behave in ways that
we would otherwise find objectionable, then we must identify beforehand
what constitutes these circumstances and codify what is acceptable and what
is not. The statement that "there is always a 'but' " is just lazy twaddle
which can be read as: "I don't want to be bothered to think about it."
"How inhuman it is to forbid men to set out after what appears
suitable and advantageous to themselves. Yet, in a way, you are not
allowing them to do this whenever you are indignant because they do wrong;
for certainly they are moved to what looks to be suitable and advantageous
to themselves. 'But it is, in fact, not so!' Very well, instruct them and
make it plain; don't be indignant."
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations. Book VI, 27. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
feralucce
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 1810 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/7/2004 at 04:29 AM |
I have been avoiding comment based on the fact that I am not sure of my
stance in this discussion... but the discordian in me has been sitting
patiently and cannot help but respond to one of squids points...
I Can start a car with a banana... just pity the banan
afterwards...
I apologize for that random erisian moment... but it had to be fucking
said! ____________________
The earth turns on a tilted axis - just doing the best it can.
Hohenheim of Light~Full Metal Alchemist
|
| |
Anonymous
 Posts: 116 Registered: 14/4/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/7/2004 at 08:21 AM |
" Since a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, I fail
to see how something that is bad for the group could not be bad for the
individual, and vice versa."
This is one of the keys to our differences in this debate. I don’t think it
is an article of faith (hehe) that a society is nothing more than a
collection of individuals. I don’t think a relationship between 2 people
has only 2 parts to it either, since there is person A, person B, and the
relationship itself. Follow me here; the small version is way easier to
explain than the large. Person A has an independent life with goals, needs,
wants, baggage, and tizzy-fits. So does person B. when they enter into a
relationship, that relationship isn’t made up of ALLL the goals, needs, etc
of the two people, only some. And it has its own goals as well, its own
life cycle. The relationship is something between those two people yes, but
it is also something between them and all the other people with whom they
have contact. People outside that relationship interact with it, Person A,
and Person B all as individual constructs.
A nice larger example is Shmeng. May of us have personal relationships with
people on this site, but then we also have the group relationship with that
same person as a facet of the website. Me as a person here is different
than me as back up boom stick to Bettie. Me the person that is awake before
you have gone to bed is different than me the Editor of Doom. Our personal
relationship is a separate thing from our relationship here on Shmeng.
An example of good for the group, bad for the individual: Everyone with
AIDS gets murdered. This would be good for the species, since it would make
attempts to breed safer for the remaining individuals and free up resources
for the survivors. It would be, if not "bad", then at least not much fun
for those that had to die.
Good for the species; kill everyone with an IQ over say 120. This would
stop a lot of pollution, growth and make the world a safer place for the
people that remained since they wouldn’t be being bossed around and taken
advantage of by the bright. But not much fun for those that had to die. OR
kill everyone with an IQ under 120, so that the bright ones don’t have to
spend all their time and energy trying to make them live better and safer.
Both are good for one group and bad for another. I made and arbitrary line
in the species and "improved" it just by killing 1%, 25%, or 75% of the
people on the planet.
Good for the individual, or productive in our post Nietzsche world, does
NOT mean let the pedophiles have their way. What is good for them is bad
for others and so the individual has to choose, the group has to choose,
and on a subconscious level, the species has to choose which is more
productive to itself. For the individual, it is very productive to blow
stuff up, for the group, it is unproductive (they want to sleep, preserve
their heritage, not die, whatever), for the species it is indifferent.
I think the other big difference is the idea that things can only be
productive/good or unproductive/bad, and that dualistic view doesn’t work
for me. I cannot seem to find every motivation or act in my life as just
one OR the other. And moving to productive and unproductive leads to things
like anger being productive (because many times anger lets you Do something
rather than weep hopelessly in a corner) and compassion being unproductive
(trying to see the other person’s point of view doesn’t help you survive
when they are trying to stick a knife in you at that moment).
If society were made up of individuals, just a bunch of people that had
contact via some medium for some percentage of their personal time, manners
wouldn’t be. Social norms wouldn’t exist. Religion couldn’t happen. Nor
could things like philosophy and hospitals. Those all need people to accept
that the whole is larger than the sum of the parts, to adhere to rules
outside themselves (show up on time, don’t kill people without a reason,
use the drugs on the patients more than you use them on yourself, etc.) The
view that society is a bunch of people standing in line at DMV just doesn’t
work for me.
What is productive for me is not always productive for someone else. What
is productive for them is not always productive for me.
Still I think there is a virtue that is productive/good for all three
constructs, the person, the group, and the species. That virtue is mercy.
Built of empathy and intelligence, mercy lets us all believe that things
can be solved, resolved, and functional. It lets us have our hate and fear
and anger and makes it so we don’t have to act on them. It lets us practice
medicine and law and parenting. It makes it easier to sleep at night, lets
us let the dead past die, and lets us hope for the future.
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/7/2004 at 08:31 AM |
| *sigh* that was me if you didnt guess. ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 6/7/2004 at 12:36 AM |
(Ever spend an hour typing, only to lose what you have written...?
Grr.)
Feral: If the banana is a consenting partner, it is none of my business.
callei: Those are some sticky issues you have raised and not ones that I
have properly considered. Good job.
I was not prepared to say that a society (or collection of individuals...
or clusterfuck. You say "potato" and I say "projectile") could be more
than the sum of its constituent parts, but you have presented a pretty
airtight argument and I will have to concede the point. Just as the Earth
or Universe may be viewed as an organism, I think that we can agree upon
the first principle that collections of human beings create a system that
is qualitatively different than the individuals who comprise it.
The question now is: Can there be something "good" (or "bad") for a society
while being "bad" (or "good") for its members? I hadn't thought so. You
have raised the issue of exterminating those elements which inhibit the
function of the system as being "good" for the system as a whole, but "bad"
for those exterminated. I am still not ready to agree about that since I
see life as necessarily finite and I am not prepared to say that death is
any more "good" or "bad" a thing to befall someone as anything else. I
would say, like honesty, death does not, itself, have any value. I would
say that the idea of exterminating "threats-to-the-system" would not be
"good", however, since
(1) it is the less "efficient" things in life which lend it its flavour,
(2) there are gentler ways for a society to handle inhibitions, such as
quarantine or rehabilition, and
(3) since nobody can foresee all ends, and extermination can not be undone,
the system might be causing itself unknown harm in the future. Similarly,
I still can not view the promotion of a member of a system at the expense
of the system as a whole to be a genuine "good". I have had problems with
he Confucians around me who view the society as more important than the
individual (as opposed to the situation in the West, which is exactly the
opposite). I have seen firsthand a downside to both of these approaches
and had hoped to be able to find some kind of balance.
I do agree with your problems using dualist terminology, and that is why I
said that "honesty" (just as an example), was neither "good" nor "bad" in
itself. I understand the compunction about calling something wholly
"good/healing/productive" and something else wholly
"bad/unwell/counterproductive", but that is, essentially, what I am looking
for (if it exists). Perhaps it is because I think that members of the same
species should all have certain universal needs that I was prompted to
begin this thread in the first place.
One thing has cropped up a few times, though. I see where you are coming
from in your criticism of compassion, however I was not using it in the
sense of always seeing the other person's point-of-view (I would put that
somewhere closer to "empathy"). The way I was using it is very close to
what you were calling "mercy". I also have not been able to contest
Schiz's (indirect) suggestion of "love", nor Alugarde's suggestion of
"benevolence". I can see a common denominator here. Compassion, mercy,
love, benevolence... not to re-invent the wheel, but these qualities (or
this quality) all seem to indicate to me that humans seem to think that
having a society and relationships is a pretty good thing for them. Add
that to our agreement about what a society is and I think that is a good
day's work.
As always, I thank everyone for their help. I am
~M. ____________________
"I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
|
| |
Moinlen_Drigenu
Member  Posts: 71 Registered: 18/6/2004 Status: Offline
|
posted on 8/7/2004 at 06:10 AM |
quote:
M_D: Let us be honest
with one another, then. Did you read the objections to including honesty
amongst the virtues or did you simply skim? While honesty, in and of
itself, can be a very admirable thing in some circumstances, the fact that
it is not mutually exclusive from other, less desirable, qualities
indicates that it is not, by itself, either good or bad. It is simply a
quality. A virtue improves the possessor in all instances. Further, let us
examine the grounds by which you have decided to prize this quality. You
"can't stand it when someone lies to (you), or to themselves". It is a very
common mistake to presume that things we do not like are necessarily bad,
but we have demonstrated before that this is not so. I object to exercise;
it is uncomfortable to me. However, without it, my heart is strained and I
decrease the general quality of my life. Things that we dislike are not
necessarily bad in and of themselves, and our dislike for them is not
enough to determine the nature of a quality. Similarly, stubborness can not
be esteemed to be wholly good nor bad... however, more often than not, it
leads to the ossification of one's mental faculties due to the habituation
of never entertaining alternative ideas.
To be honest, yes
I did skim read as I did not have time to read it fully, and also I often
do not read whole pages I tend to pick out things that interest me and
reply to those. But anyways....I mistook what you said, does not matter.
Yes as Schizo said 'honesty with one's self' i find a good virtue. Other's
I think someone or people should try to have a bit of, of they can manage
it are understandabiilty (or a better word if someone can think of one) and
humour.
quote:
Schizo was kind enough to
admit a special case of honesty, honesty with one's self, with which I can
find no objection to including amongst the virtues. In this special case of
honesty, one can not be malicious and can only benefit. I have proposed
referring to this special case by different nomenclature to avoid
confusion. I have proposed "introspection", but that does not exclude the
possibility of deceiving oneself. I would propose "objectivity" (which it
more closely resembles), however that would spark pointless debates about
how genuine objectivity is impossible. I'm open to suggestions here.
Can you lay 'objectivity' out a bit flatter or point me to
someone who has. Because I can think of a few areas that it points
towards. ____________________
"It is said that we loose ourselves in rage, I think I find what is
missing, when it happens."
"These scars are just for show, it's the ones inside that you have to worry
about."
"When I get into a fight, all I think is..."KILL HIM"..."
|
| |
|
|
|
