Philosophy

[Noble Elf Lord]

Don´t know if this is a good idea, but let´s try... So in here we would discuss matters such as good and evil, God´s morale, knowledge... And I thought we´d start with good and evil. The purpose, as often in philosophy, is not to solve these things, but to discuss and debate just to stay in shape and get new views. So. Good and evil - why do they exist - or do they? As far as I´m concerned, I´ve began to doubt whether there actually are any opposite things - are they not just ideas of the ever - ordering human mind? For example, hot and cold. Cold doesn´t physically exist, it´s just lower warmth. So if something changes, is it a contrast to it´s former appearance? And surely there are things which don´t have an opposite thing - they have too many properties for that. How can you find something completely opposite to a brown branch, for instance? I believe this will be interesting. Post!
And feel free to make up debates, though it will be easier to do with one at a time. Thank you.

[inked]

Noble Elf Lord,
This type of discussion has been on-going on the 'MOOT for years before my advent and since. Try the search feature on good, evil, philosophy, etc. You shall find much to contemplate.

However, I will say that there is absolute good and He is knowable! Human reason is not so flawed as to not be able to participate in that knowledge though in will human nature has been so bent as not to be able to accomplish consistently the good or even to desire it.

[brownjenkins]

Just read all my posts!

There are absolutely no absolutes!!

Every observation of what we call reality is relative to the individual's point of view. Thankfully, for many, since humans are the only "intelligent" beings we know of, our relative perceptions are fairly close, which leads us towards the illusion of absolutes.

But don't let that fool you. All that exists is purely what we define it to be, good and evil being an excellent example of that.

[Noble Elf Lord]

Noble Elf Lord,
This type of discussion has been on-going on the 'MOOT for years before my advent and since. Try the search feature on good, evil, philosophy, etc. You shall find much to contemplate.

And...? Just thought dedicating a thread for it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Just read all my posts!

There are absolutely no absolutes!!

Every observation of what we call reality is relative to the individual's point of view. Thankfully, for many, since humans are the only "intelligent" beings we know of, our relative perceptions are fairly close, which leads us towards the illusion of absolutes.

But don't let that fool you. All that exists is purely what we define it to be, good and evil being an excellent example of that.

Naw. Platonic forms, all the way. There is an absolute reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

There is an absolute reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

Doubtful, though, even if there is, if we can't perceive it correctly, then we have no business claiming that we can define what it is.

Better to stick with what we can define, our perception-biased reality.

For example, good and evil are always fun concepts to look at in an absolute way, but it's much more interesting to look at reality, where just about everything is only good or evil according to ones point of view.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Naw. Platonic forms, all the way. There is an absolute reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

I absolutely agree with you, Sis!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Doubtful, though, even if there is, if we can't perceive it correctly, then we have no business claiming that we can define what it is.

I didn't say I could define it. I can't explain how the TV works but I can look at the pictures. Why should reality itself be any simpler?

Better to stick with what we can define, our perception-biased reality.

Why? Dickens dealt with your "perception based reality."
"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost.

"I don't." said Scrooge.

"What evidence would you have of my reality, beyond that of your senses?"

"I don't know," said Scrooge.

"Why do you doubt your senses?"

"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

If, as we agree, perception is imperfect, why would I limit myself to it?

For example, good and evil are always fun concepts to look at in an absolute way, but it's much more interesting to look at reality, where just about everything is only good or evil according to ones point of view.

You have standards that you apply to good and evil, and you choose their basis. For me, being solely responsible for that makes no sense. If I didn't believe that there was an ultimate morality, of which human morality is a pale and imperfect shadow, I wouldn't bother at all. I'd be completely amoral, why not? All id, all the time.

Since I do believe that "good" and "evil" are not merely human constructs, but part of an ultimate reality that I may never understand, I know that other humans may err in defining them, as I do. But the fact that people try, even doomed to failure, is a point in our favor, and even a point in support of my theory.

Believing in nothing but perception, you still try to be good. That's because reality is stronger than your errors. Like gravity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I didn't say I could define it. I can't explain how the TV works but I can look at the pictures. Why should reality itself be any simpler?

My point exactly! You can certainly watch TV, but it would be pretty silly for you to try to tell someone how to fix it.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You have standards that you apply to good and evil, and you choose their basis. For me, being solely responsible for that makes no sense. If I didn't believe that there was an ultimate morality, of which human morality is a pale and imperfect shadow, I wouldn't bother at all. I'd be completely amoral, why not? All id, all the time.

Since I do believe that "good" and "evil" are not merely human constructs, but part of an ultimate reality that I may never understand, I know that other humans may err in defining them, as I do. But the fact that people try, even doomed to failure, is a point in our favor, and even a point in support of my theory.

Believing in nothing but perception, you still try to be good. That's because reality is stronger than your errors. Like gravity.

That's all merely the illusion of absolutes I spoke of in my first post. Humans are a social animal. Our very existence depends upon working within our given society. Good and evil depend upon the individual, but those individual perceptions are tempered by the society you are a part of.

Most people aren't completely amoral simply because they would be rejected by their own society if they were. The exceptions to this case tend to be the ones that are already effectively "rejected" (i.e. the poor and uneducated, who get very little from society in the first place, thus have less to lose by acting in purely their own self-interest), or the ones that have mental deficiencies.

Most people are also less and less concerned about human societies that are further away or more alien to our own. A good example of this is the recent lead paint on Chinese toys thing. You see concerns left and right about our children being poisoned by these toys, but concerns about the people who actually make them (who probably get much more exposure and are often children as well) are few and far between.

There is no absolute evil when it comes to children dying. How important that issue is to any of us is completely dependent upon how close to home it hits. And, in some cases, it can even become acceptable. For example, civilian deaths during war. While we never try to kill innocents, it is seen as an inevitable, and ultimately acceptable, consequence of what many define as necessary military action.

By comparision, if something happened within our own coutry requiring military action, we'd be much more concerned about even a handful of civilian deaths, even if we thought that the military action was necessary.

Absolutes are an illusion!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

My point exactly! You can certainly watch TV, but it would be pretty silly for you to try to tell someone how to fix it.

It's even sillier to say, "I can't fix it, therefore it doesn't work according to any rule." Your complaint is about human behavior, not about existence.

That's all merely the illusion of absolutes I spoke of in my first post. Humans are a social animal. Our very existence depends upon working within our given society. Good and evil depend upon the individual, but those individual perceptions are tempered by the society you are a part of.

Most people aren't completely amoral simply because they would be rejected by their own society if they were. The exceptions to this case tend to be the ones that are already effectively "rejected" (i.e. the poor and uneducated, who get very little from society in the first place, thus have less to lose by acting in purely their own self-interest), or the ones that have mental deficiencies.

Do you not see how offensive this is? "Amoral poor folk". Some red you are. Amorality is very common among the upper class...don't you read the papers? "Something to lose" has had no discernable control on the behavior of Micheal Skakel when he murdered Martha Moxley (32 years ago this week.) It wasn't constraining Ken Lay. And it hasn't slowed down Larry Craig, that I've noticed. On the contrary, often rich people seem to see themselves as "above the law".

Most people are also less and less concerned about human societies that are further away or more alien to our own. A good example of this is the recent lead paint on Chinese toys thing. You see concerns left and right about our children being poisoned by these toys, but concerns about the people who actually make them (who probably get much more exposure and are often children as well) are few and far between.

Again, you're talking about human limitations. That's an odd tack to take, for someone who is suggesting human behavior should be based on what they see. Mere evolution and observation wouldn't give us any interest in tribes we can't see, at all. But there exists a worldwide network of people who DO care, who operate websites, and charitable organizations, and try to improve the lives of people they'll never meet. There's nothing wrong with "acting locally." I, personally, feel that being a good parent, a good son or daughter, and a good neighbor and friend is the basic activity of moral behavior. But the impulse to help children in the Sudan, or China, doesn't come from looking good to your neighbors. It arises from a sense people have, however suppressed, that some things are 'right" and some are 'wrong."

There is no absolute evil when it comes to children dying. How important that issue is to any of us is completely dependent upon how close to home it hits. And, in some cases, it can even become acceptable. For example, civilian deaths during war. While we never try to kill innocents, it is seen as an inevitable, and ultimately acceptable, consequence of what many define as necessary military action.

Well, why would there be an absolute evil about something that's inevitable? We all will die. The question is equally, "Why would we try to minimize civilian casualties?" And the point of terrorist activity, for example, is to maximize those. So, yes, human choices are based on concerns other than a direct perception of "the right thing". But that doesn't mean there is no "right thing". "They that have ears, let them hear."

By comparision, if something happened within our own coutry requiring military action, we'd be much more concerned about even a handful of civilian deaths, even if we thought that the military action was necessary.

And if my barn is on fire, I'm more concerned than if yours was. That doesn't mean your loss "is" less important, just that it's less important to ME. That's my limitation. I'm glad reality doesn't rely on me.

Absolutes are an illusion!

I'm glad it doesn't rely on you, either.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Dickens dealt with your "perception based reality."
"You don't believe in me," observed the Ghost.

"I don't." said Scrooge.

"What evidence would you have of my reality, beyond that of your senses?"

"I don't know," said Scrooge.

"Why do you doubt your senses?"

"Because," said Scrooge, "a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats. You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you, whatever you are!"

*applauds Dickens*

It was the best of gravy, it was the worst of gravy ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's even sillier to say, "I can't fix it, therefore it doesn't work according to any rule." Your complaint is about human behavior, not about existence.

That's where your TV comparison falls short. There are people who know anything and everything about TVs, there aren't any that know about absolutes. They just think they do.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Do you not see how offensive this is? "Amoral poor folk". Some red you are. Amorality is very common among the upper class...don't you read the papers? "Something to lose" has had no discernable control on the behavior of Micheal Skakel when he murdered Martha Moxley (32 years ago this week.) It wasn't constraining Ken Lay. And it hasn't slowed down Larry Craig, that I've noticed. On the contrary, often rich people seem to see themselves as "above the law".

Offensive? It's a simple fact that people who are poor and uneducated are more likely to indulge in behavior that is deemed unacceptable by society.

But yes, rich and middle class folk can be "amoral" as well. While social standing has a large influence on behavior, so does upbringing and life experience.

That's why it's all relative, because no ones life experience is the same.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Again, you're talking about human limitations. That's an odd tack to take, for someone who is suggesting human behavior should be based on what they see. Mere evolution and observation wouldn't give us any interest in tribes we can't see, at all. But there exists a worldwide network of people who DO care, who operate websites, and charitable organizations, and try to improve the lives of people they'll never meet. There's nothing wrong with "acting locally." I, personally, feel that being a good parent, a good son or daughter, and a good neighbor and friend is the basic activity of moral behavior. But the impulse to help children in the Sudan, or China, doesn't come from looking good to your neighbors. It arises from a sense people have, however suppressed, that some things are 'right" and some are 'wrong."

It's simply a sign of our times. As we get more connected through travel and communication, we naturally expand what we think of as our "tribe". With the 'net, one day it might even be global, but it has a long way to go, and their are still many people around from previous generations that have a much more provincial attitude.

Basically, people are beginning to realize that what happens in another part of the globe can and will effect their own well-being. This was hardly the case at all a few hundred years ago.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I really don't know why you're so confused about this.

People, who are limited, can know everything about TV's, which are even more limited.

People, who are limited, cannot know everything about reality, because it is less limited.

that would be:
TV< siscuz < Total knowledge of TV < reality
or:

TV < Total knowledge of TV < Maytag repair man < realityNow, I would say, generally:

TV< any individual< total sum of human knowledge < reality
and a lot of people would add:

TV< any individual< total sum of human knowledge < reality < God

True materialists might go for:

siscuz < Really good TVbut I'd still say reality is gonna be further up the list. God is, definitionally, at the top, if included.

Offensive? It's a simple fact that people who are poor and uneducated are more likely to indulge in behavior that is deemed unacceptable by society.

Offensive, and not fact.

I'm not going into this whole "provincial folks of older times before the internet." Right now I'm laughing, but I could easily get mad about it, and I'm having too nice a day.

[Insidious Rex]

http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=8026

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Naw. Platonic forms, all the way. There is an absolute reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

Are you serious? I don't think I've met anyone before who actually believed in Platonic forms! Care to offer a wee meditatio on them?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Are you serious? I don't think I've met anyone before who actually believed in Platonic forms!

Really? What do people believe in?

Care to offer a wee meditatio on them?

Don't know what to say. Not meaning (for once) to be difficult or abstruse.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Offensive, and not fact.

There's a pretty strong correlation between crime rates and income level, but I won't bore you with statistics.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Absolutes are an illusion!

Funny, you say that like you know what the truth is? you know, absolutely.

By the way, I agree with you, Sister, Plato's Ideal Forms are the bomb!

Also, might we take Rex's suggestion that we move this discussion to the proper forum?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Are you serious? I don't think I've met anyone before who actually believed in Platonic forms! Care to offer a wee meditatio on them?

This is the allegory of the cave thingy, right? That was about the only thing I learned in Philosophy class that I could understand.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

There's a pretty strong correlation between crime rates and income level, but I won't bore you with statistics.

There's a pretty strong correlation between income level and access to good lawyers, too. Not to mention influence that prevents prosecution and provides the ability to criminalize poor vices over rich ones. As well as (as I've discussed in other threads) that poor people are required to learn helplessness from the government directly. If you happen across statistics that compare the crime rates of similar income groups in rural and urban areas I'd be fascinated to see them. But I won't necessarily see them as proof of your thesis.

You see, the problem with your argument is, you see "crime" or "evil" or whatever negative thing you want to look at, purely in terms of its social context, so you look for it there. If misbehavior is social, and social misbehavior is crime, and the evidence of crime is incarceration, then the only thing you need is evidence of incarceration. However, I live in a world where there are things that are illegal that don't worry me, and things that are legal that do, and reasons why someone who has been either illegal OR wicked might not go to jail for it. It's a complicated world.

I believe, by the way, that one of the reasons it's a complicated world is that people use the government to reach social goals which are outside it's natural purview. But that's by the by.

You may be able to prove that one class or other of persons is more likely to go to jail. You won't be able to use that to assess their morality, because I don't accept society as the final arbitor of that.

If the entire world disagrees with me, well, that's their look-out. I'm an introvert.