»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
On The General State of Things
| Philosophy 101 |
|
On The General State of Things |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you feel well of the general direction and prospect of individuals, socialness, and the world? Are we losing or gaining a better moral civilization? Are we giving enough saving to natural states and integrity of things? Are we controlling our birth and populations well enough for to feel enough space, privacy and solace? What do you think of how sexualities are today? Do you feel people are avoiding perversity enough? Do people understand tenderness better? What do you most appreciate of this modern life and business, and what do you think most needs ammendment or restoration? Imagine you were Monarch/ess of the world for one day and could have your say and do your will on everything, what would you have? I'm sorry to plague you with questions, but I am really doubtful and would really appreciate hearing your judgement. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-17-2003 02:57 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Magia_negra Member
since 2003-07-16
Posts 77CA, USA |
Essorant, your questions are so-o general! Interesting of course, i'll definitely come back to it later, ...somos los locos para siempre |
||
|
Magia_negra Member
since 2003-07-16
Posts 77CA, USA |
All right... Everybody sees this world from his/her own perspective. Me… I see myself as a warrior on the way I've taken. I was born in an East European country, lived for some time in Russia, then moved here to LA. I've seen different cultures. Some people think we are degrading. Dark side of life can shock you if you look at it from the inside. I walk down the streets and see people smoking weed in the corners, selling all kinds of stuff - guns, drugs… I hear helicopters flying above my house at night and drive by shootings two blocks away from my house. I have friends who've been in the gangs. I see homeless people all over the place, I see mothers with their five-six… seven children and gigantic bags full of products bought in 99cents store. I know some of these women get pregnant just in order to get welfare. Here is our morality, to get paid for having children, but what else can they do?! Their husbands work for a minimum wage. There is no way for them to get out of the hole because of the language, problems with papers, etc (Sorry, I am talking about immigrants now, mostly Mexicans, because I live among them). The amazing thing is despite all this misery I see happiness in people's faces. Those living in poverty look happier than those who I meet in "good" areas. Free country. Is it? Brainwashing will be always successful; media steels our minds. Personal freedom. Do I feel free? Or protected? I saw a Chinese girl in the subway today. She was eating something in a to-go box when the police officer came and told her she couldn't eat down there. He started questioning her, wrote down her ID information. The girl could barely speak English. She got really scared. How could she know about the law telling us not to eat in the subway if she came to this country maybe just a couple of weeks ago? I watched that scene with disgust. A couple of minutes later I got off at Macarthur Park, downtown LA. While I was walking down the street there, seven, maybe ten guys came to me offering fake IDs, Social Security cards, diplomas for a funny price - 30, 40 bucks. Business goes really well. And, trust me, you'll never find the police in Macarthur park. You can get raped right there on the street and there won't be any police to help you. Now, who do you think I'll go for help if I am in trouble? To the police? I don't think so. In this corrupted inverted world I don't trust them. I do not feel secure in this world. To tell you the truth I trust people on the streets more. I am my own protector. When I am out there I never know if I am gonna come back. And the only one who can help me is I. There are several people who I could trust with my life though. Are they perfect? No. Some people would say they are the "bad" guys. I love them. Am I moral? People on the other side don't think I am moral because the ideas I have about life differ from the society ideas in too many ways. How could it happen that I am standing here and looking at the society stereotypes with contempt? I think our society is a monster. I am really sorry for those who got captured by it. Before I used to care about people's opinions a lot, I was afraid to be judged or misunderstood, or laughed at… Now I express myself freely and feel happy about it. The price for my freedom was high - I've lost many so-called "friends." I don't regret it. Now I know who my real friends are - people who accept me the way I am, good and bad, people who will be beside me always, people to whom I can come in happiness or pain. We are not free until we realize that we live trying to be something else, something our friends, or parents, or co-workers want us to be. Churches are corrupted (as they always were). What can they teach us if they cannot live in peace and harmony with each other fighting over some little things? They interpret the bible in different ways. It is ridiculous. I am for marijuana legalization and I am not ashamed to say it. If I say it in public you can imagine what happens. It doesn't matter if I try to explain why I am for marijuana legalization, people stop listening to me the very moment I say it. I just don't exist for them any more. Does my opinion make me a bad person? Moral civilization in which nobody listens to your opinion just because it is different… Another thing… I am in love with the person who is, how would I put it… Who is not the one you would like your daughter to marry. What can I do if I am in love with the guy? I don't really care about morality or about what people think about him. I cannot imagine my life without this person. People just amaze me sometimes. I work eight-hour shift in a restaurant. I don't have even five minutes break to eat or to sit down. You cannot eat during your shift, my manager says, you cannot make phone calls. Then he sees me pouring alcohol in the bar and says I cannot do it because I am not 21, it is illegal. Isn't it illegal to work for eight hours without break also, I ask him? He cares about law when it comes to pouring vines, it doesn't really bother him that my feet hurt or that I am starving. A couple of days ago one guy told me he feels like a street dog. Those words made me feel really bad. To hear this from anybody is really scary. What is our world if a person feels like a street dog living in it?! I know I am not answering your question. It's all very mixed up. I am confused about morality. Do I feel comfortable in this world? Yes, pretty comfortable. There are a lot of beautiful things you can enjoy. Many things make me angry, but I don't think people became worse then they used to be before. Politics make me angry. I cannot judge them because I am not that good at politics, but… Young guys who come to US from Mexico find easy money here. They can afford buying drugs - something they couldn't do back there because it was too expensive. Today I was talking with a friend of mine about it and he told me he feels really worried and sorry about those seventeen-eighteen-year-old kids. He sees them working, drinking, smoking, talking about nothing, picking up girls… Some of them cannot read even in Spanish, leave alone English…. Where is it gonna lead? They come to this country because there are no chances for them back there, but instead of going to school, doing something, growing morally, they end up in the gangs. Not everybody is like that, I told him. You are in college; you care about your future… Where was my friend when he was seventeen living in Mexico DF? He did crazy things. He changed. Some people are able to get out of the mess and go on, some stay there, live fast and die young. Why does it happen so and who is responsible, our society or people themselves? I don't know. How can I judge these guys who don't care about anything? How can I make them change if they don't care? They are not bad people. In fact, they are better than some of well-educated people I know. When I spend time with them I see they have tender hearts and beautiful souls. They respect women. They enjoy simple things. Most of us forgot how to enjoy simple things, we all have big plans in our heads, nothing else matters…It hurts seeing them going down. I realize if they don't stop this self-destruction it is gonna be too late. Sex… it's a difficult one. I see sex as the union of two beautiful beings, physically and spiritually. I do believe in real love forever but it doesn't stop me from fooling around. I know I'll find it one day and it will be the happiest day in my life. I am a very open minded person, I think as long as what people do doesn't harm others it is acceptable. Yes, I feel tenderness in people. I feel people love each other. I mean people in everyday life. We wouldn't last for so long if we didn't love each other. Sometimes I feel a lot of aggression from people around me. I don't get angry with them. I just go away. Those who are mad with the whole world and full of hatred are not worth to be with. You know, I could go on and on so I'd rather stop, The one thing I'd like to change… people's attitude to each other. People judge too much. ...somos los locos para siempre |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Cuando amor no es locura, no es amor. (When love is not madness, it is not love.) --Spanish Proverb Poverty is a great enemy to human happiness; it certainly destroys liberty, and it makes some virtues impracticable, and others extremely difficult. --Samuel Johnson These are the two quotes that came to my mind as I read you Magia -- many more things too-- but my main reaction is I found your words strangely vindicating -- not because I've lived that life but because I've always felt it somehow. While there is nothing profoundly new in your observations it is a contemporaneous perspective that is an authentic and well versed testimony. This power should serve you well as a poet. As to the thread topic -- the world has always been on it's way to hell. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The world is on its way to hell, but QM explains heaven.  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok Brad -- My brain is still protesting my blood sugar levels this morning -- a little bit on the slow side (ok.. so that's nothing new) QM? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Quantum mechanics? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Magia I share many of your feelings; you are very strong-speaking. I only oppose giving in though and accepting a lower lifestyle and society than we deserve. Freedom and accumulation are now pursued, put more important than government and cultivation/edification. Technology is worshiped more than nature, integrity and religion. Luxury is pursued more than beauty. Vice is often preferred over virtue--Perversity, hedonism and decadance over modesty. Offhand happiness pursued over sufferable, noble wellbeing. Business is put above civilization. Haste and excess are practiced more than patience and moderation. And then we pray for peace? These things are what put us into poverties and miseries often. If there is a God, he is giving us our due desert. I always have tried most to make choices and judgements based on healthiness, naturalness and respectfulness; and therewith imagine these influencing society and the world. If I don't think it would be good for society and the world generally, I usually shall never make the choice, even though it may be just for me and only seem to influence me specifically here. I I am offended that people are making such perverse choices today as if they are not influencing society and the world-as if for some reasons they are exempt and don't count. What you do in the background, private and unseen, is still part of society and the world...because you have been influenced, and what influences you is what you part of what you are and shall influence from. People think they can be moral but do perverse things, as if the moral knowledge justifies the perverse doing...or that as long as they are moral in the right places and ends, they can be perverse in between...this makes the personality ill, morality and perversion become confounded. When venom and ambrosia are so mixed you cannot taste the difference between them. I just feel things must be generally well or feel they are at least bettering or how can we do things specifically within them? I know I will not...if things don't get better I shall stay in my house and never come out. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-21-2003 12:46 AM).] |
||
|
Magia_negra Member
since 2003-07-16
Posts 77CA, USA |
I agree with you, Essorant. Hmm, I don't think our silence and inactivity will make us feel better or change the outside world for better though… I know our time is not the time of rebels, and I don't pretend to be one, I guess I am not strong enough (who knows though, in reality we are much stronger than we think). Do you think it is possible for things to get better without any radical changes or events? For example, some people think the US is gonna face a big catastrophe soon - financial crisis, political changes, revolution, whatever it is… something that will bring this empire to the end. I don't support or oppose this opinion although I think nothing can exist forever. Do we have to destroy in order to build (to die in order to be reborn in the upper level of existence)? This is a scary thought. ...somos los locos para siempre |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Your spate of concern seems to ask in a nutshell, is this World getting better or worse. It seems to be getting worse in many ways, and yet it has always been "bad". There has always been moral atrocity, brutalism, apathy, and injustice. But now man's technological intelligence has caught up with his moral decadence, making the stakes much higher. Threatening nuclear holocaust, biological warfare, and increased moral decay attests to the exacerbation, if not the novelty, of the problem. Biblically, this is the path of humanity in a defunct relationship with God. The Bible tells us that, though God has provided a life raft, and there are rumours of a new ship, the old ship will not be saved. It's disturbing and scary in a way, but there is a great promise of restoration to those who are willing to listen and believe. That's why I am for all the help we can get, through social change, politics, humanitarian programs, etc... etc... But I still think that the only hope for this world that will prevail against physical, moral, and spiritual entropy is an eschatological one involving direct divine intervention. Brad, By associating QM with an explanation of "Heaven", are you referring to some kind of neo-pantheism? I've read alot about the strange bedfellows of quantum physics and eastern religions. Just curious if this is what you are hinting at. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (07-22-2003 12:18 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Entropy will bring heat death to the universe, but quantum mechanics guarantees a new universe at some point down the road, a new order. Why not call it Heaven? It'll take a long time but if no one's around that's a small matter. There is a bulbous swelling to the left of my mouth as a result of my tongue.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you think it is possible for things to get better without any radical changes or events? Yes; but I think we need to be radical -"rootical"- at this point, yet in being radical we don't need to be extreme, violent or eraticating. There is a better way of changing the crop and getting to the roots and it is I believe in influencing us. The highest government must be within us. We must be able to influence and displine us not to force but feel morals more willingly and sincerely, and make the choice for a life more moral and less perverse. Morals should not be like forces but like instincts that senses would seem to already have to decline substantially what we know is wrong, especially the kind of haste and excess of things that is occassioning too much violence today. We need to sincerely realize we need to stand up for our lives better, our society and our world. We are all responsible. It is how we govern our natures that governs our futures, and though we cannot fully govern them, yet can we be displined and knowledgable so that we can always have our best power over them, as the best governers and bodies faithful. All we need to do is not be perverse but this is a most difficult task. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-23-2003 03:19 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"It seems to be getting worse in many ways, and yet it has always been "bad". There has always been moral atrocity, brutalism, apathy, and injustice." It has always been bad but it has not always been so aware of itself being "bad." It is the perversity most of all that wipes my senses out. We most often know what doings are wrong and bad, but we lack deepness of shame and fear, and the earnest to oppose them most respectfully and faithfully. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-23-2003 03:25 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity." --Yeats, 1920 |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
What's perverse? It's always at the core of the arguments you make, essorant... but you can't adequately define, (or at least, can't universally define) it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
heh.. thanks brad hush -- nice to see you around.. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"What's perverse? It's always at the core of the arguments you make, essorant... but you can't adequately define, (or at least, can't universally define) it." You are too fond of definitions, my friend. Won't you finally take your sense for it, and judge my sense a bit more thence that I am trying to put a-words generally. There is too much to define. We can only go a certain length with definitions anyway and they will yet seem to be the smallest part of the truth. My feelings and interests are I believe to-morals-ward in judging that is healthy, natural, and respectful, and nurturing those for the good of socialness and the world. And that what declines or makes less health, nature and respect and especially does not try to decline what declines these, is perverse. I have my own appetites and deviations but I govern my self in my best power toward what I feel is best socially and worldly...to be healthy, natural and respectful, and yes I for more part I ask the same of others. What can we if we cannot at one with each other? Perverse is against being at one, it puts us against us. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-30-2003 02:17 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Essorant, I think you just defined life. Or, at least, life after about age eighteen? That's roughly the age when the human body can no longer make more cells than are destroyed every day and we all begin that downward spiral called aging. Come to think of it, at fifty-three, I think I might just agree. It is pretty perverse. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Maybe it only seems perverse Ron because we try to resist it so much. When is the rose perfect? The bud? The fresh bloom? When petals fall to the ground? At every stage the rose fulfills its' design. It is in the Tao. It is we that are separated from the universe. Perhaps that is what is perverse. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Yes, I believe much is in the approach. If we are settled to regard everything as pitched to decrease, and decreasing too rapidly for any relieving, where shall life fare? There is a youth to every age of life, discovery and restoration to make, new ways of looking and thinking, becoming. We can either see and feel this or brood upon the to-decay and death-ward aspect of life, and precipitate and catch decay and death probably the quikclier. We cannot force nature, we can only influence it and tend it, cultivate, and hope and fear for good weather andbountiful harvest. A good approach and bridging has a good influence and shall find good results oftener than not, I believe. If we see a bad inlfuence , there is none that is as bad an influence as not trying to discard that or even sometimes doing much too little. And if others approach you in distress and do you no succour still approach them in the future and do them succour if they should ever be in distress. Show them that you are yourself. For that is I believe the approach of a true honour and respect that shall not lower treat for being treated lower. And if someone bears malice toward you bear no malice toward him, try to do him good despite bad; if this doesn't ammend him at least it won't stoop you.I am express against conforming to a bad approach, habit, vice, method to align oneself to face that of another. It augments it; it makes one thronged with the same. I think there is too much of that kind of assimilation today. Vice needs to be stopped by virtue not by vice, and the most perverse, the worst vice is not trying to quit a vice at all. [This message has been edited by Essorant (07-31-2003 01:57 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Isn't Essorant speaking of a moral / social decline moreso than a physical decline? Interestingly, traditional Taoism taught a "way" that was evident in nature ... a propriety of action and manner versus perversity of the same. This was a more universal claim for morals than the subjectivism we see today. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I believe in true people are very concious of morals on a certain quick level, inwardly and in framing sayings and writings, and artworks; but they lack the earnest and permanance and self-government to convey and use as commonly what they ken spiritually, and out of history, physically in effect. Why is this? Why don't the bridges we are wont to make reflect the amount of timber we are wont to have? What retards our reasoned and displined sense from governing our living better in effect? Why do people mock Religion? Why is there so much pornograhy? And so many swingers on the internet? Why do women dress to please lechery today? So many divorces, addictions and breakdowns? Agression and violence in attitudes and in arts that we will yet admire? Why does it feel sometimes like there are more cars in the city than trees, even blades of grass? Why can't we get our humours to balance? There must be an ache so very sore in many hearts right now to make people seek pleasure and freedom from so much so viciously for relieving. What is causing and how will we construe this ache? Do we, our socialness, and the general human world give us the time and space to address it that well spiritually or physically? To advise thoughts, choices and changes as thoroughly as we ought to institute a living much more moral and balanced? I don't think so. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2003 12:44 PM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
A professor friend of mine from the Behavioral Analysis program at Penn State said something to the effect that, modernly, with the additional "leisure" time we have as a result of technological advancements, we now have the time to reflect on why we do what we do. Essentially, he wrote that, on reflection, we find ourselves slaves of behavior: we smoke, we cheat, we drink too much (and sometimes drive afterward), oftentimes with little regard to the negative effects these behaviors have on our lives and the lives of others. Behavior, particularly behavior that is immediately rewarding, is difficult to change. That doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Self-discipline is one necessary element, I think. But more important than that - at least in my thinking - we need to understand why we do what we do and, should we value long life over immediate gratification, we should make an effort to change our behavior in a more-or-less systematic manner. The next step would be to understand how less destructive behavior can be maintained over time. Many of us do that already ... much of it is common-sense. You might think of the behavioral science discipline as a refinement of common sense by observation and experimentation. Certainly we cannot extinguish all of our self-destructive/maladaptive behavior, but I think we can remove much of it from our lives by understanding why we do what we do and how we can most effectively go about changing our behavior. Just my two cents. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
jbouder-- I think you speak very true. Our behaviors to great part will fare as well or ill as we have mind and influence on them. Once educated and reasoned confident, behavior can be set loose for the most part and need little thought to keep in a good sense of direction, tempered impulses and nature will guide and govern. But often we will meddle with our wisdom's senses and articulate them too much, ammend when ammendments aren't needed, they become too complex for themselves, dull and dilated into thoughts that tolerat too much, these retard the original sense and now moralities try to house perversities. I don't know if this makes sense but I basically think we should keep it simple: In moral influences behavior tendencies will be more moral, in perverse influences they will be more perverse. In mixed up morality and perversity, they will be mixed up, like me  [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2003 03:41 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you want to talk about ending social injustice I'll be there with you. If you want to talk about ending bigotry, racism, and prejudice of all kinds I'm in. If you want to talk about stopping corruption in high places, robber-baron CEO's, crooked politicians, cover-ups by Cardinals -- I'm all over that. If you want to talk about improving yourself -- fine. If you feel the need and that this is the proper venue and want to confess your own sin -- fine. You want to cry about it -- I'll cry with you. But if you want to talk about the perversion of 'society' I can't be in that game. Because when you go there you're talking about what my neighbor does, what his neighbor does, what his cousin in Spokane does, what the little girl behind the counter at the convenience store who looks like Doris Day does -- and it's just none of my business what they do. You see I have this huge mote in my own eye. I'm not much for telling anybody else how they ought to live their life -- except for maybe two things -- do something nice for somebody else every day, and love everybody you can. And if there's somebody you can't love then try faking it for a while any way. Maybe that's three things -- but if I was King for a day I'd be working on my first paragraph up there and forgetting about what some hard-working man or woman may be doing when the lights are out. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Thanks LR. (Yeah, I'm around now and again...) Except I wouldn't even hope for as much as you... It would be nice if everyone could do at least one nice thing a day, and love as many people as they can... but my expectations for proper human conduct are pretty simple- if you don't mess with anyone else, or hurt anyone else, you're doing alright. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
LR That's very much where I am going. What's going on? I am going into what is in the background, behind the scenes, around the corner, in the bedroom. I'm not going to ask people of their private things and doings. I'm not going to physically pry and encrouch into peoples concealed lives nor seek for a social government that does for I feel these things are are up to one's own bosom's government, discretion's fiat. I go there in imagination based on what I see in public effect. Many have mentality we may do things perverse in private wheres and media and then and then put these away and out of mind to go convey a "real" life and morals- be our right self, do the right things in the right places. But those just don't happen. Sexual perversion, and pornography, used to be private but now are very public in streaking advertisements, sexualities, the way people dress, the way people talk, have fantasies, make jokes. Thus, now entertainment is too dependant on these, addicted. I cannot look into any cultural medium it seems for longer than ten seconds before I come to something lecherous or bordering on being lecherous or pornographic, or it flashes at my face, but it attempts to moves my sexual side despite my understanding of what is healthy spiritually or physically, natural, and respectful; that I am moved frightens me because soon enough arrive there as well as many flashings of goings on of sexual abuse, rapings, molestation, child pornography, public exhibitionisms etc, etc, etc And this is just what is public and permitted to be shown broadcast. What of what is going on in private? Something may be very sexual and indulgent, lightly decadent but the vicious frequency of it will make it lecherous and venomous. Right now I think people are nursing ill frequencies and adding venom by letting freedoms of these dilate so in their own person, besides socially. It is hard to keep one mind sometimes against certain sexual perversions because the natural desire always yet influences in the background , but this is played upon to an unnatural, extreme extent many other vices and many crimes. The way sexuality looks really disturbs me today. And many peoples of all degrees are responding in the influence, many too far to be truly called of the degree they try to blazon on their public life. Smoking, drugs, gambling, are usually personal fallings in substances, but sexuality is about body to body, soul to soul. It reflects a lack of honour and protecting each others honour when their is so much sexual vice and sexual misdoings. I believe one should be and appear in public and private, one whole mind, figure, and self, not be some fragmented, divided side or split personality, this here and that there, or an enigma or receptacle trying to consume and hold, even tolerate all manyfold tastes, reasons, characters, interests, cultures, religions, sexualities to plays upon these and affect them as a moment is given to take advantage thereof or anything. One should be himself all around, and able to make morals and choices unconfusedly, or at least for the more part, based on a good sense of direction. Keep one's truth and err from it as little as possible lest it be little a truth. Some influences, appearances, suggestions will scatter and distract him a bit inevitably and he shall not be sincerely whole at all times, he shall falter in but yet should not fall out of his morals. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-02-2003 05:04 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'I believe one should be and appear in public and private, one whole mind, figure, and self' So what you're saying is that what I do behind closed doors should be acceptable in public? Or, to put it another way, I shouldn't do anything in my private life that I wouldn't do in public? You seem to think that the 'perversion' of sex causes criminal activity and violence- somehow I think sexual repression might have the same effect. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Essorant That's the problem with Temptation -- it's so tempting. We all have to learn to deal with that. Asking 'society' to change so that we don't have to be tempted isn't the solution. If I may ask, and this will help communication, what is your ethical background and first language? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: From Sin a Description of Our Being |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush : "my expectations for proper human conduct are pretty simple- if you don't mess with anyone else, or hurt anyone else, you're doing alright." But even according to these expectations, are things going well? How does "society" measure up to this? Is this world marked by an increasing understanding that we would be better off by not messing with others, or hurting others? You are offering a moral view of passivity here (one which I agree with BTW), but I think active morality is also commendable, because it adds more of a challenge. This world is too large and the wires are too crossed for anyone to truly live in a vacuum. John Donne once wrote that "No man is an island". In the same way, I think the "victimless crime" concept is carried way too far. To hurt oneself is always to hurt someone else. And Essorant is right to suggest that the power of vice rarely remains satisfied with the boundaries of self. Jesus once said that "Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks". Likewise, out of the abundance of the heart the hand moves. Again, it's not that I disagree with you, but I have seen the rule "Do no harm to your neighbor" abused. It's much too easy to justify. Almost any depraved lifestyle in it's preliminary stages can hide under this one. Even the most ruthless of society will still claim that they are merely living for self-interest, and want to hurt no one. It's just that others seem to always somehow get in the way! Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-03-2003 11:50 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: " And this is just what is public and permitted to be shown broadcast. What of what is going on in private?" I think this is an astute observation. Private lives are the building blocks of all Public life. And Public life is the macrocosm of all private lives. Therefore, what of the idea that it is taboo to infringe upon individual lives with any kind of moral "oughtness"? Don't get me wrong ... Like LR, I want to start with myself. I know about that Railroad Tie in my eye as well ... Everyone quotes that one don't they? But how often they leave off the concluding part about actually removing it, and helping their brother remove his. The message was never supposed to be, "We're all fine with our motes and specks." Societies which embrace that ideology are in trouble as well. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, Yes; in a general sense. In a general sense, why should one be anything loth to be or do what he or she will in private and public if it is natural, healthy and respectful? Do morality and decence only behove in certain places and times? Or where this private thing commence morals and decence may adjourn to resume at this appointed public hereafter? Or vice-versa; some people have very moral interests and inclinations in private and then forget their moral wits when thronged in societies. Shouldn't morals and character have permanance in each other? I believe we should base our social laws on morals, but not our morals on social laws. We should not use them because social laws try to enforce them and for fear of punishment, but rather for that these are our laws whatsoever, and this is our being, society, and future no matter what capacity privatly or socially. Just like we should not put on a seat belt more to please society's rule in place for it and for fear of getting pulled over and given a ticket than because we are chary for our own safety. If we had all freedom privately to do what we would we should still put it on as diligently as we shall in public where society will step in otherwise. The seat belt was not invented so officers could be employed to ensure people would use it and to put penalties around, but for safety. The officers and penalties are just ways of admonitishing what is in our cheif interestes already but that we sometimes forget or overlook, or ignore. Well, are not morals similar? What makes us think moral saftey is this important public but only this much privately? And that what what is perverse in public is not perverse in private? If social laws are not present morals should still be. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-04-2003 04:08 PM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
quote: But who defines those morals? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
LR Asking 'society' to change so that we don't have to be tempted isn't the solution. Society is not a concious being itself made of concious beings. It will never change it, but by changing us we will change society. Sometimes we use the word "society" and we miss whereupon the true charge is. I believe the manner of societies is the manner how people put them into one altogether. If one is not well we need to put us into it better. And the moral and physical safety in society will be as solid as the effect of sincere (or public and private) interest for it. I don't feel today very safe about our society, and I feel general earnest for changes is become distracted, and very backward in certain mentalities accepting perversities in their own persons. We can not charter where all things start, where all things end, but we may see the general operation, the influence of things , and as now, I believe we need to put ourselves into our society better by influencing us better. We need to have our character and morals more permanant in each other and from their we will make more unconfused choice. "If I may ask, and this will help communication, what is your ethical background and first language? " It am unsure how to answer...by ethical background do you mean religion? My first language is English as far as I can [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-05-2003 02:37 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I wonder, is there a social law against assuming a false identity? I guess it's probably more up to the individual(s) eh? [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-05-2003 02:38 AM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I share a bed with my boyfriend. I really can't get much more explicit with that unless I want to post in the adult forums, now can I? Whether or not you think it's immoral that I do this, (you could always just replace 'boyfriend' with 'husband') the point is that certain things are deigned unsuitable for the public eye or audience- that's why we have movie rating systems and private posting forums and- dare I say it?- bedroom doors. If I am married, it would be agreed by most that it is healthy to have sexual relations with my husband. But is it healthy to have them on the front lawn? In the living room in front of the kids? I'm going to say something I usually don't say- moderation and discretion are the key here. What I do in my bedroom is not suitable viewing material for the entire neighborhood, or at the very least, for minors (I have no moral objection to the swinging culture, although I personally would find it a distasteful thing to do...) We don't live in a G-rated world. It's interesting, because if you go to Europe (I went to Italy a couple years back) couples are much mroe open, physically, in public. The question then becomes, should our attitudes toward what is and isn't poerverse and decadent change, or should society change, or a little of both? BTW, Stephan, I agree that our society isn't doing so well on the golden rule there, but I'm not so sure that what Essorant pins is really to blame. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
quote: It depends on what you mean by a false identity, if you mean pretending to be somebody or something you obviously are not then that would fall into the category of deception, which is generally classed as socially unacceptable. If however you are referring to simply changing the name by which you wish to be known then that, I believe, would be down to individual choice. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"But who defines those morals?" I think there is strong reason to believe that it is not necessary to define morals at all ... if by "define" you really mean to invent. Ethics are not arbitrary creations of cultures or individuals. There is an amazing consistency underlying all of the moral codes of History, that speaks loudly of a universality as regarding ethics. Those who argue against this always point out and magnify the differences which have existed. But a prolonged look reveals much more similarity than difference. As C.S. Lewis once wrote, "It is no more possible to invent a new ethics than to place a new sun in the sky. Some precept from traditional morality always has to be assumed". I think this is also evidenced by the fact that great moral teachers in History have seldom if ever introduced new things, but have called individuals and societies back to the things they knew already. The bard and prophet's invection has always been against immorality ... not amorality. So, while I feel that Essorant's tirade against "perversion" is a bit ambiguous and too broad, I don't think obscuring a common understanding of decency versus perversion negates what he is saying. After all, I think this common understanding is there. And many, many (including myself at times ... ouch) act against this understanding, even while it is internalized. Again, the charge is that immorality disguised as amorality happens way too often. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-05-2003 01:37 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"if you mean pretending to be somebody or something you obviously are not then that would fall into the category of deception, which is generally classed as socially unacceptable. If however you are referring to simply changing the name by which you wish to be known then that, I believe, would be down to individual choice." I suppose then that a person doing the latter would not mind revealing their former name then? Because, in a cyber-setting where identity is not so easliy ascertained, a unannounced name change might also involve a bit of deception. Over the internet, for example, identity is not immediately obvious because of a lack of visual cues. Stephen. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
quote: I know I certainly wouldn’t, which one would you prefer? Coof Caul Coegwyr Toad Crazy Eddie Phaedrus Shou Lao Or one of the others? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"The question then becomes, should our attitudes toward what is and isn't perverse and decadent change, or should society change, or a little of both?" I guess that would depend upon our view of morality as it relates to society and individuals. Is society evolving ethically? Are we corporately inventing our own morality as we go? Or are we veering from a standard which is more foundational? If we accept the first view, then morality necessarily becomes arbitrary, no matter how long it takes to evolve. I see a great problem with this. How can we react to the ethical "pioneers" and moral avant-gardists? How can we denounce Nietzsche or the Third Reich? Sure their "ethics" are shocking and way too radical for most. But there is nothing in them which could not conceivably be reached and accepted more gradually. If we stand on this arbitrariness, it seems to me that we can have no more reason to denounce someone as immoral, than to have a problem with the Cambrian explosion. I use this analogy because Naturalistic evolution, like moral relativism, has no real teleology. Are gradual changes in ethics acceptable, while sudden explosive changes are not? If so, why? If however, we accept that morality is more of a fixed point of reference, then it would be foolish to change one's views of what is perverse just because society is drifting. But if it is ultimately arbitrary anyway, then it would be "suffering for goodness' sake", when there is actually no such thing ... All needless trouble. Why not go with the flow and follow the crowd, if it is the path of least resistance? The broad way is always the easiest. Of course you know what I believe. But it is good to ask, no matter where you stand on this issue, where the path leads. Monotheistic religions have always spoken of sin and righteousness, punishment and reward. Pantheistic religions have always spoken of Karma and its consequences. And humanists have always spoken of cause and effect. I'm not saying they are all the same, or even that they are all trying to say the same thing. But they all seem to be commenting on a common text. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
More discoursing than all other creatures I believe we shall take pause and inquire into wit and will and nature and in doing this I think we define morals setting well versed and practiced approach or wont or precedent in our mind and our body. Discover and remember pulses and lines of being; what ways of thinking, doing, augment, what diminish, what constructive, what destructive? What keep the inner , and what the outer timber firm, upright. What keeps our timbering from falling? It may totter yet we will find ways to keep it all up in the end by approaching again and again and noticing what we need to ammend to make a more availing approach now---we have to support it better. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-06-2003 01:39 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Stephan It's Craig... He's always been a character. And another one. And another one. And another one. And -- might even be more than one in this thread! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Stephan- I will agree with both you and Essorant that there is a sense that most people have about morality- a shared point of view. Most people would agree that it's wrong to bash your neighbor's car in with a crowbar, or punch somebody in the face for no reason... or any number of mean things. And I actually just started to write about things that most poeple would think are good, like feeding the poor and hungry and homeless, or working to end race, class, and sexual discrimination... but I think of voices in my past that say things like "Why don't they get a job instead of leeching up welfare money? I could use that money I pay taxes with..." and it's really not so cut and dry now, is it? I'm terribly exhausted, but the point I'm trying to make is: What is moral- not decadent- in the bedroom? Is violence ever just- or at least justifiable? I think it's easy to say it's wrong to hurt someone... but what's right? What's not wrong in terms of private affairs, and when do those private affairs become important to the public, for the public's well being? Or is it really just the well-being that matters- or the public's scrutiny? -A tired and nonsensical (I actually almost typed "not making sense" instead of nonsensical...) Amy |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Thanks. It all makes sense now. But why am I the last one to know? Craig(s), Why? Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Hush: "it's really not so cut and dry now, is it?" Surely you're right. But "not so cut and dry" is a far cry from being subjective. The Physical sciences are not so cut and dry either, mainly because of our incapacity to grasp and understand it all. But some still dare believe there is an external universe that exists independently of us. Likewise many believe that there is a moral standard in the universe that we are all accountable to. The only reason I say these things is that generally, whenever anyone speaks of morals, the question invariably pops up, "Well who defines them?" And questions are always good if the possibility of an answer is assumed. But mostly, this question comes rhetorically, as if to say "Morals are totally subjective" I do see that moral principles take on more complexity, when applied to many-dimensioned situations ... such as the "welfare society" you mentioned. Feed the hungry,...yes. Feed those who are able to work but refuse to,... no. It does get down to the question "What is truly helpful to this person"? I believe in mercy, but enablement is not a true kind of helping. Likewise, when it comes to sexuality, I believe there is a moral standard that we are acountable to. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Let's take your analogy a little further, Stephen. Would you agree to a federal law making it a criminal offence to even try to invent a perpetual motion machine? Should we be forced, through either coercion or social pressure, to live our lives according to the scientific beliefs of others? Is their "absolute certainty" necessarily enough to make them right? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
great Ronalogy |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
Why do I change my user name so much? Because I write so badly but so badly want to write something that is independently verifiable as good. It took me a couple of hours to distil a page full of reasons in to that one sentence and I’m not sure I’ve even managed to do that with much success. Strangely enough though there is some relevance between those reasons and this thread in that my individual choice of actions is played out within a social environment (PIP). There are two underlying and recurring themes in these forums that, over the years, have shown themselves to be inextricably linked and yet seemingly diametrically opposed. One is the nature and origins of morality that cements a social group together to produce an acceptable behavioural standard, the other is the apparent selfishness of individuals and their right to freedom of choice. At first glance the two seem incompatible but it may be that interaction between society and the individual is the mechanism which allows both to co-exist. There are many degrees between society and the individual, unfortunately or fortunately depending on how much you value progress, people continue to have individual and differing views while still managing to keep at least one foot in realm of the socially acceptable. Socially acceptable behaviour is, as far as I see it, an evolving entity, my belief is that society and individual trends within a society are played out and tested against a similar litmus paper to that which evolution is guided by, namely natural selection. Without the diversity caused by individual acts and random happenstance society would be unable to define the watermark of morality, a watermark regulated and adjusted by natural selection to ensure the survival of society as a whole. Social morality is not static nor has it ever been, it changes and evolves to meet and fit to new situations. Are things getting better or worse? I believe that society is constantly changing for the better and will do as long as individual choice is maintained and allowed. -------------------- By the way, just in case you’re wondering, I try to ensure that I only use one username in any one thread or at any one time, doing otherwise would be confusing and bordering on deception. I can only recall two occasions when I failed in this regard, one was intentional when I posted to blast the failings of my own poem. The other was accidental when a post I’d already replied to was brought back to the top and I inadvertently replied using a different name. There may of course be others but if there are they probably fall into the accidental category. [This message has been edited by Legion (08-09-2003 08:29 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I liked Toad the best. Your identity crisis does inject another dimension to 'acceptable' conduct in society though -- and that is -- who you are seems to make a big difference as to what is or is not acceptable behavior. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
LR, Toad couldn’t write to save his life and was too argumentative. quote: That’s absolutely true, any group given time will eventually evolve a hierarchy, the larger and more established the societal group the more complex the hierarchy. Along with complexity comes another interesting change, the judgement of suitability or acceptability swings from trust or position allotted by proof of action to trust allotted by type or label. That’s why we assign more trust to a doctor above the family butcher and trust politicians about as far as we can throw them with one arm. I think it’s due to expected actions, Slim Shady is expected to be foul mouthed and abusive the Pope isn’t. There seems to be a tolerance allotted to unsocial behaviour which can link allowable behaviour in the subjects to their expected behaviour - Shady can bandy about as many expletives as he likes, the Pope however probably wouldn’t survive beyond the first [insert preferred profanity here]. This doesn’t always happen though. When a doctor or a priest does something that flies in the face acceptability there seems to be a reference to expected behaviour above actual behaviour, though this can manifest itself in a strange way. Instead of producing a higher level of outrage as would be expected, the subject can be afforded preferentially thanks to the security blanket afforded by previously allotted expectation. The a priori picture of a priest carries with it a pre-defined element of trust which is hard to shake even when faced with incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing – we just can’t believe a priest could do something so out of character. Regardless of the fact that we may not even know the character of the individual involved, the trust afforded in such a cases is trust by type or label. Hierarchies are unavoidable, all men may be created equal but that equality is eroded or augmented from day one. These forums aren’t immune from this inequality rather than colour of skin social standing or sexual persuasion here it falls into neat categories of membership status, number of posts, length of membership and popularity. Interestingly one big difference here as opposed to society in general is that ability isn’t a factor. If you’re a senior member it’s more likely you’ll be listened to and less likely that you’ll be banned, actually that’s probably unfair you’d be equally likely to be banned but more effort would be made to avoid it. I should add that this isn’t a criticism of these forums, the same thing happens everywhere and is a fairly natural human trait, to be honest my observation is that it isn’t as pronounced here as everywhere else. Undoubtedly a consequence of the hard work put in by Ron and the Moderators but it still does exist. [This message has been edited by Legion (08-09-2003 01:35 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I believe that a personal attack was made by the more junior Legion on the more senior Toad -- this is unacceptable beheavior on these boards!! Nothing wrong with being argumentative. I wish everyone was -- as opposed to being quarellsome. An argument being a conclusion based on a premise. Toad was smart. Piffy even. You are correct to point out the nature of relational currency that a person brings to a community. This virtual one being no exception. I don't think the 'status' of senior member necessarily dictates that currency -- it merely has allowed enough time for a person to have accumulated any or not. Some only accumulate ill will the more they post. |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
quote: You’re probably right LR, I suppose I should add that to my reasons for changing names - it acts as an ill will purgative. I also have to agree that Toad was full of piffle. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Did I say piffy? Bad brain, bad! I meant pithy, pithy (more than one way to purge ill will!) [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (08-09-2003 09:03 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Stephen : "But some still dare believe there is an external universe that exists independently of us. Likewise many believe that there is a moral standard in the universe that we are all accountable to." Ron: "Would you agree to a federal law making it a criminal offence to even try to invent a perpetual motion machine? Should we be forced, through either coercion or social pressure, to live our lives according to the scientific beliefs of others? Is their "absolute certainty" necessarily enough to make them right?" My analogy was based on one similarity between ethics and physical science, namely that they are far bigger than we can conceptualize. Because of our limitations there is a lot of nebulosity in certain areas of both. But one similarity that does not exist with physics and ethics is the ability to comply or not by sheer will. If someone could build a perpetual motion machine, then they would not have transgressed physical law ... on the contrary they would have discovered a new vista, and it would be in the scientific journals before you could bat an eye. There are many who believe there are universals in the moral structure of the universe which do not change with culture or time ... regardless of what applications or new moral insight we yet lack. And those who transgress these lines are no more discovering new moral laws, than those who obey them are becoming morally stagnant and stunted. So when there is a moral precept which can, unlike physics, be disobeyed by an act of will, then yes coercion and social pressure is sometimes appropriate. No, not always forced, and certainly not be me... Many have tried this method with poor results. I believe ultimately that God is the primary enforcer. But there have always been moral teachers, and prophets, and those who warn of retribution and the ill results that come through immoral practices. To answer your question ... yes, even with science this is so! It would be a foolish Doctor who did not strongly try to dissuade his Cardiac patients from eating high sodium diets, or not try to didactically influence his diabetic patients not to eat brownies three times a day. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-09-2003 09:52 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: First, Stephen, the differences you perceive between absolute physical laws and absolute morality only exist because of where you stand in that Universe. "Jump off a building and gravity will pull you towards the Earth." This can be empirically proven. "Kill a man and you will ultimately be punished." Not so easily proven. But if you believe in absolute morality, it must be JUST as unbreakable. Still, the apparent differences between absolute physical laws and absolute moral laws only serve to strengthen my earlier point. We can't claim 100 percent certainty about science, and that makes it highly inappropriate (and stupid!) to dictate the course of scientific inquiry. In the absence of harm to another, science needs the freedom to make choices. Needless to say, as a collective, we are far less certain about morality than we are about science. The problem I have with absolute morality in practice is that no one can define its dimensions. It's a pretty big bucket and people have a tendency to throw anything into it they want. Do we all agree that killing a human being is wrong? Not really. So how in the world are we all going to agree on the dietary restrictions of pork or what two consenting adults can or can't do in the bedroom? I'm perfectly willing to accept the concept of universal morality. I even feel I know what should be put in the bucket. But I won't force others to live their lives according to my insights because, if I do, two or ten years down the road, I know I will in turn be forced to live my life according to someone else's insights. Persuasion is good. Teaching is even better. Coercion is, again, inappropriate and stupid! In the absence of harm to another, humanity needs the freedom to make choices. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
""Kill a man and you will ultimately be punished." Not so easily proven. But if you believe in absolute morality, it must be JUST as unbreakable." Why must it be just as unbreakable? I don't agree at all. Moral laws are unique in that we can choose to transgress. In fact the whole concept of morality hinges upon the very ability to break it. If we couldn't choose to cross these principles, then no one could ever have in the History of Earth been called "immoral". And we know deep inside, that many have been and are in fact now, immoral. Unbreakable morals is a contradiction of terms. ". Persuasion is good. Teaching is even better. Coercion is, again, inappropriate and stupid! . . .In the absence of harm to another, humanity needs the freedom to make choices." Well Ron, I still think "victimless crime" is basically a myth. Pornography and sexual perversion do hurt societies and others since it tends to spread. Adultery always causes unthinkable pain. And apart from this, if I am reckoning rightly, a whole host of immoral actions directly harm others. Murder is typically against the law in society, as is rape, vandalism, child pornography, etc.. etc... Do you think that coercion is inappropriate and stupid in these instances? I bet you don't. I'll bet you are glad that there are temporal laws which adequately reflect God's moral law in the universe. I bet you are also glad that the State exists to enforce these laws. I've heard you say before that laws are never based upon morals. I don't agree. I will concede however that there is great degree of pragmatic consideration mixed in with making laws. But this is primarily because immorality always has negative consequences. So laws exist to keep society at the functioning level from day to day, week to week, month to month. Without these society would break down. Just consider what happens in America when local law has to go without enforcement such as in the case of a natural disaster. The Looting and pillaging begin. People start carrying firearms around. Here the law is still very appropriate. Many things should be coerced by the powers that be. This is God's design, that law should reflect justice. Romans 13 tells us that in this general sense "all authority is of God". But there are other areas that law cannot penetrate into. Officials can't sneak into everyone's bedroom and basement with no evidence of wrongdoing. Nor should they be able to. Nor should the national law deal with every possible immoral act. Laws would be too many to number. But that's where moral teachers and preachers fit in. This is where persuasion and teaching are apt. Because while societies may function a long long time with these "lesser" immoralities unadressed, they will catch up sooner or later. Adultery, fornication, perversion, greed, illegitimate use of drugs, all nibble away at the undergirding of societies. The prophets have always warned about such things. "Repent, or such and such will happen to your nation." It hasn't changed. For example, America is only a little over two hundred years old. Yet the pride, love of money, inordinate materialism and perverted sex, etc... are going to contribute to our demise if we don't turn around. Maybe law should or should not be used in some of these areas, but we do need teaching and persuasion. And we especially need the type which reminds us that there is a moral Judge of the universe above humanity. Even if we disagree between debatable points, the agreement that morality is not completely arbitrary at least gets people to examine closer their own lives and consciences. That's all. I'm with you in that I'm not wanting Big Brother breathing down my back. But I still think we could use a little John the Baptizer around. As to the assertion that our morality is simply a byproduct of evolution ... there are considerable problems with that idea, I'll get to later. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-10-2003 06:16 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You may want to do some extra work in these areas Stephan. On one hand you want to present an 'inborn' morality. While this might make a pretty good case for naturalism I have to wonder if there are little bird prophets that have to go around telling the other birds to fly south for winter. You've created a contradiction that you'll have to expound on or be trapped in. Another consideration is what passes for morality today vs. what was moral in the time of those Old Testament prophets is somewhat different. Take the area of sex and marriage just for starters. In the time of Jesus it was unnaceptable for a woman to hug a man other than her husband. Today, it's obviously different. However -- if a man wanted to hug a lot of women -- he could marry them all. It would seem the absolute laws of morality keep shifting. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, I don't think you have ever made a post where I found quite so much with which to disagree. I'm not even sure where to begin? quote: You can choose to fly off a three-story building, too. And you will face the consequences. Surely, you're not saying that morality is simply something God suggested we should do? If there are no consequences to an act, in this life or the next, then there is nothing immoral in the act. quote:Uh? A lot of things tend to spread, from Christmas cheer to athletic enthusiasm, but that hardly defines them as hurtful. Before you can prove that pornography is harmful, you first have to tell us what it is (that's rhetoric, btw). For many, going into public without a veil is pornographic and will surely bring about the destruction of society. quote: I think you're attributing the wrong cause to the effect. You might as well say that marriage causes the unthinkable pain, since it too precedes the effect. A husband and wife who have been separated for four or five years are unlikely to be hurt by adultery. Those who don't care can't be hurt. Look more closely and I think you would agree that betrayal, whether as adultery or some other form, causes unthinkable pain. quote: I don't consider any of those laws to be a reflection of morality. Those are examples of the government doing the ONLY thing the government should ever do: Protect its citizens from harm at the hands of others. Look at it strictly from a pragmatic viewpoint, Stephen. If you want to legislate your morality, you have to let us legislate everyone's morality. I have a few Amish neighbors who are likely going to upset your apple cart big time. Or you can look at it strictly from a Christian viewpoint. Should a man keep the Sabbath because God said so? Or because we'll throw his butt in jail if he doesn't? God apparently wanted us to have free will and make our own choices. You really want to tell Him He was wrong? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If a God were to take a thing's life before your eyes would you deem that moral or immoral? I believe that would be most perversely immoral for what does an immortal all knowing and having God need to be given to take something's life for? It seems all utterly contrary to divinity, contrary to humanity and is only agreeable to nature in its rawest, crudest, basest humour. Killing is for meat not for morals. And no knowledge, law nor moral end whatsoever may justify it--because no living thing doesn't deserve its life. What does a sentence to death do? It omits punishment and correction and aquits the misdoer of consequents. A man needs to confront his conciense, and learn to govern himself and morally wherefore. If the Government outside forces in too much than man lacks government of himself, amd if it forces to little he lacks government the same again. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 04:41 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Oh. So, uh, it's okay to kill your neighbor as long as you eat him? Never quite looked at it that way before, I guess. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No, That is contrary to humanity and nature---if there is no survival need. Whatever any man is he deserves his life. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 12:01 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I probably shouldn't try to adress anything when I am really mixed up lately. I look at some of my own comments and think you all must think I'm totally out of my wits. You are probably right...anyone want to come with me... I need a vacation and fresh air.. . [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 12:13 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: "On one hand you want to present an 'inborn' morality. While this might make a pretty good case for naturalism I have to wonder if there are little bird prophets that have to go around telling the other birds to fly south for winter. You've created a contradiction that you'll have to expound on or be trapped in." I see no contradiction here, because I believe humans and animals to be vastly different. The fact that animals have instincts that cannot be contravened, while humanity has a moral sense which can be transgressed, only tells me that we have a much higher capacity ... for good or evil. Giants can stand the tallest, yet fall the hardest. It's a whole different kind of sense which is inbred. There's no law which says universals must function in one direction. Morality is an example of a universal sense ... I didn't say that all men are moral, but that they have a moral capacity. Which means they can disobey their own moral insights. Let me also ask you ... Why do we feel abhorrence and moral indignation when "immoral" deeds are done to ourselves or those we love, if such actions are merely aberrations from instinct which couldn't be helped? Why do we feel such anger at times, and that based upon deep seated thoughts that they, as well as we, know these actions are wrong? Wouldn't these be irrational thoughts, if immorality were merely a natural glitch? Why do we feel so keenly that there can be actions which were done from evil intent? Yet "evil intent" is meaningless if our immorality is a just a genetic bug in the computer. Ron: "You can choose to fly off a three-story building, too. And you will face the consequences. Surely, you're not saying that morality is simply something God suggested we should do? If there are no consequences to an act, in this life or the next, then there is nothing immoral in the act." No, I'm not saying that morality is simply something God suggested we should do, but neither is it something forced upon us by sheer power. Immorality does have consequences. But how interesting it is, that many of it's consequences lack the immediate obviousness that something like disobeying gravity would have. Some practices DO have consequences only in the life to come. But that lack of obvious unprofitableness doesn't make them any more moral than the ones which instantly show ill-results. Some crops take longer to come in. I think it had to be that way, because the moral question far transcends the question of our personal gain. If morality were so obviously profitable and immorality so obviously futile, then it would perhaps fool us into thinking moral questions were all about how we fared in the matter. I think I remember that Satan asked God of Job "Does he fear you for nothing? Only because you've hedged him with your blessing". This lack of obviousness which you bring up doesn't show that certain things aren't immoral, but rather confirms the need for moral teachers and preachers in society. It's too easy to be decieved when God "rains on the just and the unjust", and things are apparantly prospering right along with immorality in place. We're not the only ones who have ever marvelled at this discrepancy. But there is a purpose in it. "There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: Righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve." (Ecclesiastes 8:14) & through a poetic caricature ... "... I envied the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from the burdens common to man. They are not plauged by human ills ... This is what the wicked are like- always carefree, they increase in wealth. Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure. In vain have I washed my hands in innocence ... When I tried to understand all this, it was oppressive to me, till I entered the sanctuary of God then I understood their final destiny ..." (exerpts from Psalm 73) "Uh? A lot of things tend to spread, from Christmas cheer to athletic enthusiasm, but that hardly defines them as hurtful. Before you can prove that pornography is harmful, you first have to tell us what it is" pornography n. Written, graphic, or other forms of communication intended to excite lascivious feelings. [from Greek pornographos, writing about prostitutes: porne- harlot prostitute. Obscuring things Ron, does not take away the truth that there is a common understanding of what this is. I'm not saying that all nudity is pornographic. Intent is implied. I have no doubt everyone in this forum knew exactly what I meant when I said "pornography". Would you agree? " A husband and wife who have been separated for four or five years are unlikely to be hurt by adultery. Those who don't care can't be hurt. Look more closely and I think you would agree that betrayal, whether as adultery or some other form, causes unthinkable pain. " You can't use the immorality of a broader concept to disprove the immorality of a narrower one that falls under the same category. So adultery is a form a betrayal which also comes from deeper betrayal. I am in total agreement with you here. But what does that prove? That adultery is okay? I also disagree that those who don't care can't be hurt. Because "not caring" is usually a facade anyway. "Not caring for" is not the same thing as "not caring". I come from a family with much divorce in our history ... I've seen the weight of care. "I don't consider any of those laws to be a reflection of morality. Those are examples of the government doing the ONLY thing the government should ever do: Protect its citizens from harm at the hands of others." Ron, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. But the evidence is overwhelming to me that laws have always (in addition to pragmatism) had a measure of morality involved. Study the history of laws and moral codes of all the ancient civilizations up till now. You will find them rife with references to things like "Justice" and "equity" and "rightness". Your point of view involves a tacit assumption that the makers of laws are not using their moral sense in legislating. I find that just as incredible to believe, as to believe that you are able to go a week without using your moral sense in making decisions at home. Of course there are laws and governments who make immoral and amoral laws. But lawmakers can disregard morals as easily as individuals can. I'm not saying that ALL law involves moral questions. But you have little ground to say that NO law involves them. It's at least highly likely that there are laws against people being harmed because everyone knows the pain in being unjustly harmed. You are also at odds with the testimonies of many lawmakers themselves who have explicitly stated they strove to create just laws for the masses. And Ron, my point in this thread is not to say "let's legislate my morality". I don't want to be the King, not even for a day. You keep saying that I must mean that. But it's a bit of a slur. I don't realistically think that all morality will be legislated, or even that it should be. I agree that would be absurd. I also agree that we would never agree on what laws are right (heck we don't now!) ... for the best of us see "through a glass darkly". Our sense of morality does not perfectly reflect that which comes from Heaven. But still, law always has and always will have it's moral aspect. God also gave the Ten Commandments as Laws. Likewise, are you going to tell him that he was wrong there? There must be a balance between Freedom and Law. I'm not touting the next theocracy. We're always coming from opposite ends Ron in these philosophical discussions, but I'm not so sure that we don't agree more than we think. We're just a bit wary of each other's extremities aren't we? From a Christian standpoint, since you brought it up ... Can we bring people to the truth that they are "not under the Law" without having affirmed that without Christ they are indeed under it? God's good news is that the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us" has been taken away. But to tell people there is no handwriting of ordinances written by the finger of God within their very consciences which they are absolutely accountable to, is to incite rebellion, not repentance. Remember that the law was supposed to be a "schoolmaster to bring us to Christ." But those who never had grade-school can't graduate highschool can they? Many are under the statutes of God which say "Do it or else" ... just to let them discover through earnestly trying that they can't do it anyway. Those humbled and crying out to God for mercy usually see him come in and change their hearts in ways they never could ... then they love him and actions flow no longer from sheer legality. But this never can happen until they see that God is requiring something of them, that they never can give. Until we see this spiritual / moral dilemma we will hardly seek him for the answer. And this has much more to do with preaching / teaching than it does with the laws of the land. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-11-2003 02:24 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Whatever any man is he deserves his life." Then why do we die? Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
why do we die? We die because life ends --it is not forever, so we deserve all its during howso long that may be or short. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 02:36 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Stephen, my points about pornography and adultery were to show that you CANNOT conclusively demonstrate harm to be the result of immorality. Your passages from Ecclesiastes and Psalms agree with me, as they must if we are to accept faith as the only tenet of obedience. I wish I could claim that the laws of our land were not tainted by morality, but I can't and I wasn't. My point, rather, was that they shouldn't be reflections of a morality upon which few can ever agree. The state should concern itself only with the affairs of man. My morality is, and must be, an issue between me and God. quote: Why? Mostly, I guess, because we don't seem to know any better. Our job is to stop people from hurting people so we can all live together. It's not our job to judge the morality of others or to assign evil intent. Attempts to do so only lead to Inquisitions, witch hunts, and about half the wars in history. The anger and indignation you cite ARE irrational, and probably a lot closer to "evil" than most of the deeds that lead to them. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"We die because life ends" "Life ending" is only a description of death ... just another way of saying "death". The essence of your statement is "We die because we die" which is a non-answer. My point in asking was ... if you think we deserve to live ... then why is death part of the picture? If there is a God, then he is either unjust for causing or allowing death, or we somehow are deserving of death. It's a deeper philosophical consideration that I am hinting at. Maybe you just meant that for men to kill men is wrong. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: "The anger and indignation you cite ARE irrational, and probably a lot closer to "evil" than most of the deeds that lead to them." So the anger of a mother whose six year old girl got raped by an 18 year old man down the street is more evil than the rape? Not acceptable. You misrepresent a Biblical account of anger. "Be angry. And sin not." is more the acceptable pattern. Anger based upon a transgression of justice is not condemned, it is the murderous thoughts and actions that flow from it if it is not properly dealt that is called evil. There is a such thing as "righteous indignation" which we all experience, even yourself. If you say not, then you are lying. If I hacked in PiP and destroyed it, you would be angry at me, and rightly so. Don't worry I barely know how to empty my delete folder. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-11-2003 03:18 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You're right, Stephen, the anger itself is not evil, just as love is not good. But we can promote good by advocating love and, if you eliminate the anger, you can eliminate much of the evil it causes. Jesus could afford righteous indignation. Jesus could, does, and will judge a man's moral intent. I can do neither, and judging from history, not many others can either. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Morals are the footprints of wisdom: if we want them to be distinct we must walk in them. But the more we loose us to stray from them the more we walk into doubt and even stray when we don't mean to...and likewise I believe will laws. Laws mustn't try to force morals but they should reflect them and influence with them, shouldn't they? To me pornography is immoral because it plays upon a natural desire and twists this to a shameles and extreme addiction that keeps on getting yet more extreme. These extremities are basically casual on the internet now. And the maincourse of the internet, every sexual "fetish" seems to have a thousand sites. Is this what the internet was devised for? What does this say about us-our tolerance? Are we prepared to tolerate everything?? I don't think this doesn't show in real life - there are "streaks" of pornography in advertising, in the way people dress, behave, speak. I can't get over it how excessive and explicit sexuality is today. Lechery has never been as thickly foul and widespread in culture as it is in this one. There used to actually be necessary form of erotic sensuality, perhaps could be called moral, and thats why there used to be a law to, that pornography needed to yet have a certain sensual aspect, an form of eroticness but this has been for the most part discarded. Pornography is prostitution and lechery broadcast in media and we are accepting that in our society perversely. Do you like how society is responding? When People want freedom that goes beyond morals and want the laws to make up for insecurity, I don't want to come out of my house. I want to be ablle to trust that people have the substance and government in themselves that they expect to be in the law because the substance of that and much more is in the laws of the breast. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 04:20 PM).] |
||
|
Legion Member
since 2003-07-20
Posts 54 |
While reading this thread I keep returning to a question I asked earlier. Who defines morality? It’s easy to believe that everyone has an absolute set of in-built morals, that some people know that going topless, committing adultery and reading or viewing pornography is immoral but that they do it anyway. I don't buy it, by one persons moral standards they are immoral, by there own moral standards they aren’t doing anything wrong. In fact according to themselves they are right, that isn’t to say that they can do as they please, society might judge that they’re most definitely wrong and if it does then they’ll soon know about it - and that’s really my whole point. I believe morality is a second person measure, people just do what they think is best for them. The moral judgement comes later, from others who use their measure of morality to assess possible immoral behaviour. Claiming that an individual has somehow knowingly transgressed against morality is only correct in the sense that it’s someone else’s measure of morality that they’ve failed to measure up to. You might say the morality they’ve failed to measure up to is that of God, I, naturally, believe that the morality belongs to the people around them. To answer my own question I believe that individuals define their own morality and that morality is changing, evolving to suit the situation guided by a natural selection of the morals that most fit the circumstances. [This message has been edited by Legion (08-11-2003 05:41 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"To answer my own question I believe that individuals define their own morality and that morality is changing evolving to suit the situation guided by a natural selection of the morals that most fit the circumstances." I agree, I think Morality has been around for a long time. And a long time has impressed it in many different ways...and we can judge how good these are by the goodness of their operations to situations. Perhaps morality may be called the "success" of choice. But I don't think morality is a "cloud" that any individual may form as he pleases because of his own present situations...moralties must look at other peoples situations, the past and the future. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 04:53 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Almost, Legion, but I don't think you're quite there. For that statement to have real meaning, you first have to define who the others are. Do you agree that women are property and should always shield their faces? Do you think life and worship should revolve around simplicity and children should only be schooled to about the sixth grade? Do you believe that anyone older than you deserves your respect and obedience? There are many, many "others" out there, each with often very differing views of morality. How much influcene, though, do they have on you and I? Even if we move closer to home, how much do you really care whether your neighbor thinks you're a lecher or not? I believe the only people who can define our sense of morality are those we want to please. I wrote a short story once about a man who was physically incapable of love. The wires just weren't there to make the connections. Turns out, he wasn't a very nice man.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephen "My point in asking was ... if you think we deserve to live ... then why is death part of the picture?" Perhaps I should have said it this way: I think we all deserve to have/live/be what we are given/are. Nothing has a reasoned thought or vile intention to take away life but a thinker. Nature in and of herself, or in her native most initial substance, is not a thinker. "She" does not "think" we ought to die, she doesn't "murder". Death just happens with the way she moves, if you will. And I do not think that God is a thinker. He knows all so what does he have to think for? And he can make anything be anything so why would he have to kill? The highest governments beyond human governments therefore do not seem thoughtful---they are knowing as a God or just flowing as a nature--but as we are humans bound and gagged and razed and smote by ceaseless thoughts buffeting and displacing knowings and flowings that try to work in us, we have should at least give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. We do not necessarily deserve to live because God gave life it to us, or nature did, but because we hold life dear to live and protect--that is enough, or it should be. Having to die and be mortal is not a choice therefore there is no deserving or not deserving death...we just die because that is part of the movement of things. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-11-2003 11:33 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"And I do not think that God is a thinker. He knows all so what does he have to think for?" Yes. But though knowing all, and knowing nothing, both deny thinking, one is below thinking, and the other above it. They are not the same thing. Either God has a personality and has given us a share of it, or we are part of a mindless, irrational, amoral cosmos. My point is that your comparison of thoughtless nature, and God, doesn't really work, unless you are a Pantheist. But then, if you are a Pantheist, you are taking the personality of God and attempting to project it on to nature. Stephen. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
I dunno, Ron... do you really think Hester Prynne cared that much about what the other townspeople thought of her before they shunned her and plastered the A on her dress? People can make you care what they think of you, and it's not always quite that obvious. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"One is below thinking, and the other above it." How have you ascertained that one is above or better? Does that make the other then less worthy of moral attention? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Good point, Amy. But I think our morality is defined more by what we believe than by what we do. Other people can and do punish us if they disagree with our moral standards, but that rarely changes our moral standards as much as it changes our actions. In the story I wrote, I tried to make two points. First, if someone doesn't have anyone in the world that they care about, they are not going to be constrained by morals. Our concept of right and wrong is defined by what someone we love thinks of us. We don't want to disappoint a specific person or have them think badly of us, so we adhere to their standards. Obviously, I'm over-simplifying a spectrum when I treat it as an extreme point, but essentially those who are deprived of love become the hardened criminals of our society. They are the monsters no one can understand. Second, and this likely falls closer to your example, even those who love and are loved can fall foul of their moral code if they believe doing so will have no effect on their relationship. Remove the fear of exposure and you remove the moral imperative. Most people, I think, fall under this umbrella. There is an important corollary to the second point. If the fear of exposure cannot be removed, then neither can the moral imperative. Who can you love and yet never fool? To the best of my reckoning, there are only two answers. God. And yourself. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Been following this thread from afar ... thought I'd take time I should be devoting to the stack of papers on my desk to step into "the near" for a moment. quote: I think I agree with what you're saying here, but would word it a little differently. I wouldn't say a person such as the one you describe is not constrained by morals. Rather, I think they are not constrained by a code of morality, or an ethic, that values others moreso (or at least comparitively to) than self. To such a person, getting a colleague fired from a job to open the way for a promotion may be immoral to most of us, but such actions are no less constrained by the application of an individual ethic than yours or mine. Not being able to ascribe value to the feelings and well being of others leaves only the self to please. Not sure what you'd call a person who could experience neither love for others or self-love ... maybe a Dell? In fact, I think such a person may feel badly if he/she succumbs to the weakness of not looking out for number one first and foremost, especially if it results in that person not fulfilling a selfish "need." I think this first type of person you describe is an extreme version of the second. He's a sociopath. The object of love is the main difference, and we all have a sense of self-love. Just (hopefully) not to that extreme. quote: Good thing God doesn't leave us to our own devices ... and that raises the issue of guilt. If there is a God, and if we can ascertain, to some degree, that He has certain expectations of us, how do we react to not measuring up to His standards? Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (08-12-2003 06:03 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Stephanos: "One is below thinking, and the other above it." Essorant: "How have you ascertained that one is above or better? Does that make the other then less worthy of moral attention?" I'm not sure what you are asking here. God is only truly God if he is a personal being ... and not a mythical or literary invention of mankind. If he is a personal being, he created us with rational and moral capacity ... that's part and parcel of being "created in his image". So our morality, though imperfect in a fallen world, is a reflection of his own. But if God has no personal aspect ... if we created him, then we really only have ourselves and nature to look to for guidance. Many have personalized and even deified nature. This is called Pantheism. But I can see no basis for real morality in Pantheism. Nature is not exactly moral. It has a cruel and crushing side. There are Cancers as well as Crowns, and aneurysms as well as apples. If we personify nature we have to come up with an arbitrary morality that is above her, since she does not provide the example. The only alternative is to reject a transcendent truth altogether and look to ourselves. So humanity becomes the measure of all things. But to claim that we are the only source of morality presents a problem. It is completely arbitrary, and we have no guarantee that what we come up with truly reflects what is good. In fact those who choose to do what most consider to be evil or wrong, are only doing something different (in a naturalistic world). How can we call them immoral? Some say that we really can't until they harm others, but why is harming others wrong? What if some develop an ethic that is actually closer to what we see in the natural world, and what is proposed in Darwinian Evolution ... destroy the weak, and prosper self. That's what natural selection does. Yet we tend to frown upon those who practice this in society. Robbing widows and killing orphans is not what our society considers to be moral, and rightly so. But if we are the sole creators of morality, what right have we to frown upon those who pick a totally different moral view? We have none really. In fact, it turns into "Might makes right". It's whoever is in the majority. You might say that being moral lends to better survival. But I have two responses to that. Firstly, what makes survival inherently better than non-survival? Do we have a basis for any value judgement here that is more than completely arbitary also? Secondly, we don't really see this in an evolutionary scheme of things, because if immorality is a "weakness", then natural selection has not done such a great job at weeding it out. Those who like morality might be mistaken! ... perhaps in the "survival of the fittest" arena, nastiness is actually the top dog. That's scary. It's what Nietzsche believed. Read "Beyond Good and Evil" and you will see what I mean. His reprehensible ethics also had a firm foundation in naturalistic evolution. So, to summarize, if you mean by "moral attention", moral obedience, then I do not see that there is any ground in nature to really obey. It has a sunny side as well as a gloomy side. But the theistic view has always been that God holds us to morality that transcends the natural ... it comes from the supernatural. And unless we have a transcendent source from which our ethical obligations come, then you can say rightly that "I choose to behave this way", but you can't really speak of "moral attention" at all. Morals imply obligation and incumbence. And in a naturalistic world ... morality is only descriptive. In a theistic model, morality is prescriptive. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-12-2003 09:15 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
There are many problems with trying to apply naturalistic evolution to explain human morality. But to start with just one, I'd like to post a quote by Robert Wright, an evolutionary theorist. "...The conscience doesn’t make us feel bad the way hunger feels bad, or good the way sex feels good. It makes us feel as if we have done something that’s wrong or something that’s right. Guilty or not guilty. It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel as if we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy" from "The Moral Animal — Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology" This is insightful. If our moral nature is a by-product of a naturalistic process involving a mechanism that only keeps that which is pragmatic enough to survive (a purely mechanistic principle which cannot have an a priori morality in it's basis whatsoever), then why do all of us feel keenly the moral judgement which says "That was wrong ... or .... That was right. That is evil ... or ... That is good"? Doesn't this questionable explanation negate morality rather than explain it? Let's pretend to concede that there really is no such thing as a transcendent right and wrong, and that survival is the supreme preference. Where do we get that value from? What standard is applied? After all, we cannot deduce that survival is better than extinction from nature itself, because according to evolutionary theory, a lot more dies than survives. So the naturalistic world itself does not really support this value judgement in any convincing way. Also, there is no evidence that being moral helps toward mere survival. Didn't Billy Joel sing that "Only the Good Die Young"? And a lot of immorality is around to show that it's still quite a viable option in the evolutionary market-place. And let me put it another way ... When we get down to it, and someone makes a pass at our spouse (full knowing the marriage situation), we feel like they have truly wronged us, and not merely chosen an alternate path of survival. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-12-2003 10:44 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron- 'Our concept of right and wrong is defined by what someone we love thinks of us.' I think that influences us, but I don't think it's the entire truth, either. I mean, I do my best not to drink because my boyfriend really disapproves of it. Do I still want to sometimes? Yeah... and I honestly don't see anything wrong with moderate drinking- beyond the fact that it would upset him. Another example: I love my father, but I disagree with him most of the time. I shaved my head during my senior year of high school, and he wouldn't talk to me for about three months because I 'looked like a dyke.' The implication there that being gay is wrong wasn't even identified, because to him, it's so self-evident. But were I to find that I was attracted to another female, his extremely negative point of view wouldn't make me feel as if I were doing something wrong- because by my personal moral code, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I would agree that maybe our concepts of right and wrong are shaped while we're young by what someone who loves us thinks of us, and what they think we should do. And it's in those years that we're forming our personalities that a lack of love can lead to a lack of morality beyond an extreme selfishness. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Legion: " I believe that individuals define their own morality and that morality is changing, evolving to suit the situation guided by a natural selection of the morals that most fit the circumstances." You're associating Darwin's Natural selection with morals. But natural selection, as I recall, has only to do with what "works", and how that relates to reproduction and survival. It is an impersonal, amoral mechanism. I was just wondering if there is any evidence that morality is better geared toward survival than immorality, or vice versa? What do you see that gives evidence that natural selection is actually working to change morals? For example, morals have changed drastically in America during the last 50 years. How has natural selection played a part? Remember, Natural selection functions on the principle of survival and reproduction alone. If natural selection is the culprit, then it seems to me it is working very quickly ... but is there any evidence that this is the mode of change? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-13-2003 12:16 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephenos, I am unsure about imagining the Universe as a Hierarchy-like structure with God at the top, Man in the middle and Nature at the bottom. Are God and Nature contraries, this beautiful and base that? Is that then how our morality should morally serve them and things, as seems most befits their rank in an universal hierarchy? How shall we mark out for sure what are more of God than Nature? Are we only as moral as we are ghostholy worshipers of God , or by how much we seem to know by God? And is only what knows more more moral or more worthy of moral regard? Is God the only reason we do moral observance or the only thing we ought to do moral observance for? Whatever seems someone's personality or lack of personality, knowledge or lack of knowledge, does not the person or creature deserve equal moral regard? Perhaps we need to try to find a mean that obeys God and Nature and Ourself all even at the same time. If so I feel the first step to that mean is seeing there is always a moral observance deserved to each and all things. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-14-2003 12:12 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
" Are God and Nature contraries, this beautiful and base that? Is that then how our morality should morally serve them and things, as seems most befits their rank in an universal hierarchy?" No, Essorant, they are not contrary. God is not "beautiful" while nature is "base". I was simply making the point that creation is irrational, in the sense that it has no personal mind. God does. But that doesn't mean that nature is void of character. Much like a painting may reveal the character of an artist, the beauties and wonders of nature reveal somewhat of God. But if nature is not a person, then there can be from it, no imposed morality to obey. But God can communicate his will through nature to a great degree. There does seem to be a "rightness" communicated somehow through what we see. I'm just not convinced that nature is the source. If nature is the source, then nature also must be the standard of morality ... and the standard must be separate from what is judged. If we take nature's face value "standard", then there is much to be lamented. Nature, as C.S. Lewis said, has all the air of a good thing that has been spoiled. It is not pure light and goodness, but a mixture. Therefore our standard of morality must come from above nature ... because we judge natural things by this standard. So I think you are seeing a moral law to be adhered to, which is peeking through nature itself. But perhaps you are mistaking this as merely "natural". I think it has to come from beyond. This doesn't mean that people must always be aware of the source, in order to follow it in some measure. So you don't have to be a worshipper of God in order to line up with some morality. (None of us measure up fully to the moral law). Just like children can eat food without knowing the source. But there is a coming of age, when the source is revealed. I think God has done that in history, and still does that in individual lives. But when God is realized, this means that he has moral prescriptions for all ... He cares for his creation. So the respect and honor that you see should be given toward nature, is still part of God's design. We are the stewards of what he has made. In that sense you are right, morality flows down into all things. And part of the morality which God is so insistent upon is to care for the weak and defenseless in this world. "Whatever someone's personality or lack of personality, knowledge or lack of knowledge, does not the person or creature deserve equal moral regard?" I'm not so sure that we can get rid of all moral hierarchies and differing priorities. Think about it. Are you going to give a cow the same moral treatment as your fellow humans? And a cow still has consciousness. What about a plant? Are you going to give a rock equal moral treatment? How are you going to do that? How does that play out? "Perhaps we need to try to find a mean that obeys God and Nature and Ourself all even at the same time." Again, I don't think we can "obey" nature in the same way that we can obey God. She is not telling us anything original, only echoing her Creator when she seems to be saying anything. And when it comes to obeying ourselves ... what do you mean? Which part, the base, the profane, or the good and right? Without obeying God, we don't have a measure by which to pick rightly among our conflicting desires. Obeying God always means resisting nature at times, and disobeying some of our own tendencies. For example, your initial post seems to point to the wrongs of pornography, lasciviousness, and lust. But aren't these people obeying themselves? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (08-14-2003 12:40 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I'm just not convinced that nature is the source. If nature is the source, then nature also must be the standard of morality ... and the standard must be separate from what is judged" I'm not either. Yet I do feel it confers an undispensible matter to morality. We must make choices that accord with flowings of nature for livelihood just as we must accord with knowings of God for wielding, and this is where obeying ourselves comes into play: we may trow all we want to trow and yet for that we are mortal and given to forget things, doubt, misplacing things in thought, and making ornamental additions with imagination we may not fully unconfusedly know like God or fully fluently flow pure nature. We have to face that and agree on certain manners of having mind on things, on influences, and influencing things, togetherly, deem the effect of these manners over time on how life triumphs or falls down, and then obey them publicly and privately (sincerely) So in God and Nature and in and between ourselves we may live as fruitfully as we can. How may we obey God if we cannot read and obey ourselves very clearly? How may we agree with nature if we cannot? "I'm not so sure that we can get rid of all moral hierarchies and differing priorities. Think about it. Are you going to give a cow the same moral treatment as your fellow humans? And a cow still has consciousness. What about a plant? Are you going to give a rock equal moral treatment? How are you going to do that? How does that play out?" Yes, I agree. But I think the rest of the world deserves a lot more respect today. When we are not for the most part ignorant of nature absorbed in human business cares, prices, and media, we treat the natural world as if it is altogether like a pet, or should be made a pet handtamed, and the human world as if it is the master. But the pet I think will turn on the master if he maltreats him much more. "your initial post seems to point to the wrongs of pornography, lasciviousness, and lust. But aren't these people obeying themselves?" These are a natural instincts ill-influenced and twisted into vices. I think people disobey their higher sense and begin to do it so casually they no longer realize it is immoral. [This message has been edited by Essorant (08-14-2003 06:51 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Y'all been busy. Let's see if I can catch up just a little? quote: I understand what you're saying, Jim, and I certainly don't disagree. I just don't think the selfish-unselfish dichotomy has ever been a very productive way of looking at things. We're ALL selfish, and I'm not entirely convinced we're even selfish to different gradations. Take two men with nearly identical values. One runs out of a burning building, leaving behind a child he cannot reach. The other man runs into the building, to at least make an attempt to save the kid. The first man, let's call him Sam, wants personal safety. The second, John, wants to be able to feel good about himself and avoid the guilt we'll be talking about later. In their pursuit of different desires, is either man really being unselfish? Both, I think, are acting in ways they feel will bring them the greatest benefit. Let's redefine our terms for just a moment and see if they still make sense. Selfishness serves short-term interest and is usually very simply stated and understood. Sam wants to save his own butt. By our new definition, this qualifies as a selfish act. Even if he didn't know there was a child in the building, running away from the fire is a selfish thing to do. Unselfishness serves long-term interests and is often too complex to easily analyze. John wants to feel good about himself. He wants to avoid feeling guilt for doing nothing. He wants the acclaim of being a hero, the recognition of being courageous. Even if John only thinks there might be a child in the building, running into the fire will serve these long-term goals. Sam and John want very different things, but both are acting in ways they believe will get them what they want. Selfish and unselfish isn't about ignoring self-interest, and it usually isn't even about other people. It's about agreeing whether the cost of something is worth the benefit of something. Sam risks his sense of self-worth and status in the community for personal safety. John risks her personal safety for a sense of self-worth and status in the community. The selfish one is usually the one we think was wrong. Not incidentally, I think most charitable or self-sacrificing acts are the result of pursuing an increased sense of self-worth. We want to feel good about ourselves. But the rat that was never given a piece of cheese will never learn to press the lever. Those who never learn to love themselves will rarely place the value of self-worth about other, short-term benefits. quote: I think guilt is another form of pain, Jim, and as such, it serves a purpose. Put your hand in a fire, and the pain will very quickly persuade you to remove your hand. If the pain is intense and prolonged, chances are you'll learn to avoid flames. Pain protects us. To be useful, however, pain must be tied directly to its cause and, to be healthy, the pain should last no longer than is necessary to teach its lessons. In our physical world of fingers and flames, those criteria are usually easily met. When we deal with emotional pain, however, the first criteria can be a problem. It's not always easy, without help, to determine the sequence of choices that eventually led to our being hurt, so we often continue to make the same mistakes that result in the same emotional pain. When we deal with spiritual pain, it's usually the second criteria that can be a problem for us. Guilt, like pain, is necessary and good. But prolonged, relentless guilt that refuses to fade and never quite goes away is unhealthy and no longer serves its original purpose. Fortunately, I think God provided an answer. What happens when a small child disappoints their mother and the only apparent punishment is a disapproving look? The child immediately promises to do or not do as necessary, but even more obvious and predictable, I think, is the child's immediate need for a big hug. We assuage our guilts, as children and as adults, with the reassurance that love can indeed be unconditional. How strongly we believe that, I think, determines how much guilt we will carry beyond our promises to do or not do as necessary. Running out of time this morning, and obviously I didn't catch up with y'all. To quote the next Governor of California, "I'll be back." |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant "I think people disobey their higher sense and begin to do it so casually they no longer realize it is immoral." If all aspects of nature, including humanity and everything else, are to be held in equal moral regard, then what do you mean by "higher" sense? There are many, (Hedonists for example) who would argue that lasciviousness and lust are actually of the "higher" sense of humanity. So here is at least one voice in nature that directly rationally contradicts what you say is wrong with behavior. How do you hold your view to be the right one, without referring to a transcendent law? You keep saying that to be more moral we need to get back to "nature". But there is much in nature, and in the minds of people to counter what you say. This is so much the case, that in the 60's sexual revolution, the move toward promiscuity was touted as "closer to nature". Many nudists today even call themselves "Naturists" Remember Essorant, I agree with your views on Pornography and moral decadence. But your constant reference to mere nature seems to lack a standard to support your absolutist view of morals. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-06-2003 11:44 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"If all aspects of nature, including humanity and everything else, are to be held in equal moral regard, then what do you mean by "higher" sense?" Stephenos I meant Morality in general is the higher sense already, and all things deserves observance thereof. Perhaps not equal observance to each thing, but equal acknowledgement that a moral observance at all is due. That much is due to everything. All things are the honourable and the created; no things deserve to be cursed or corrupted. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Let me recap, as to where we were (I had to go back and refresh myself). You previously wrote: quote: then you seemed to concede my point when you wrote: quote: If I am understanding you right, you are in agreement with me that there is a moral standard that is more than mere opinion or complete arbitrariness. But that being the case, there can be no strict egalitarianism among either ideas or created things. Morals presuppose hierarchy of some kind or another. So we don't really disagree in any significant way. But the question is, does morality require respect and responsibility for nature, and the particulars in nature? The answer is yes it does. I don't think the environmentalists are that far off on this point. But start driving iron spikes in trees so that loggers are potentially injured by their own chainsaws, or killing whalers, and I think you've taken "reverence" for nature too far. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"If I am understanding you right, you are in agreement with me that there is a moral standard that is more than mere opinion or complete arbitrariness. " Yes I think we are in agreement for the most part. But where I shall say we are serving what is irrevocably webbed with nature you may not agree. To me it seems there is no escape from Spirit or Nature, spiritual aspect from natural, or natural from spiritual that as I said earlier at their highest don't seem to have "thought" Direct being is supreme; There is where instinct and knowledge must be at one, free from the kind of impediments and delayments that thought and doubt make in our behaviors. We don't actually get to go to the swiftest currents of spirit and nature. We only get to "sense" and try to make the most of that sense, and that sense directly leaves impressions on us, and we leave impressions again and again of it on ourselves, where lack of directness is thickened even more. Whatever the case, a good standard to go by must be the "general state of things" The overallness that was native and what we gave/give to life, togetherness, and the world; if oneness and some permanance in character are made in the interest of the "general state of things" as well no specific state things will make any difference that doesn't serve. In other words, when we keep more observance clearly to general dearness and "laws" for life, togetherness, and the world first, we may probably may better serve them than imagining specific as if they are general, such as makeup, finance, filling the car with gas, that in culture and media we almost seem as if they are universal and wordly issues, when they are not. They are issues at the "center" of human, not at the "center" of the world. The rest of the world and creatures don't need or busy themselves for cosmetics, money and making extraordinary haste a common mode. Thus humans too often mistake their special (human/self) interests as allworldly needs. And mistake their human structure-world as the native world and whole world, which not as it ought to be. The world we must serve is the world of all earthly life, and activity, not just the human and human interest, or the individual and individual interest. More directly, it is my philosophy we must hold general more closely in mind, and then the specific we conduct shall serve general and specific better. Thus just as "private" and "public" often divide us wrongly too much, I think "specific" and "general" do as well. When it comes to upholding moral character "private" "public" "specific" and "general" should make very little difference to keeping a moral mind and approach; though to see and judge the agreement at once, it is the "general" eye that we must look through. And as I try to look through this eye, I think we divide these into too many and too much and therein our moral mind becomes fragmented among them. We overcomplicate and lose the sight of "general" for all the specifics. People must revive sight of more general and common need due to all things, an undivded wholeness, rather than everything in specific isolations of things. Once people remember what is most important generally again, they can go back to their specific work. But right now it feels very much like our humankind needs time to pause from the confusion of specifics, to shed the mind of complexities and to step back and look at a "whole" that we may directly know we are serving again. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
