|
Post by donmartin on Mar 3, 2009 1:54:21 GMT
Keep bailing.
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Mar 3, 2009 5:03:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 3, 2009 6:51:19 GMT
Nope. But you are convincing. Perhaps morality and survival do go hand in hand. Otherwise, what are we to conclude from bailouts which now exceed $40,000 per adult; with no apparent result?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Mar 3, 2009 10:48:12 GMT
Is it correct that concepts of morality and ethics have no place, and are necessarily excluded from consideration, in the theory of evolution? In other words, and by way of example, were an individual tomorrow to exterminate one-half of the world's population, would that act essentially be neutral and have no moral or ethical context; simply determinative of an evolutionary step? In an Aristotelian world, that would be a wrong thing. ethically it would always equate to mass murder. But Count Alfred Korzybski lets us realise that Aristotle may have been a bigger mass murderer than Hitler - this is a guy whose philosophy has justified the killing of at least hundreds of millions of innocents, based on the idea there is an absolute wrong & an absolute right. Physics these days agrees with Korzybski - society has not yet caught on to the idea that the Universe is shades of grey. Killing half the population - Oh so evil. Killing half the world so the other half lives when otherwise all would die - maybe not so bad. Killing half the world who had decided all who don't believe their particular version of reality - possibly justifiable. How about killing the half of the world who had joined a religion which advocated the sexual molestation of all children under 5 years old? The universe is shades of grey - being human means having to be aware enough to evaluate the shades. To be truly human means being consciously aware that ALL events are unique, that ALL humans are individuals & to committing to only ACT, not REACT to events. That is where evolution has brought us. That is where all Ethics lie & anything else is immoral.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 3, 2009 18:01:50 GMT
Acolyte: maybe some one can teach me how to quote - would make everything much easier.
I am always intrigued by the execution of Socrates, who, if I remember correctly, suggested that the taking of his life by the state was supportable in ethics. and was logical, given that it was the state which made it possible for him to be born, to live and then arrive at his then present state of existence.
There seem to be a number of philosophical approaches. Marx believed in the Hegelian stage theory of human political/economic development, and John Stuart Mill described "the invisible hand." But all the foregoing utterly delimit the implication of morality and ethics and seemingly state, I think, that human evolution in all its aspects is void of moral or ethical considerations unless those considerations are derived from a reality which provides no choice or free will. Where is Milton when we need him?
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 5, 2009 0:38:21 GMT
John Stuart Mill described "the invisible hand." I thought that was Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) This is one debate I think I'll just watch from the side lines. (*Maybe throw in a grenade or two to elevate the temperature* ;D)
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 5, 2009 17:54:40 GMT
It was Adam Smith
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Mar 5, 2009 22:38:42 GMT
I thought that was Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) Throughout this debate I had to correct/amend a good deal of DonMartin's history. When I saw the incorrect attribution of the 'invisible hand' statement I simply stayed quiet. DonMartin, while you probably know more about history than many Americans you lack some of the more important details. I am not saying this to belittle you but to give you some sound advice. If you want to pass judgement on the morality of past decisions made by historical figures/leaders it is imperative to understand as best one can the events and influences taking place at that time. To do otherwise is intellectually lazy and flat out dangerous. You might as well be living in a Orwell's Oceania where history is written and re-written by the state depending on who is in or out of favor.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 6, 2009 9:32:04 GMT
Anyway, I might dip my toes in this topic.
The reality is that we do have Morality, Ethics (and Justice, self-sacrifice, and many more) which become somewhat meaningless when we step outside humanity and look in from outside (so to speak). Yet, these things are critical to the survival of our culture(s)
Mankind either evolved along with religious ideas, OR, one of the many contradictory religions (or several of the non-contradictory!) may actually be true.
Personally, I am happy to pre-suppose the Creator God of traditional Christianity. But I have also put a lot of thought into how our religious ideas may have evolved.
Faith in God (it seems to me) is a very finely balanced thing. I can't not believe, I simply do. I can defend the logical correctness of Christianity, yet know that this depends on accepting the starting premises: That God IS, and that He has revealed himself in both Creation and His Word.
I also know, that if one starts with the premise that there is no God, then a consistent world-view can be constructed upon that premise also. Logically, anyone who starts with the premise, that there is no God(s), ends up logically proving that to themselves.
All human reasoning is ultimately circular - you cannot escape your starting premise. I have spent many hours in thought starting from either a believing or non-believing premise. (The very fact that I am prepared to do so upsets some of my believing friends.)
The problem is society itself - If evolution is true (let's assume so for sake of argument) then religion and ethics have evolved as essential parts of our society. To blow the secret, let the cat out of the bag & declare God is dead, amounts to a huge destructive influence on a complex evolved society.
There have been many attempts to replace religion with alternate ethical systems, but the "common" man refuses to catch on.
Fortunately, the small % still holding to conservative beliefs (in any system, not just Christianity) helps to preserve some social structure. The world malaise of unbelief is part of the cause of the rise of fundamentalism (which we see in Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Probably in eastern religions as well, but I am unfamiliar with those areas.)
Many view the destruction of any form of religion as a necessary part of the 'Revolution' and international socialism has always been opposed to genuine religious faith. Political systems also tend to mistrust those whose first allegiance is to another system.
Interestingly, within thinking conservative Christianity, (no, that ISN'T an oxymoron) there is an almost total opposition to AGW, while liberal-left Christianity is almost preaching AGW instead of the old-time Gospel. (They need something to believe in!)
(I have no idea what the Tele-evangelist/extreme fundamentalists believe - anything to keep the money flowing I guess)
No real conclusion - I know what I believe, and have a solid external ethical system to use with myself and my family.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 9, 2009 16:44:42 GMT
Reminds me a bit of Alice B Toklas saying to the dying Gertrude Stein, "What is the answer?" And Stein looking up at Toklas, asking, "What is the question?"
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Mar 9, 2009 21:12:05 GMT
Reminds me a bit of Alice B Toklas saying to the dying Gertrude Stein, "What is the answer?" And Stein looking up at Toklas, asking, "What is the question?" DonMartin, Um... there are two stories that Toklas told about this. In one story by toklas Stein asked "What is the answer". Toklas didn't know and then Stein asked, "In that case, what is the question?" Later Toklas was quoted by the New Yorker Stein's last words were "What is the question", and before I could speak she went on, "If there is no question then there is no answer." But in neither story told by Toklas did Toklas ask the question.
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 10, 2009 6:51:49 GMT
npsguy: You may be correct. But strangely enough, there may be a third story - from Toklas.
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Mar 10, 2009 15:00:29 GMT
npsguy: You may be correct. But strangely enough, there may be a third story - from Toklas. I once again find myself defending historical accuracy against your desire to re-write it. First let us look at the exact lines from Alice Toklas's famous autobiography "What is Remembered". In it she said: By this time Gertrude Stein was in a sad state of indecision and worry. I sat next to her and she said to me early in the afternoon, what is the answer? I was silent. In that case, she said, what is the question? All autobiographers are guilty of 'embellishment' so let us now look at a private letter as reported in the biography "Two Lives: Gertrude and Alice", sent from Toklas to Carl Van Vechten, Stein's literary executor, that read: About Baby's last words. She said upon waking from a sleep--What is the question. And I didn't answer thinking she was not completely awakened. Then she said again--What is the question and before I could speak she went on--If there is no question then there is no answer.
AS you can see both stories are directly written by Toklas yet in neither case is it Toklas asking "What is the question" as you stated.Once again I am sorry to have to correct you DonMartin
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Mar 10, 2009 17:55:08 GMT
I don't quite understand your point. Which version do you beoieve is correct, and why?
You see, Gertrude was being taken into surgery when the conversation took place. I have never read the quote; only informed by someone I believe knew the facts. You can't believe everything you read. Perhaps you could direct me to the letter to which you refer so I could read same.
|
|
|
Post by npsguy on Mar 10, 2009 18:26:02 GMT
I don't quite understand your point. You were wrong in your post where you wrote: Reminds me a bit of Alice B Toklas saying to the dying Gertrude Stein, "What is the answer?" Toklas was never quoted as asking Stein that question; it was Stein herself that asked the question. Toklas said so both in her autobiography and in the letter as I pointed out. If you don't believe Toklas's own words I sure as hell can't convince you. I know it seems 'nitpicky' of me but you seem to get a lot wrong on here (attribution of the phrase "invisible hand" and your statements on Socrates, etc...etc...etc... ad nauseum). You ask me my point? My point is the same as it was in a previous post: "pick up a book sometime instead of depending on the hearsay of others."For you reading pleasure here is the link to the excerpt of the biography of Toklas Google Book-Two Lives:Gertrude and AliceThe only excerpt I can find online for the Toklas's autobiography is an old Time magazine review of it here: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896704,00.html
|
|