Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[jatay3]

I would argue that it is, in general, better for you AND others, if everyone, including you, obeyed the rules. If you are known as a rapist, murderer, or theif, people will react to you differently than if you are none of those things. That change in environment is, generally speaking, highly agreeable. Murderers, rapist and theives are threats to the well being of others, and as such, those others will take defensive actions. That can be catastrophic for yourself.
..........................................
Assuming I am not likly to get away with it this is true. But why should I be good when it is in my interest to be bad? We know that many of the wicked prosper. My point is that morality is not predicated on self-interest and we admire most those who sacrifice their self-interest for their principles. Care for humanity is not based on instinct(what are the starving people in wherever going to do for me) it is based on morality-either forced out of duty, or trained into a habit(which means it started being forced). No one ever dies for "the interest of humanity" unless he believes the interest of humanity is good in the first place: which is true as "interest of humanity" is just another way of saying "love thy neighbor"
................................................
"Logical and objectively verifiable argument" is about chains of corallaries. A=B and C=A therefore B=C. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart and soul and mind and love thy neighbor as thyself-therefore thou shalt not steal. The coralary hinges on what is self-evident. If you deny that something is self-evident debate is impossible has been reached. But what if nothing is self-evident?I am not quite sure where you are going.
...............................................
My point is that morality is not provable by chains
of logic. Why should I not steal? Because it is good for humanity. Why should I care about humanity? Either that must be because it is in my interest to care about humanity-which is not always
the case(giving to the poor costs money, working with the sick is unhealthy, visiting the prisoner is a good way to get mugged), or because it is good to do so? Why is it good to do so? Because it is good to do; so which is ultimately where you must end up.
...........................................

Icon 1 posted April 14, 2004 08:04 AMApril 14, 2004 08:04 AM Profile for Drakon Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by jatay3:
And by what solid and objectivly verifyable argument should I refuse to "kill, rob, rape, etc". Is it better for others? But why do I care about others? Is it better for my own self-interest? Not necessarily.I would argue that it is, in general, better for you AND others, if everyone, including you, obeyed the rules. If you are known as a rapist, murderer, or theif, people will react to you differently than if you are none of those things. That change in environment is, generally speaking, highly agreeable. Murderers, rapist and theives are threats to the well being of others, and as such, those others will take defensive actions. That can be catastrophic for yourself.

quote:"Logical and objectively verifiable argument" is about chains of corallaries. A=B and C=A therefore B=C. Thou shalt love the Lord your God with all thy heart and soul and mind and love thy neighbor as thyself-therefore thou shalt not steal. The coralary hinges on what is self-evident. If you deny that something is self-evident debate is impossible has been reached. But what if nothing is self-evident?I am not quite sure where you are going.

My car is green. To me that is a self evident statement of fact. So are the laws of cause and effect, that form the basis for the concept of evolution. You don't believe me, well look for yourself.

So my first response to this would be, what if the sky were green, or yellow, or some other color but blue? We don't live in that world, so how is the question even relevant.

But I suspect you would find this a poor answer and so would I.

People, humans, it has been my experience, may try to argue all sorts of potential and hypotheticals. Soem folks may never listen to logic, or reason, or even the divine word. But ultimately they have to live their lives, and you yours. If they pose a threat to your life, you have to deal with that threat. If not, you let them figure it out for themselves. You cannot force a person to agree with you, only force him to act as if he does. And if it just pretending, you have put yourself in a less than ideal situation.

You do hit upon one of the reasons why such discussions seem so commonplace. A lot of folks won't listen. And will do as they damn well please, come hell or high water. All you can really do is get out of their way. (You can observe them and learn from their mistakes.)

quote: Well there goes the argument as well, for you are trying to disprove the foundation of reason and hence you are trying to disprove reason.I am trying to do no such thing.

Historically, morality has been the realm of religion. Religion is not an appeal to reason, to logic, it is an appeal to authority. It has a completely different epistemological foundation. What I have attempted to do is to illustrate how such "irrationally derived" moral codes actually do have a rational or logical basis.

In the first place appeal to authority is not necessarily irrational(most of what we know is predicated on "authority")it is simply not necessarily derived from a "logical" background in the sense of chains of corralaries, nor is it derived from "evidence" in the sence of personal observation. It is rather a third source.
Second, I don't believe Faith(if the faith is well-placed and not erroneous) is "irrational".
Rather I think of three categories:
Irrational: below reason, predicated on sentiment or emotion and often contradictory to reason
Rational: predicated on the mind(including the mind of others) and it's ability to anaylize truth and falsehood based on evidense. Okay admitedly I steer into a contridicition because I just said that authority is part of reason. Actually authority can fit into all three categories including
Superrational: predicated on what is self-evident but not verifyible. It falls outside the jurisdiction of reason beacause there is no way a claim of self-evidence can be proven or disproved. However reason cannot exist without assuming the possibility of the superational. The very act rationally trying to prove something assumes that it is possible to do so-in other words that Truth exists.
...........................................
But folks who do not believe in God, have no reason to accept God's teachings concerning morality. The effect of this rejection can be catastrophic for the individual, as well as society as a whole.
.............................................
No they have no reason to accept God's teachings(unless they still believe in "natural law"). But they usually do in practice at least partially accept, don't they? Even Communists say "be kind to the poor" though they deny everything else including the rights of individual members of said poor.
......................................
If faith backs up reason, I see no problem. When faith is opposed to reason, then you have a problem. Which do you go for? More importantly, how does that affect your actions?


...............................................
True Faith neither backs up reason nor is opposed to it. It is instead the foundation of reason(the Bible uses "Wisdom" and "Knowlege" which are concepts close if not exactly corresponding to "reason"). As for how it affects my actions; well grading myself is not generally a good activity-I have an obvious conflict of interest. If you must know I am not a bomb-throwing fanatic(fanaticism is the perversion of zeal, just as avarice is the perversion of frugality) and neither is anyone I know despite the dark rumors about "big-bad fundamentalists". My faith says I should honor the Lord and my fellow-men; and abide by the law so long as I can do so without breaking God's commandments as God placed it there to protect us from each other(and it would have to take a lot to convince me that abiding by a given law is sinful). I do not always abide by these rules; if I could Christ wouldn't have needed to come down.
.......................................
by the way, it is not self-evident that your car is green; it is self-evident that your eyes are a viable source of information, and therefor if your eyes tell you that your car is green it probably is so. It certainly is not self-evident to me. I am taking this on authority supported by the rational consideration that you would have no reason to lie in this context.
............................

PS I hope everyone will forgive me for the fact that quote and my response is so often difficult to tell from one another

 

[jatay3]

Excuse me: how did I get edited that fast? Have they developed AI editors? Oh well it said my basic points

 

[Drakon]

Okay, the formatting is a bit difficult to follow, so if I miss anything, I am sure you will let me know.

Originally posted by jatay3:
Assuming I am not likly to get away with it this is true. But why should I be good when it is in my interest to be bad? We know that many of the wicked prosper. My point is that morality is not predicated on self-interest and we admire most those who sacrifice their self-interest for their principles. Care for humanity is not based on instinct(what are the starving people in wherever going to do for me) it is based on morality-either forced out of duty, or trained into a habit(which means it started being forced). No one ever dies for "the interest of humanity" unless he believes the interest of humanity is good in the first place: which is true as "interest of humanity" is just another way of saying "love thy neighbor"

I am not sure I understand you correctly. I disagree with what (I think) you are saying here. But I think we may be operating under different propositions and postulates.

Is living in a functioning society better than living on one's own. Again, going back to Ricardo's Law of Comparitive Advantage, it can be shown that it takes less individual effort, and one has available a greater and higher quality of goods, if one is living in a society, vise living all by one's self.

That is generally speaking, a society fulfills needs and desires that a human on his own cannot. If you want a spaceship, you can either design, dig up the raw materials, build and man it oneself, or one can do this with a bunch of other humans. Having other humans available is far easier for the individual, and more likely to accomplish that goal.

[Sometimes, societies can be destructive to the life and happiness of the individual. But since all a society is, is a population of sophonts with memes in common, those memes can be changed, and thereby society can be changed as well, at will, by merely changing the minds of enough of that population.]

In short, we preserves society in order to preserve the benefits we as individuals derive from being part of that society. When society ceases to be benefitical, we do often vote with our feet, or fight to correct or change that destructive society.

So dying in the interest of humanity, is not some hanging proposition devoid of any rationalization. Some people may think that they are dead anyway, unless they are part of a society. And so, failing to defend it, means failing to defend their own lives. They may see themselves as dead anyway, and fighting, and making the other "poor dumb son of a bitch" die for their country at least is a chance at saving their own life and/or society.

I think you are coming from a specific moral system, I note several altruistic characteristics in your argument. And as an altruist, (assuming you are) you do have a severe problem with a logic based moral system, because altruism itself is illogical. Internally inconsistent.

that morality is not provable by chains
of logic. Why should I not steal? Because it is good for humanity. Why should I care about humanity? Either that must be because it is in my interest to care about humanity-which is not always
the case(giving to the poor costs money, working with the sick is unhealthy, visiting the prisoner is a good way to get mugged), or because it is good to do so? Why is it good to do so? Because it is good to do; so which is ultimately where you must end up.

Only under certain moral systems. Actually what I have been trying to point out that there is an underlying logic to most moral systems. The fact that they work, and to the extent that they work, is evident of their logical nature. Of course I also think we live in a logical universe, even if we are not quite sure exactly what that logic is.

Define good. How do you know that it is good, and not bad, or simply exists? God says so? If I am right, this does not even begin to answer the question, it is an admission that you don't know why or how something is to be judged good or bad. You have to appeal to authority and end the discussion. I don't.

For me, my life is the judge, as well as my happiness. Yes, I am a self admitted selfish bastard, but not in the Neitzchean sense of screw everyone over that is not me. The problem with Neitzches views is that on one level, it leads to those others defending themselves to my detriment, and on another is it an inaccurate view of those others. They are people, just like me, with similar dimensions, feelings, etc. Treating them as something other than what they are, well, that ain't quite logical. Nor is it safe.

Yes, some folks do survive while being evil, for a while. Sometimes bad things happen to good people. The question is which strategy for living is more likely to succeed? Being a right bastard to everyone you meet? Or treating others the way you want to be treated?

In the first place appeal to authority is not necessarily irrational(most of what we know is predicated on "authority")it is simply not necessarily derived from a "logical" background in the sense of chains of corralaries, nor is it derived from "evidence" in the sence of personal observation. It is rather a third source.
Second, I don't believe Faith(if the faith is well-placed and not erroneous) is "irrational".
Rather I think of three categories:
Irrational: below reason, predicated on sentiment or emotion and often contradictory to reason
Rational: predicated on the mind(including the mind of others) and it's ability to anaylize truth and falsehood based on evidense. Okay admitedly I steer into a contridicition because I just said that authority is part of reason. Actually authority can fit into all three categories including
Superrational: predicated on what is self-evident but not verifyible. It falls outside the jurisdiction of reason beacause there is no way a claim of self-evidence can be proven or disproved. However reason cannot exist without assuming the possibility of the superational. The very act rationally trying to prove something assumes that it is possible to do so-in other words that Truth exists.

Appeals to authority are not a logical or rational argument. The big guy said so, and that ends the discussion. Whether the big guy knows what he is talking about, or not, whether the big guy is even right, is beside the point. The big guy says so, that is the end of the discussion, the argument right there.

Now, you do touch on one of the oldest running debates in philosophy. What is truth? To me, I define truth as a quality of a statement. And I recognize two different variations here. One the one hand, you have statements like "My car is green." It refers to a particular characteristic of a specific entity in the real, physical world. More importantly, that quality of the object is INDEPENDENT of any specific observer, or mind. In fact, there is reason to think that its quality is independent of a mind observing it at all. [Whther you know the characterist or not, is irrelavant to whether it possesses that characteristic] The statement is true, if and only if the statement corresponds to the reality the statement is describing.

On the other hand, you have statements like "Red (traffic lights) mean stop." Meaning is a mental construct, an assignment or association a mind connects with a thing. Red has no meaning in and of itself, it is something that is placed with it, by a mind. These can be arbitrarily chosen, just as a particular squiggle "means" a particular sound, or a particular grouping of sounds "mean" a word, or concept.

Determining the truth of such statements, because you are dealing with mental constructs, is a bit more tricky. In America, red does mean stop. I have been told that in China, red means go. The truth is not found objectively, independent of any particular mind. The truth is found elsewhere.

Now, assigning meanings to traffic lights has a benefit, as long as folks go along, act "as if" red does have some kind of intrinsic meaning. Ignoring that meaning, has consequences as well, like a trip to the emergency room, an increased risk of making life untenable.

While life and death are objective states a biological organism can achieve, or possess, happiness is purely a mental construct. Trying to satisfy both is rather difficult at times, but not always.

No they have no reason to accept God's teachings(unless they still believe in "natural law"). But they usually do in practice at least partially accept, don't they? Even Communists say "be kind to the poor" though they deny everything else including the rights of individual members of said poor.

Well, we need to define which God, or model or concept of God one is talking about. Communists claim that because they see no objectively verible evidence of God, therefore God does not exist. Some will even point to logical inconsistencies in many models of the divine. But that is a side issue.

The real reason why communists and others who do not believe in God still hold to some moral values is because morals have practical effects, physical consequences. Disregarding morality altogether is not really an option, either for an individual or a society. It leads to death, unhappiness, and other assorted bad things.

True Faith neither backs up reason nor is opposed to it.

Sorry I don't buy this. Maybe you are talking about faith in a specific belief structure. But in general, and in a lot of instances, if the choice between reason or faith, which are you going to give up? A lot of folks are going to choose faith, despite the potential of deadly consequences.

It is instead the foundation of reason(the Bible uses "Wisdom" and "Knowlege" which are concepts close if not exactly corresponding to "reason"). As for how it affects my actions; well grading myself is not generally a good activity-I have an obvious conflict of interest. If you must know I am not a bomb-throwing fanatic(fanaticism is the perversion of zeal, just as avarice is the perversion of frugality) and neither is anyone I know despite the dark rumors about "big-bad fundamentalists". My faith says I should honor the Lord and my fellow-men; and abide by the law so long as I can do so without breaking God's commandments as God placed it there to protect us from each other(and it would have to take a lot to convince me that abiding by a given law is sinful). I do not always abide by these rules; if I could Christ wouldn't have needed to come down.

Okay this helps me identify who I am speaking to. Not accusing you of any fundamentalist bomb throwing or any other silliness. What I am trying to do is point out that morality governs the physical behavior of human beings. It is required because humans are free to pick and choose their physical actions, and actions have consequences. The source of that moral code is secondary, and mostly irrelavant to the effects that code produces. Evolution takes care of the rest, weeding out destructive and detrimental codes, while re-enforcing beneficial codes.

If dropping a rock on your foot hurts you, you are not going to do it. If strapping a JATO bottle to your car gets you killed, you will only do it once. Your death and/or pain will cause others who may be similarly inclined to think again, and largely reject repeating your actions.

All this, the rationality behind most moral codes can be validated logically, depending on nothing more than honest observations of the reality humans find themselves in. But prior to the discovery or invention of logic, other "unlogical" rationales were given, including appeals to an authority that nobody, with the possible exception of a few priests, had access to.

The effect was that moral codes that worked were utilized, and that fact alone kept people living, allowed societies to form, and produced and environment where happiness can be achieved. Whether God exists or not, morality is still important to human survival and happiness.

by the way, it is not self-evident that your car is green; it is self-evident that your eyes are a viable source of information, and therefor if your eyes tell you that your car is green it probably is so. It certainly is not self-evident to me. I am taking this on authority supported by the rational consideration that you would have no reason to lie in this context.

Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it, you don't have to accept my authority. You or anyone else is perfectly free to look at my car and determine its color yourself.

BTW, another common argument in philosophy is still whether your eyes are valid sources of information. There is the whole "Plato's cave" and "Matrix" alternatives. The problem is that if you drop a rock on your foot, it still going to hurt. Whether that rock is real, or the product of some computer program, is irrelevant. It still hurts you. And if you want to avoid the pain, you have to avoid dropping rocks on your foot, regardless of whether the rock is real or imaginary. It is an irrelavant distinction.

You are in the game, and you have to play by its rules. Whether it is only a game, or where those rules came from, is irrelavant.

Now, you think the rules are one way. In most areas, I think we agree on just what those rules are. We may approach the problem from different perspectives, and I have no desire to denigrate your particular perspective. Because the source, the thinking behind it, is all irrelevant to me. What is important is how following those rules affect the play of the game. Do following these particular rules benefit me, and the society I live in, or not? That is what matters.

 

[jatay3]

quote:Appeals to authority are not a logical or rational argument.
.............................
"I read it in an encylopedia" is an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is rational when you have good reason to believe said authority, which is why I believe your car is green.
......................................
quote: because altruism itself is illogical. Internally inconsistent.
................................
altruism is neither logical nor illogical. You cannot prove that it is more or less logical to care about your neighbors interest
....................................
Quote: Define good. How do you know that it is good, and not bad, or simply exists?
.......................................
Define good? define love. define freindship. define the sky the sea or the mountains. But that is poetic and don't waste your time arguing against them.
If you must, good is:1 a. Having positive or desirable qualities, not bad or poor b.virtuous; morally admirable; upright(and on for about 2 1/2 inches of very small print in the Tormont Websters Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary). However that is circular. Still the dictionary is useful for philosophical thought sometimes.
And here we come to the eternal conundrum. It is impossible to argue when there is dissagreement over claims of self-evidence. All I can say more is that good is good and God is God.
By the way I never denied being a Fundamentalist. What I said is that real Fundamentalist Christians are not fanatics. Our political lobbying is sometimes distastful but no more than that of our rivals. And yes we did denounce the various bombers who claim views similar to ours.
A minor point but I find it irritating to be classed on the same level as terrorists as some do. Perhaps I should be more paitient.
Of course that depends on the meaning of "fundamentalist". Some use fundamentalist as a synonym for "fanatic", which is an example of words getting warped in the debate.
In any case I think I will go now. God be with you.

 

[jatay3]

Oh as a by-the-way if you meet any of my sub-sect(I am a Christian first not a "fundamentalist first) don't assume they are being self-rightous because they are kind of in-your-face about it. Our ritual system encourages open display of enthusiasm and it need be no more than that. It might even be real. Or it might be hypocrisy: we have it like everyone. You can't read peoples hearts til you know them, and then not very well.
Also a lot of us are new converts and are carrying themselves for the first few weeks by enthusiasm. I don't usually(I'm in my debater mode here so I sound different) but then I was brought up in the church and am anyway naturally cold-blooded. This is not to carry on the argument: I am done. This is a request to understand my brothers-in-Christ that go to my Church even if you don't listen to them. I hope you do but that's another thing.
In the meantime I think I will set out to explore the Great Imperium
Good-buy

 

[robject]

0. Imperial Virtues

What can we say about the Imperium? It is founded on feudal principles and high tech, and is a massive trade engine.

The Imperium values forethought. Proper planning prevents piss-poor performance. Such an economic and military engine needs people who think first.

The Imperium values fortitude. The very fact that small-scale wars are permitted and even considered a valid way to resolve some disagreements shows that the Imperium wants people who will act on their convictions -- granted that they think first and also show some restraint (see next point).

The Imperium doesn't want people to go too far. The unrestrained generally end up in prison, or dead, or expulsed.

Justice gets less coinage in the Imperium. Justice does exist, of course, but in general the people do not have a voice. Their 'voice' is in the appointed representatives of the Moot and the sector Duke or Archduke. Worlds are largely left to govern their own affairs; in that respect, prudence and fortitude are stressed, at the expense of justice, which is weakened.

It could be said Dulinor uses the weakness of justice as a reason to become too gutsy, and intemperately and imprudently take the crown and assasinate Strephon.


1. Classical Virtues

The classical philosophers (Plato among them, I believe), held four virtues to be axiomatic, universal to humans, and essential. C.S. Lewis also held to them:

Prudence
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance

Basically, they could not be dervied from anything else. They could be defined in other terms, but were the bedrock of what they called "the law of human nature".

Therefore, human society of any kind will have analogues to these, more or less. They will have different boundaries and different social circumstances, but those virtues themselves must exist for civilization to exist.

Prudence is sort of like thinking before you act.
Fortitude is having the guts to act on your convictions.
Temperance is knowing when not to go too far.

A little introspection will show that these four are upheld (in some form) everywhere, in every group that calls itself a culture, society, or civilization.

Also, please note that these virtues form a moral standard which cannot be achieved. Contrast this to the other laws of nature, which generally describe exactly how things behave (rather than how they ought to behave), and in fact the occasional exceptions found in living things generally point to a fatal illness or defect.


2. Objective Reality

I'm a bit more shaky on this one, but I'm barging ahead anyway.

Corrolary to #1, or perhaps in tandem with it, or perhaps foundational to it, is the notion that things have intrinsic, objective value, and that morality is a measurement of how one's reactions to things is in line with these intrinsic values.

Thus the person who looks out over the Grand Canyon without a feeling of awe, and cannot attribute his lack of awe to some temporal distraction, may well have found a defect inside himself.

On the other hand, it is clear that another person can only judge outward reactions of people based on her knowledge of people, and she does so without certainty.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
"I read it in an encylopedia" is an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is rational when you have good reason to believe said authority, which is why I believe your car is green.

The point is that you don't HAVE to believe me. You can see for yourself. All you got to do is look. And no, it is not a rational argument. Anyone can write anything. Publish a book called an "encyclopedia" and print all kinds of false information. The reason why we trust such books is because they prove their credibility. But, and this is key, in dealing with the sciences, or history, (non-speculative stuff) the principle of independent verification is still there, whether you make use of it or not.

altruism is neither logical nor illogical. You cannot prove that it is more or less logical to care about your neighbors interest

Where the goals of a particular action satisfy both the individual and the other, there is no conflict, and it becomes a difference that makes no difference. (Concerning whether your actions are selfish, altruistic, or Nietzchean even.) It is where the goal of the action puts those two concerns in conflict, render them mutually exclusive, that the problem is highly illustrated.

Altruism teaches that one should always work to benefit the other, even if it is detrimental to one's own self. Lets say you are the one preaching that I should be altruistic. Yet the very act of encouraging me to take actions that benefit others, is problematic. You are one of those others, and stand to gain, if I fall for your line. This strikes me as highly selfish of you.

Also, by preaching to me a concept that, if adopted, can lead to my death, misery or worsening of my condition, you are asking me to not act in my best interest. At the same time telling me I should act in the best interest of others, you are not acting in that best interest for this other.

In other words, if you are practicing altruism, you can't preach it. If you preach it, you ain't practicing it.

This renders the concept of altruism internally inconsistent. And therefore illogical. If you are really altruistic, you could not preach it, as you might benefit from that preaching to this other's detriment. You would be working to my detriment, and therefore not behaving altruistically yourself. Plus, by adopting your preaching, I make your job of acting in my best interest a lot harder, as I am bound to take actions that lead to my detriment in according with your teachings.

We all appreciate the soldier who "lays down his life for his fellow man." Mostly we appreciate that it was him and not ourselves. There is a large selfish streak that taints altruism at its core.

Define good? define love. define freindship. define the sky the sea or the mountains. But that is poetic and don't waste your time arguing against them.

This makes no sense to me, and seems totally out of place. If you don't know what the terms mean, it is difficult to conduct a discussion that focuses on those terms. Any differences between your definition, and mine, could not get resolved unless we were able to realize that we are using the same words to mean different things.

If you must, good is:1 a. Having positive or desirable qualities, not bad or poor b.virtuous; morally admirable; upright(and on for about 2 1/2 inches of very small print in the Tormont Websters Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary). However that is circular. Still the dictionary is useful for philosophical thought sometimes.

It does not appear so in this case. Like I said earlier, this is no idle question, or attempts at naval gazing. It has to deal with the central topic we are discussing.

When you say something is good, you are comparing it to a standard. A good power supply is one that works within specifications. A good actions is one that either corresponds to a particular code of conduct, or alternately, that generates consequences that are in agreement with such a standard.

When you say something is bad, you are saying that it does not agree or meet some standard. But the real question is what is that standard, and where or how did you get it? Even more importantly than that, does that standard allow for the continued survival of the individual, does it accomplish his goals and desires?

You might say that your code, or standard comes from God. One of the things I have been attempting to point out is that regardless of the source, the effect that your code has, affects the way your life turns out. Whether it continues on, or whether you die. Whether you live a long and happy life, or whether it is all misery and death.

To me that is what is most important, what affect different moral codes have. As the entire purpose of a moral code, (as I see it) is to aid folks in picking those actions which do lead to a long and happy life, and avoid those actions that do lead to misery and death, its sources, who said what first, is irrelevant.

I have been arguming this side, or perspective solely from the side of logic. Theological questions to date have to remain outside the realm of objective confirmation or refutation. That is until and unless God holds a news conference. But nothing I have said cannot also be argued from a more religious side. The same arguments I have tried to represent here can be adopted, and utilized to demostrate the rightness, or agreement with reality of some, (in fact many) religiously based moral codes.

If something is good only because God says so, that really tells me nothing. If something is good because it aids in continuing my life and my happiness, that tells me more. If it is the same good, its not much of a problem.

[And this does not even touch on the aspect of carding God. Someone comes to you and tells you they are a particular God, how do you prove it? By his works? His actions?]

And here we come to the eternal conundrum. It is impossible to argue when there is dissagreement over claims of self-evidence. All I can say more is that good is good and God is God.

I really wish you wouldn't. To me this tells me that you really don't know what you are talking about. If you cannot define the terms, you have a problem in that I am not quite sure what you mean by them. And really neither are you.

By the way I never denied being a Fundamentalist. What I said is that real Fundamentalist Christians are not fanatics. Our political lobbying is sometimes distastful but no more than that of our rivals. And yes we did denounce the various bombers who claim views similar to ours.

I am not at all sure where this is coming from. So you are a fundamentalist Christian. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think anything I have written can be construed as hostile toward that faith.

I will note there as similiarities with this argument and the arguement of some atheists, who are in fact hostile. That is regrettable, and one of the reasons I have been long winded. To make sure that I clearly argue MY case, and not someone else's.

I will note something though. A "fundamentalist" as my understanding of the situation, is a person or sect that attempts to get at the roots or core of a particular belief structure. To practice that structure as it was originally practiced when it was first formed.

Christianity is, what 2000 years old, just shy of that? Its been around a long time, and has formed a central pillar for the more advanced civilizations on this planet. Doesn't that tell you something by itself?

A minor point but I find it irritating to be classed on the same level as terrorists as some do. Perhaps I should be more paitient.
Of course that depends on the meaning of "fundamentalist". Some use fundamentalist as a synonym for "fanatic", which is an example of words getting warped in the debate.
In any case I think I will go now. God be with you.

I was not aware that I had done so. Again, I was talking about religious faith only in the aspect of the physical effects it generates or causes. How religion influences morality, and how morality affects the actions of its believers, and more importantly, whether those effects prove benefitical or detrimental to the individual and/or society as a whole.

The Islamic jihadis may call themselves fundamentalists, and for all I know, or care, they may be practicing their religion as it was meant to be. Ultimately, I see it as disastrous for themselves as well as a lot of innocent folk. But then their version of Islam, with its virtual enslavement of women, their rejection of democracy and human rights, and other issues, have had a detrimental effect on their culture. Because the political culture is deadly to dissent, they require a scape goat to funnel that rage and anger, that is a result of their comparitive failure, compared to the Western world. The Islamic nations have not advanced as rapidly as Western nations have, and have fallen behind in many areas, especially technologically.

America is, by a majority, a nation of Christians. But for some reason, this Christian nations does not institute a dhimmitude on those of different faiths and beliefs. There are pagans, witches, even Satanists, as well as Muslims, Jews, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. ad infinitum living happy lives side by side, with very little friction, and no political persecution. The difference is in the difference in ideas between the two cultures, between the two faiths. And that difference has led to, or been a part of, this nation being the most powerful one on the planet, and possibly throughout all of human history.

I know there are plenty of folk who stop at the word "fundamentalist" and try to tar any with such a label as dangerous. Its usually the same people who confuse American conservatives with Soviet conservatives, or even Iranian conservatives, completely blind to the fact that each group is conserving something different, and that the fundamentals are rarely identical. Its slopping thinking on the part of some, and while I cannot declare myself completely immune, I do make an effort not to fall in such a trap.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Oh as a by-the-way if you meet any of my sub-sect(I am a Christian first not a "fundamentalist first) don't assume they are being self-rightous because they are kind of in-your-face about it.

It might surprise you to know that at one time I was like that too. Probably far more annoying than you have been.

And I was in no way trying to be insulting, or denigrating, or anything even remotely like that. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with an attack on any religion. (Okay, maybe some sects of present day Islam. But even then, its more in noting the detrimental effects of that collection of memes on the physical as well as psychological well being of its adherents, as well as others.)

I was not attacking your religion, nor even religion in general. I do have some ideas on how religion affects the world, how whether a belief structure aids and contributes in the survival of a population.

Whether you do the right thing because God said so, or you see the potential benefit to yourself and society resulting from that action, is immaterial. The point is that you do the right thing. Being indecisive quite often is the wrong thing. So coming to a decision, deciding a particular course of action, in general, is benefitical, regardless of how you arrived at that decision.

Whether I do something nice for you because I am an altruist, or because I am a selfish bastard, does not matter. It is still something nice for you, ain't it?

 

[Drakon]

There are few things I can argue with in robject's post. But here I am anyway.

Originally posted by robject:

1. Classical Virtues

The classical philosophers (Plato among them, I believe), held four virtues to be axiomatic, universal to humans, and essential. C.S. Lewis also held to them:

Prudence
Justice
Fortitude
Temperance

Basically, they could not be dervied from anything else. They could be defined in other terms, but were the bedrock of what they called "the law of human nature".

Therefore, human society of any kind will have analogues to these, more or less. They will have different boundaries and different social circumstances, but those virtues themselves must exist for civilization to exist.

Are you saying it is impossible for a civilization to exist without holding these concepts as virtues? Why is that?

Also, please note that these virtues form a moral standard which cannot be achieved. Contrast this to the other laws of nature, which generally describe exactly how things behave (rather than how they ought to behave), and in fact the occasional exceptions found in living things generally point to a fatal illness or defect.

Not sure they are unachievable. Possibly you are talking in some cosmic, always being practice in each and every instance of life, kind of thing. But on the small scale, and in many situations, they can be. And perhaps that is enough to display their benefits, to self reinforce those virtues.

Corrolary to #1, or perhaps in tandem with it, or perhaps foundational to it, is the notion that things have intrinsic, objective value, and that morality is a measurement of how one's reactions to things is in line with these intrinsic values.

Thus the person who looks out over the Grand Canyon without a feeling of awe, and cannot attribute his lack of awe to some temporal distraction, may well have found a defect inside himself.

On the other hand, it is clear that another person can only judge outward reactions of people based on her knowledge of people, and she does so without certainty.

I don't buy this "intrinsic value" stuff. Value, like meaning is a function or process requiring a mind. I have been frequently told that all human life has intrinsic value, but then I look at Hitler's life, Pol Pot, Stalin, jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, jeffery Dalmer, and I don't see the value of them, or their lives. Sadly, there are too many counterexamples to show that either such a value on human life does not exist intrinsically to the life itself, or alternately that such value is meaningless, worse, detrimental to dealing with those who present a clear and present danger.

Some folks see granduer and awe in the Grand Canyon. Some see a big hole in the ground. How do you determine which is the right response? By what standard do you judge one defective, and the other one not?

 

[jatay3]

And I was in no way trying to be insulting, or denigrating, or anything even remotely like that. Nothing I wrote had anything to do with an attack on any religion. (Okay, maybe some sects of present day Is
.....................................
I didn't say you were insulting. I find nothing insulting about a worthy opponent. I was in fact refering to the stereotype of evangelicals/fundamentalists(the difference is obscure-treat as synonomous) found on license plates and TV(last night I saw a Magnum PI that featured a harraser that claimed to be on a "mission from God". This sort of thing can be irritating.
That part wasn't addressed mainly to you but to
any readers reading.

 

[jatay3]

I am here modifying my point earlier about "no one believes artificial religions". This is only partly true. The leigionaries made a big deal of Caesar worship. However when they did, it was as a military icon: a symbol for "our team", like a flag. Artificial religions can succeed in this regard; they are never the focus of loyalty but only it's representation. By artificial religion I mean primarily something that is "cooked up in a lab to satisfy the masses" for all to see by the state. Kind of like another version of bread and circuses.
This is very seldom done. Most states simply rely on something that is already there or being produced independantly by their followers. For instance, "divine right"(which is an exageration of biblical commands to honor authority)was developed by intellectuals not by kings. The kings simply adapted to it once it was popular.
So in a sense were both right. A state must have something to attract loyalty. However this must be something that can plausibly attract loyalty.

 

[robject]

The Vilani are humans, after all. Their civilization is flawed too; only it will be flawed in different ways than ours. For good cultural reading I would suggest The Chrysanthemum and The Sword by Ruth Benedict. She gives a handful of parameters by which you can measure a human culture. Great stuff!

Originally posted by Drakon:

Are you saying it is impossible for a civilization to exist without holding these concepts as virtues? Why is that?

Well, they postulated that civilization can't exist without having these virtues. They don't have to acknowledge them, but in practice they're there. It's not a definition of civilization, it's nearly civilization itself.

The four virtues (Justice, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude) were called 'the law of human nature'. We want people to act that way when they deal with us.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Also, please note that these virtues form a moral standard which cannot be achieved.

Not sure they are unachievable.

</font>[/QUOTE]People are virtuous every day. But the standard is unacheiveable. I'm not even sure that the virtues are approximated most of the time by most humans. Although we like to think so. We ought to try to be

prudent when we decide what to put in our posts;

temperate so we don't make people unjustifiably angry or upset;

fortitudinous when we stand up for our beliefs about how things work;

and we invoke justice when we think something is unfair.

Although, we might also

imprudently think that people care about peripheral issues we post (like this post?),

intemperately prattle on for pages and pages (like this post?),

pander to others in a cowardly fashion,

or unjustly twist others' words around in order to make a point.

Again, the virtues were called 'the law of human nature'. We want people to act that way when they deal with us.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Kind of like another version of bread and circuses.
This is very seldom done. Most states simply rely on something that is already there or being produced independantly by their followers. For instance, "divine right"(which is an exageration of biblical commands to honor authority)was developed by intellectuals not by kings. The kings simply adapted to it once it was popular.
So in a sense were both right. A state must have something to attract loyalty. However this must be something that can plausibly attract loyalty.

Because theological issues are not easily decided objectively, and will be so until God holds a news conference, it is hard to distinguish between an artifical religion and a "real" one. And as a religion gets older, it gets all that much harder to do.

But again, the source is of far less relavance than the effect. The past is just that, the past. Its dead and frozen in place. Without a time machine, we have no means of affecting it at all.

Seeing how the various concepts adopted by a particular religion, such as the divine right of kings, how those facets play out, and will govern future activities of its adherents, to me is the far more relativant issue.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by robject:
Well, they postulated that civilization can't exist without having these virtues. They don't have to acknowledge them, but in practice they're there. It's not a definition of civilization, it's nearly civilization itself.

The four virtues (Justice, Prudence, Temperance, Fortitude) were called 'the law of human nature'. We want people to act that way when they deal with us.

What we are really talking about here are ideas, memes. We want folks to act in this particular manner because there is a benefit to be had if such occurs. And there is a detriment involved if they should, for whatever reason, fail to act in accordance with these "laws"

People are virtuous every day. But the standard is unacheiveable. I'm not even sure that the virtues are approximated most of the time by most humans. Although we like to think so. We ought to try to be

If you are saying that humans are not perfect, well, I would find it hard to disagree. However, again it points toward the reason such virtues, and morality is required for a functioning society.

The reason why morality is around to begin with is the problem of free will. If you can choose your actions freely, you would have just as much chance of picking a wrong action, one that leads to detrimental conditions for yourself or society, as a right one. Unless you have some system of concepts and ideas as to what that right action is, some means of differentiation prior to deciding an action, and why you should avoid the wrong ones, quite frequently you end up tearing down civilization as well as getting yourself killed.

You do a good bit here about where intemperate, imprudent actions can lead in just this little news group. You recognize the results of right actions, and how they are more benefitical than wrong ones, to your goals (as well as my own)

And the basis, or framework for that analysis? Your "virtues". And again, I can only reinterate this. Whether these virtues, these concepts, are holy writ handed down by God himself, or not, is secondary to the point that those virtues work. They aid in the construction of a society, a civilization. Their absence makes it nigh impossible to create the benefits one would garner from being part of a society.

Whether they are actually laws of human behavior or not, is irrelavant. Whether they work, and therefore "should" be, that is another and more valid issue.

Again, the virtues were called 'the law of human nature'. We want people to act that way when they deal with us.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
That part wasn't addressed mainly to you but to any readers reading.

Yeah I can understand that. But part of me is not as stirred up by religious persecution as perhaps I should be. Even the minor forms such as ridicule, while I find it distasteful, rude, and uncivil, I do see how having active opposition to one's particular sect can be benefitical in the long run.

But then, I am the guy who can't lose an argument

To me, having an accurate mental model in my head is of immeasurable benefit and advantage. By using that model, I am able to predict the consequences of my actions, as well as the actions of those around me. Like using the laws of gravity to predict if an asteroid will crash into this planet, or miss it.

I have ideas, some are in accodance with that external reality and some not so much. So I will argue my points with willing opponents.

If I am right, that gets validated in the competition. Even if I don't convince the other person, his efforts help me crystalize and sort out what I have been thinking on the issue, even improve in its presentation.

If I am wrong, I learn something new about reality. If my opponent has a valid point, I have to incorporate it into my revised mental model. As that model improves, it improves my ability to run "off line simulations" of potential actions and thereby improve my ability to pick those actions that result in benefitical effects, and avoid those that result in detrimental ones.

Either way, I benefit. Either way, I win.

So being challenged is not in and of itself a bad thing. You will find a lot of folks who simply want to dismiss your beliefs, and your arguments, and ignore you. Such folks are not helpful, and I feel that reciprocity is usually the best tactic in dealing with them. Ignore and dismiss them out of hand. But do listen, and mine their arguments for those gems of truth that the may contain.

 

[jatay3]

Whether they are actually laws of human behavior or not, is irrelavant. Whether they work, and therefore "should" be, that is another and more valid issue.


Which is a reasonable statement. If humanity as a rule followed those rules we would all be better off. I guess the dissagreement is the source of those rules.

 

[jatay3]

Another point which is disconected but of interest. This is the difficulty of being both zealous and chivalrous. These two virtues strain at each other(Drakon can use "virtues" instead of virtues; I am not surrendering on my earlier points, merely moving on). Thus the best of mercenaries(not goons but high-class outfits)can be very chivalrous because they care not a whit about their employer beyond their paycheck. Likewise zeal can make people vicious, because they really do care and think the "end justifys the means"(this is a cliche; I think it more accurate to say some ends could never justify any means, some ends justify some means, and no end justify all means-still a little bumper stickerish but better then before).Also zealous people are apt to be guided by emotion. Finnally a merely evil person will stop torturing people when he gets tired; twisted zeal will make him stay up torturing people.
This is I think the source of the accusation that religion is reponsible for the troubles of the world. This is of course partly true. On the other hand it is arguable that were it not for Early Medieval missionaries to Europe for instance, there would be no Western Civilization to be nearly destroyed by the Thirty Years War in the first place, to take one example. This argument could go
on indefinitly, but it gets wearisome and I do not wish to argue it.
The point I am bringing up is an interesting one. It is by the way "relavent"(a rather annoying word ; it implies that learning has to contract itself to fit me rather than encourage me to expand). Presumably many of us have our pet causes which we fill deeply about. Yet we also should be courteous to oppenents. Many sacrifice their cause to avoid hurt feelings. This is wrong; being convinced to change one's mind is one thing, changing ones mind to satisfy another is, I think dishonest however well intentioned. Take rather as an ideal Johney Reb and Yankee who could shoot at each other all day and trade coffee for tobacco in the evening with no hard feelings. This is how we should feel about our dissagreements in life. Of course we won't, for nobodies perfect.
Interestingly this thought does apply to Traveler. It is a good way for a GM to imagine how different characters(PC and NPC) will actually behave. For instance a Merc fighting K'kree will be kinder if he wins, but a K'kree will be braver. Or might be; "machine-discipline" often carries farther over the long haul than fanaticism.
If you find someone who can do both he is indeed very virtuous. Don't look at me; I sound like this because I am on my guard, what I do by habit is another thing. Besides I'm probably defecient in some area I don't know about. Besides I don't really know how I come off to the rest of you so all I can say is "whatever"


PS To any other evangelicals out there. Yes I do say that Christianity is a "religion". I know all that about "Christianity is a relationship not a religion". To which I answer: a Rose is "a plant" and the Sea is "molecules of hydrogen and oxygen, as well as sodium-chloride molecules". Christ was Man as well as God and the Church is both a heavenly thing and an earthly thing. For any non-christians out there: yes I know this sounds obscure. Every group has it's own words and technicalities, including the Church.

 

[jatay3]

If you find someone who can do both he is indeed very virtuous

That is, someone who can be both zealous and chivalrous. Sorry about my bad grammar everyone

 

[robject]

The Vilani Shugilii might say:

The virtues we see, of ishkishar (cooperation), inkidar (stability), and kiirar (organization), are very similar to your concepts of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice.

We find our three virtues, to a greater or lesser degree, in all human civilizations we have found. Since they are universal but anonymous, we will have to rely on something other than feelings or preferences to find out why they are as they are.

We Vilani believe them to be true and binding for all humankind. We believe that moral progress is possible, therefore judging the actions of others becomes possible.

In worlds where they were more closely adhered to, we find the lives of the citizens to be more harmonious and less chaotic. Indeed, some worlds were simply barbaric due to a nearly total lack of one virtue or another, or a gross overemphasis of one virtue at the expense of another.

The better we try to live by these virtues, the better our empire is. Within our limited, selfish abilities, it is possible for the Imperium to yet become an amazing place. Not perfect at all, but it can be unimaginably bettter than it is currently. We still won't be content, and our problems will not disappear, but the difference can be like night and day. This is because moral progress is possible, because we are all moral creatures.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Whether they are actually laws of human behavior or not, is irrelavant. Whether they work, and therefore "should" be, that is another and more valid issue.

Which is a reasonable statement. If humanity as a rule followed those rules we would all be better off. I guess the dissagreement is the source of those rules.

Actually it is more like this. I don't care what the source of the rules are. Rules are mental constructs and because of that, their validity is in what effects they produce in the real world. Do they work? That is all that really matters.

Where they came from is completely irrelavant.