Ethics, aesthetics, and morals

by onacruse 36 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Euphemism

  I basically take the Epicurean position... humans' greatest pursuit in life is happiness, and the greatest long-term happiness comes from a life of moderation. But I admit that doesn't really answer Craig's question, which is: why not harm others when it would lead to our own happiness?

  The fact is, there is no answer. Ethics cannot answer the question of why we should be moral, any more than mathematics can answer the question of why 1+1=2. In both cases, we just have to start with an axiom (that harming others is bad, that units can be aggregated) and build from there.

  People who do not accept this basic axiom (that harming others is bad) are called sociopaths. That is because the intuitive acceptance of this principle is part of our human nature. Its nonacceptance is considered a breakdown of that nature, an illness.

  But there is no reason why you should avoid harming others, any more than there is a reason why you should want to be happy. They're both just part of the way we're wired.
• 

  Carmel

  Craig,

  I'll be in Portland tomorrow. Wanta have a late lunch?

  tod
• 

  Carmel

  Cruise,

  All our human decisions are based on attempts to secure reward (can be physical, intellectual or emotional) and avoid pain (punishment) Given that, there are no moral or ethical standards that have arisen spontaneously. They can be traced back to one or more of the spiritual leaders we recognize as founders of the worlds major religions. That those standards had practical and utilitarian value, is evidenced by the success of those teachings forming broad cultures that have withstood the test of time. Eventually they became diluted and confused with our attempts to "improve" upon them and the cultures stagnated and declined. Think about the glorious civilizations of the past that brought wonderful insights and advancements in the arts, sciences and social and political arenas. Those would not have been possible without a resurgence of the fundamental moral and ethical teachings that underpinned them..

  So, my dear friend, a standard of morality and ethical conduct is valuable on an individual and collective level and the philosophy that we can live by our own standards is an indication of decline. Take for instance commerce. All successful commercial transactions depend upon a level of trust. Trust is based on a fundamental confidence in the other person sharing your ethical commitments. If you cannot trust person X, you won't do business with him. No commerce will take place without a modicum of trusting. Even contracts are not a replacement for trust.

  nuff fer now

  carmel
• 

  bikerchic

  Hey Tod,

  Check your PM's.

  Kate
• 

  gumby

  Farkle and a few others nailed it. Society would not be a pretty sight without boundries that are accepted as for the betterment of man. Anarchy would leave only big Nephilim abusive men who all look like the San Francisco 49er's on the planet who played with them selfs and looked at nasty pictures.

  Okay, it matters because if this life is all we get and you make others miserable then it matters to them. If you murder someone you take away their only chance to live. Maybe you wouldn't care, but they care and those that love them care. I guess it boils down to whether you are a kind and loving human being who makes the existence of others more enjoyable; or you are a sadistic psycho who exists only for your own pleasure.

  Well said Flyin!

  Sadistic people are usually done away with by the loving and kind people.......and I'm on their side!

  Only when mankind applies the words of some wise dude who once said...."Love your fellowman as yourself" does mankind get along and prosper for the better. It just works that way.

  Gumby
• 

  onacruse

  Y'all...my apologies for not getting back to this topic.

  Several off-board conversations, and much to think about.

  For the time being, perhaps it will suffice to say that the thrust of my inquiry/challenge was in the direction of pure materialism, and the logical consequences of such a philosophy.

  And yes, I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate here.

  But, as a prelude to what I will try to post to you each personally this weekend: In spite of the humanist, and pragmatist, and Epicurean perpsectives--what if you had the absolute and impunitive power to do whatever you wanted, however you wanted, whenever you wanted? If you would not take advantage of that power, then why not?

  The argument of "selfishness is not always bad" is fine and dandy, but doesn't touch the core of the issue: Selfishness, insofar as it is a manifestation of "survival of the fittest," requires that the "being" act only in accord with what is in its own best interests, including eating or destroying your own offspring (as is evidenced in the behavior of numerous animal and insect species).

  "But," some will say, "that's purely animalistic! and doesn't correlate to the way we, as humans, need to behave."

  Agreed.

  However, how did the dichotomy arise? Did our "higher" sense of human consciousness of community arise as a result of some random DNA-sequence activation (perhaps caused by a cosmic ray particle mutation), over which we consequently have no control? If so, then we are, even in our own actions as a "community," no different from animals; it simply happens that our genome was altered, against our will and outside our control.

  But there's the catch: If our behavior is nothing more, or less, than hard-wired genetic/neurological action/reaction, then insofar as any one, or several, of us, might find a way to battle past those limitations and "gain the upper hand" over our fellow humans, then (in the purely "materialistic" sense), how could such actions be condemned?
• 

  myauntfanny

  then insofar as any one, or several, of us, might find a way to battle past those limitations and "gain the upper hand" over our fellow humans, then (in the purely "materialistic" sense), how could such actions be condemned?

  Maybe we don't need grounds for condemning them, only for stopping them. I mean, we don't need to prove they are wrong in order to justify stopping them. If someone tries to mug me I don't have to go through a long complex moral-ethical analysis about what's wrong with mugging me. I just don't want to be mugged, that's not something I need to justify.
• 

  onacruse

  MAF:

  I mean, we don't need to prove they are wrong in order to justify stopping them.

  No, we don't need to justify it, nor is justifying it of any consequence; we just need the strength and power to stop them. If we have neither, then we are simply "victims" of "survival of the fittest."

  This is exactly the quandry of human co-existence at play here! "Pure" materialism would judge the unstoppability of heinous acts as a simple matter of "I can, you can't; tough shit for you, and good for me."

  How many scriptures have the same theme? How often David morosed about "the wicked prosper in all their days, and are laid to rest in peace"; with the caveat: "God will judge them!"

  But, if there is no God, and no life after death, then, in fact, the "wicked" person comes off the winner, hands down.
• 

  Narkissos

  How many scriptures have the same theme? How often David morosed about "the wicked prosper in all their days, and are laid to rest in peace"; with the caveat: "God will judge them!"

  But, if there is no God, and no life after death, then, in fact, the "wicked" person comes off the winner, hands down.

  The strong wins, the weak loses; but as you pointed out both write.

  The winner writes official history, or epics; the loser writes counter-history in the form of complaint, tragedy, legend, myth, prophecy, apocalypticism, philosophy, poetry, and so on.

  The loser's writing will always poison the winner's glory by instilling doubt, (bad) conscience, criticism, irony, or revolt.

  When Rome conquered Greece historically, Greece conquered Rome culturally.
• 

  Abaddon

  Why should I not simply do whatever I want to do?

  Because at a certain point if you pissed-off someone bigger and badder than you they would pull your ears off and stick them somewhere the sun don't shine?

  Humans have good nurturing caring instincts.

  So do dogs.

  And just as a dog will not sit on THAT chair (whilst you're looking) because it knows it will get hit if it does, so too will humans refrain from actions that carry adverse concequences due to other members of society objecting to those actions.

  Most people don't speed because at some point if you do you will get hit - with a fine. Many people don't steal/cheat/lie if there is a risk of being caught. Some seemingly will not steal/cheat/lie even if there is no risk of getting caught, but then this is normally due to them believing in something invisable that will know they stole/cheated/lied.

  Altruism doesn't really exist.

  We may die to save our children - and thus ensure the survival of our genes. We may risk our lives to save a stranger because of our individual moral code, being rewarded by our compliance with that moral code.

  If you were walking through town and instinctively without reflection pushed a stanger out of the way of a car and die instanteneuously without comprehending you had saved someone's life one could argue that one had made a genuinely altruistic sacrifice, but normally there's an internal reward even if there is a negative external concequence.

  Because you live in a society where you interact with others you have to accept that your actions will influence the interactions other have with you. You CAN do what you want to do, but if you do so, you suffer whatever the concequences of the action are, be they good or bad, as dictated by the society you are in, unless you are smart/lucky/powerful enough to evade those concequences.

  It all boils down to humans having found out a long time ago that life was more pleasent if you had a general agreement not to steal things off each other or kill each other. Whilst it meant you passed up the opportunities offered by stealing and killing others it mean one could be reasonably confident no on would kill or steal from you.

  You can free yourself from such laws but you're then also free from the protections they offer.