Philosophy

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Swapping around the common and the ideal usages of 'good' in order to make sport of people who believe in God (which most who do capitalize) doesn't make this discussion easier to follow, imo.

Guilty! But since editing is part of my job, it's only fitting that I'd go to hell over capitalization issues.

[Curubethion]

Back to the topic, relativity of standards.

I would contend that what we call "good" is anything which adheres to the ideal form of that thing in the aspect in which we are comparing it to the ideal form. Lemme put it more simply...if we say that ice cream tastes "good", we mean that it tastes like the ideal food. If we say that old army socks taste bad, we mean that they do not taste like the ideal food.

It's a funny coincidence, but it seems to me that a whole lot of people seem to agree that some things, such as beauty, music, nature, are "good". Except when they start putting philosophy into things. The fact of the matter is, a pygmy tribe from Africa recognizes the goodness of nature. So does an American walking in the park. So have all the great classical philosophers, up until the "enlightenment" of philosophy.

And if standards do not exist, then neither can philosophy. For what you deem wisdom may be stupidity by my standards, and vice versa. So we can never have a truthful discussion about wisdom if we don't have the same definition of it, which is what happens without standards. (On that note, a truthful discussion can't exist by your argumentation)

And really, logic is also useless. Why can't I arbitrarily say that because a rat is not a dog, therefore I am the President of the United States? What standards do you judge me by? Maybe my standards say that's perfectly rational, and that you are irrational.

Or is rationality simply determined by majority rule?

(And on that note, what if my standards decide that I can hire a hitman to stalk you and kill you?)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

It's a funny coincidence, but it seems to me that a whole lot of people seem to agree that some things, such as beauty, music, nature, are "good".

I'd have to agree. Except, I'd say that that is because we are all humans that share the same physicality and, in general, the same experiences interacting with our environment.

We all have foods we like, because eating is essential to our existance. And we tend to prefer certain kinds of food because we all come equipped with the same powers of taste and smell.

But, individual experience can lead to quite different tastes. For instance, your African pygmy might find something like a monkey brain a special treat, while those who did not grow up in that environment could not even be forced to eat it.

Originally Posted by Curubethion

And if standards do not exist, then neither can philosophy. For what you deem wisdom may be stupidity by my standards, and vice versa. So we can never have a truthful discussion about wisdom if we don't have the same definition of it, which is what happens without standards. (On that note, a truthful discussion can't exist by your argumentation)

And really, logic is also useless. Why can't I arbitrarily say that because a rat is not a dog, therefore I am the President of the United States? What standards do you judge me by? Maybe my standards say that's perfectly rational, and that you are irrational.

Or is rationality simply determined by majority rule?

Standards do exist. The question is whether they are human-devised ones or come from some divine source beyond our control.

And saying that they are human-devised, or relative, does not mean they are completely arbitrary. Ten thousand years of civilization is a strong force. You only have to look at how hard change has been over things like women's role in society, or anything having to do with homosexuality.

Morals are relative in somewhat the same way that laws are relative. They can be changed, but there is a lot of precedent that has to be overcome, and convincing arguments have to be made, in order for any change to come about.

[inked]

BJ, read and discuss: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/015870.php

Hmm, which trumps? Saving children's lives at the cost of war or preserving the (former) status quo and avoiding war?

Which standard trumps and why?

Weight the "relative" good and select the one principle which is best for the common good.

[Mari]

I find that the term "common good" is really overused sometimes. People refuse to do things they ought to do, because doing it won't be for the common good. We just have to look at the "bigger picture"... I believe that people tend to "over-bigger-picture-ize" (new verb ) but only when it's convenient. It's convenient not to look at civil war in Africa, because it would disturb the international market and interfering might cause it to spread to neighbouring countries. We can't help them all, so we help none.
That kind of attitude helps no one.
I do realize that not everyone can be saved and the help you give to one is at the expense of the other, but not helping either because that is for the common good is just postponement of a choice you have to make.
Off course there are times when a situation will solve itself if left alone, but things as "it's for the common good", "look at the bigger picture" and "the need of the many outweigh the need of the few" can really piss me off at times.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Have to admit, philosophy in English is a bit too much for me... Pity. Ah well. Guess I´ll try this again after a few years. Some opinions:
- I think human beings are, in the deepest down, evil. Those who we mostly call "good" just have their wickedness sleeping. Though I do believe that we are good also. But, let´s suppose that one of us suddenly became all-powerful. Would we not do things which people in general would consider immoral? Though if that person decided to start all over - meaning that he/she would destroy the universe and recreate it the way they wanted - there would be no moral. At least 2 humanlike beings are needed for that.

- Mari, you wouldn´t want to live forever? Why? For example, as a vampire (if they existed)?

-"Good" is so dependant on the observer. I think that the common good is something that is personal also, but we all being human beings and living in societies has "forced" us to adapt to the idea and morale of the "Common Good".

Hope I made myself clear. Feel free to question if not so. I´m just an inexperienced young man who hasn´t even yet finished his philosophy courses. We are talking about ethics right now. It´s interesting.

[inked]

NEL, if you have read Tolkien, you have had a basic philosophy course, believe it or not!

You might like this series of essays:
http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Phi...4626114&sr=8-1

[Noble Elf Lord]

Yeah, a basic one... But I´ve been thinking a lot myself. Too much, I´m afraid, having such a pessimistic view about human beings.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ, read and discuss: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/015870.php

Hmm, which trumps? Saving children's lives at the cost of war or preserving the (former) status quo and avoiding war?

Which standard trumps and why?

Weight the "relative" good and select the one principle which is best for the common good.

On the flipside, the infant mortality rate in Iraq is still much worse than it was under Saddam's rule. Afghanistan was a poor, desperate country with little way to go but up in terms of quality of life, the same was not true in Iraq, eventhough it certainly had its problems.

And "saving children's lives" was hardly our reason for going in to Afghanistan. If that was the goal of the US on a global scale, there are many other things we could do that would effect a lot more children's lives than military invasions.

In fact, I'd say that we have never entered a military conflict for any reason other than self-interest.

Let me ask you a question: If you shot and killed a man over an argument and then found out after the fact that he was an escaped serial killer who had been on death row, would you consider the act morally "good"?

[Mari]

Noble Elf Lord, I wouldn't want to live forever because that would defeat the purpose of life and also it would take away the only true consolation in moments of horror, when I look at what is going on in the world and see the pain so many live in.
For me the purpose of live is living the life you've been given to your best abilities and how can you do that if there's no end, no sense of a timespan?
Death is nothing, life can be so much more, but if you have no comparison, no fear of nothing, no sense of possible end, would that motivate you to try your hardest?
Then, death is also a kind of consolation for some, knowing their sorrow and pains will end. Knowing that even if you "screw up" bad time, there will be a definite ending and that you have to work to a good ending.
I know it may sound crazy, but I'm not looking to leave a big impression on the world or go out with a bang. I want to be happy and see the people around me happy (and I do firmly believe that if more people would live by the same principle this world would be a more happy place but that aside.) and knowing that one day it will end is somehow comforting.
Then there's the point of being one of the few who live forever: I wouldn't want to see everyone I ever cared about growing old and die.

I wanted to react to something else, but I forgot what I wanted to say...

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the flipside, the infant mortality rate in Iraq is still much worse than it was under Saddam's rule. Afghanistan was a poor, desperate country with little way to go but up in terms of quality of life, the same was not true in Iraq, eventhough it certainly had its problems.

And "saving children's lives" was hardly our reason for going in to Afghanistan. If that was the goal of the US on a global scale, there are many other things we could do that would effect a lot more children's lives than military invasions.

In fact, I'd say that we have never entered a military conflict for any reason other than self-interest.

Let me ask you a question: If you shot and killed a man over an argument and then found out after the fact that he was an escaped serial killer who had been on death row, would you consider the act morally "good"?

BJ, BJ, BJ, there you go avoiding the specific question in the specific situation in Afghanistan. The war was ostensibly under UN sanction to prevent/stop genocide. This was a side-effect.

Iraq is Iraq. Afghanistan is Afghanistan.

So, what about Afghanistan, which is what the question was about.

If I shot and killed a man over an argument...hmm.
1) I cannot think of any justification for shooting someone over an argument, so if I did that, I think it would be wrong.
2) If I do the wrong, it remains wrong and must be repented of, confessed, shriven and penanced according to my world view.
3) If the guy was a serial killer, it would not alter the fact that I did something for the wrong reason, nor alter the need for repentance, confession, being shriven, and doing penance.
4) A "good" - the stoppage of a serial killer - would be an unintended byproduct of the wrong, but it would not alleviate the wrong.

Now, if the guy was killed by me because he was threatening to harm my family if I didn't give him my (car/wallet/credit cards/etc), no wrong would be done if I was in fear of my life and believed I was acting to protect myself or others from imminent threat to life or limb. Then it would be a simple good and the fact that the chap was a serial killer stopped from killing would be a compound good.

See, when there is right and wrong as absolute, one can judge one's actions by them. When one is winging it from a societal viewpoint or relative right or wrong viewpoint, one could argue differently and say that my personal error ended in a greater societal good negating the personal error. But the harm to my soul would not be lessened by that societal impact, if I did the killing for the wrong reason.

What about your response to your scenario? What think ye?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

What about your response to your scenario? What think ye?

Some snippets leading up to Operation Infinite Justice:

President Addresses Joint Session of Congress Sept. 20:

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al-Qaida who hide in your land.

Release all foreign nationals -- including American citizens -- you have unjustly imprisoned, and protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country.

Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities.

Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Hmm? Where's the "save the children" part?

07 October 2001: President Bush Announces Military Strikes in Afghanistan:

More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.

Sounds like self-interest to me. The rest is simply a byproduct. And the future is far from determined yet.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

See, when there is right and wrong as absolute, one can judge one's actions by them.

So killing in response to a perceived threat to ones life is always okay? That sounds pretty relative to me.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

If I do the wrong, it remains wrong and must be repented of, confessed, shriven and penanced according to my world view.

See, when there is right and wrong as absolute, one can judge one's actions by them. When one is winging it from a societal viewpoint or relative right or wrong viewpoint, one could argue differently and say that my personal error ended in a greater societal good negating the personal error. But the harm to my soul would not be lessened by that societal impact, if I did the killing for the wrong reason.

What about your response to your scenario? What think ye?

*emphasis mine*
See, there's the point. I do my best to take care of the portion of soul I have custody of. I'm a weak vessel, which, I believe, is one of the reasons life is so short. My soul heads for its origin as soon as it can break free of this shell.

But, truthfully, I can't imagine being so concerned with my neighbors that I'd risk my caretaking on THEIR say-so. Maybe y'all have better neighbors. But when my buddy Allan is wrong, well, he's wrong. You can't talk him out of it, either. I've known him his whole life.

Now, he's a good man. But he has limits. And any law or custom or taboo he worked on would reflect his limits. So, just as I don't take his word for "what's good on the menu", because he's no food critic, I don't take his word for what's "right." Even if he gets it written into law, etc. Because I'm more fussy about what I do with this soul (that I'm only minding for its original owner) even than about what's for dinner.

Personally, I wouldn't be a safe person to have around without this POV. Because, really, I'd figure I had a better than even chance of beating the system enough to have a heck of a time, and why wouldn't I? I'd be piling up my treasures here, absotively. But that 'damage to my soul'...strikes me as a stupid risk. Like smoking.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Mari, you sure are right about others dying around you whilst living forever, it would be terrible. Though I no more fear death, I have no wish to die - but if I would be offered a possibility to live forever, even as a vampire (note: if they existed) I would seriously consider.

The purpose of that would be to try and learn to live with oneself forever, as captain Teague in the Pirates said.

As for me not being afraid to die, it happened like this: I was listening to a piece of music, and it´s sad notes and words gave me a sudden, overwhelming fear and understanding that I too will die. Guess it was about a year or two ago. After that, once the panic had lessened and vanished, I coolly came to accept it. Can´t do much about it, right? So, today, if I were given a 5 seconds warning before my death, I would have the time to make my peace. Though I would feel sad, for I´m in love...

[Mari]

Originally Posted by Noble Elf Lord

Mari, you sure are right about others dying around you whilst living forever, it would be terrible. Though I no more fear death, I have no wish to die - but if I would be offered a possibility to live forever, even as a vampire (note: if they existed) I would seriously consider.

The purpose of that would be to try and learn to live with oneself forever, as captain Teague in the Pirates said.

As for me not being afraid to die, it happened like this: I was listening to a piece of music, and it´s sad notes and words gave me a sudden, overwhelming fear and understanding that I too will die. Guess it was about a year or two ago. After that, once the panic had lessened and vanished, I coolly came to accept it. Can´t do much about it, right? So, today, if I were given a 5 seconds warning before my death, I would have the time to make my peace. Though I would feel sad, for I´m in love...

In love huh? Nice I hope it'll work out for you!
For myself, at one time long ago I thought of dying, because I felt no one would care if I did. Now, I am happy with my life and there are no things that I regret not having done or thinking I wish I did them better, so allthough I would be sad about leaving my family and friends behind knowing they'll be sad, I still feel that if I were to die now I would die happy and satisfied, knowing that I did everything I could
Besides, some people would argue you can live forever in the afterlife.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll note before all of my response that I'm assuming the validity of your worldview, Mari, in my response. So I'm using the word "death" to mean non-existence, and I'm assuming that everyone ceases to exist when they die.

Originally Posted by Mari

Noble Elf Lord, I wouldn't want to live forever because that would defeat the purpose of life and also it would take away the only true consolation in moments of horror, when I look at what is going on in the world and see the pain so many live in.

Originally Posted by Mari

Then, death is also a kind of consolation for some, knowing their sorrow and pains will end.

I find this rather peculiar, you know. Because if non-existence was preferable to misery, why wouldn't those who find it a consolation just kill themselves while they're suffering? I know that a few people do, but their choice is actually generally frowned on. We'd tend to refer suicidal people to suicide counseling, and if they go, then they're generally grateful they went there. Suicide is not a good thing. But it is logical to choose it if you think death is actually a release.

If people actually felt that death was preferable to misery, then those who claim to find it a consolation would kill themselves instead of suffering. Most people that think of it as a comfort or a release, however, would not kill themselves. The vast majority of them will endure a lot of suffering and struggle to survive in spite of the belief they think they hold. So their behavior is inconsistent with their view. We can see from their behavior that they actually feel that continuing to live, even miserably, is preferable to dying.

I think that people for whom death is a consolation generally are actually thinking of death as peace. It wouldn't have to involve bliss for them, but what they want from death is peace. Death, of course, contains in it no peace. Something non-existent cannot feel release or peace, comfort or rest.

Those that truly prefer non-existence to miserable life are usually grateful when they come out of suicide counseling, and I think that people that say they are glad about death because of it bringing release have incorrectly construed non-existence as meaning release. Because they'll never experience any sense of release. They'll experience dying, but no one can experience non-existence, so they'll never experience any peace or release from pain.

No one will ever experience the end of their suffering. Because no one experiences death. People only experience living and dying. If death is non-existence, then no one experiences it, which means no one experiences the end of their suffering.

Originally Posted by Mari

Knowing that even if you "screw up" bad time, there will be a definite ending and that you have to work to a good ending.

Death, by the definition you have given it, can't be a good ending. There is nothing good at the end, because there is no one to experience any good feeling.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mari

Now, I am happy with my life and there are no things that I regret not having done or thinking I wish I did them better, so allthough I would be sad about leaving my family and friends behind knowing they'll be sad, I still feel that if I were to die now I would die happy and satisfied, knowing that I did everything I could

That's the key for me. If there is an afterlife, and some sort of judgemental being at the end, being the best you can be is a pretty safe call. And, if this one moment in time is all we have, one might as well make the best of it.

There's no advantage to being selfish, no matter how you look at it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Death, by the definition you have given it, can't be a good ending. There is nothing good at the end, because there is no one to experience any good feeling.

Sure there is. If death is "lights out", it'd be preferable to have your last moments, and as many of those before that, be a positive ones.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sure there is. If death is "lights out", it'd be preferable to have your last moments, and as many of those before that, be a positive ones.

I know a nurse who says that of all the people she's seen die, none of them have died easy. She says that she doesn't believe it's possible for people to die painlessly.

I'm not in a position to know whether she's right or not, but her view does underline the fact that the dying process is not a pleasant one, and no one experiences the end of it. No one can ever experience non-existence, so no one will ever feel any release from their suffering in this life.

That was my main point.