Why you believe what you believe I

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

While I concur with Lizra that this is a form of reality for many, it is not the optimum reality.

#2:

i assume that you agree with my general premise, more or less, that the "optimum reality" is a balance between what is good for the individual and what is good for society... please tell me if i am wrong

so the next question is who, or what, is the judge

i've said that it's judged at many levels, the individual, whether me or you makes a personal judgement... the society he/she lives in makes it's own judgements... this leads to compromise and sometimes even certain individuals having to suspend their personal judgements for the good of society... since a certain consensus among people in a given society has merits of it's own

but most of all, the world changes... and as we become less isolated globally due to travel and communication... and life becomes less dictated by our environment due to advances in technology... things that seemed absolutely essential to the survival of the individual or society, may no longer be so important

one specific... in the homosexual thread you made a lot of arguments concerning AIDs transmission... if, at some future point, society develops a cure for AIDs, or even better, a cure for just about every ailment we know... would that change your pov at all about something like homosexuality (and i am not talking about marriage... just the general practice)

if you do not agree with this, i must ask, specifically... what is your alternative "optimum reality"??

it is very hard to discuss my pov when you tell me i am wrong on my view about "how the world works", but yet pose no alternative to my explanations for me to compare with

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

brownie, I didn't answer your question because you said Lief OR RÃ*an, and being a trained computer scientist, I realized your condition was met when Lief answered!

I also didn't answer it because ah'm not on the hotseat, m'dear!

But if you would really like me to, then I will.

#3:

gotcha, but as i said to inked above... i am being asked questions about my beliefs and then told i am wrong... yet no clear explanation is given as to why i am wrong... i hear a lot of talk about "absolutes"... but no examples of them and no clue as to who is the judge of these "absolutes"

if it is the individual along with society... we agree with one another

and if it is "god", as some seem to imply... then how does one determine what "flavor" of god to follow???

and if the answer is, "it's up to the individual"... then you are really saying the exact same thing i am... just going about it in a more roundabout way

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This leads me to another 3 questions:

Do you believe there may be other highly advanced beings in the Universe (sentient, capable of making moral decisions etc.) besides humans? Why or why not?

i believe in evolution, and with the size of our universe i think the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere is very likely

Are you at all worried by the fact that human beings, given our murky history, may be the highest power in the Universe? Why or why not?

not really, while we could have destroyed all humanity, and still can, with nuclear proliferation for instance... i think it is a key point that we have not... there will continue to be mass violence by the self-serving who attain positions of power, but i think the more realistic individuals outnumber the nuts... and, while they squabble from time to time (i.e. france, germany, the us, the uk)... they will come together when the situation calls for it

Let's say for the sake of argument that we definitely are the highest power in the universe. Do you think our actions have any implications on the meaning(s) of life, or the Universe in general?

if we are the highest power, then our actions are the meaning of life... since we are the only one's to be the judge of it

BTW, i think this is probably the best summation i've seen yet of the difference between the "believer" and the "agnostic" i've yet to see

And one comment on your response to Inked:

I think that, for example, you (BJ) and Inked, still are on the same boat. You judge your own morals from your heart, and Inked does too. The only difference is, Inked has read things in a book he regards as holy that affect what he feels in his heart.

[inked]

brownjenkins,

I think I have made reference to the Tao as defined by CS Lewis in his THE ABOLITION OF MAN as an excellent discussion of the origins of morality and its VAST AGREEMENT across cultures as evidence of the source of morality in a suprahuman source. I know I have referenced the philosophical from Socrates in NICOMACHEAN ETHICS and his definition of morality as having a divine source. And I know I have been taken to task for espousing explicitly Christian moral values that were categorized as merely western values.

So, what parts of the derivation of morality have I not made clear? I shall attempt to supply the deficiency (-ies) you perceive.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

I think I have made reference to the Tao as defined by CS Lewis in his THE ABOLITION OF MAN as an excellent discussion of the origins of morality and its VAST AGREEMENT across cultures as evidence of the source of morality in a suprahuman source. I know I have referenced the philosophical from Socrates in NICOMACHEAN ETHICS and his definition of morality as having a divine source. And I know I have been taken to task for espousing explicitly Christian moral values that were categorized as merely western values.

So, what parts of the derivation of morality have I not made clear? I shall attempt to supply the deficiency (-ies) you perceive.

how 'bout you give me an example or two of some "absolute moral principles" and i will see if i can agree that they are absolute irregardless of time, culture, technology, etc.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

#3:
... i am being asked questions about my beliefs and then told i am wrong... yet no clear explanation is given as to why i am wrong...

There's a balance I'm trying to strike in this thread ...

One end of the extreme - there was a thread a while back called something like "what do you believe - and no arguments!" All it was was people saying "I believe such and such", and other people responded like "Oh, that's nice" and things like that, with no thought-provoking questions or challenges to perceived incongruities.

The other end is "I believe such and such", and the responses are, "You're an idiot!", with no rational comments at all.

I don't want EITHER of those here.

Personally, I think it's GOOD to THINK (does anyone else here agree?) That's what I'm trying to provide a forum for. I know that I've been asked some GREAT questions about my worldview that have provoked hours of thought - and I think that's good! I would have NEVER thought of some of those questions myself, and I think it's great that people come in and ask totally no-holds-barred questions (the only condition being that it must be asked with kindness and consideration). I think if a person has a question on someone's worldview, then it should be asked, and the person should consider it! And I think a person should be willing to honestly examine questions, and if THEY think a valid objection has been demonstrated, then they need to adjust their worldview beliefs. This includes me!

I get told I'm wrong all the time. It usually doesn't bother me, because I realize different people have different views - it only bothers me if it's in a mean way, or if they say I'm wrong because I haven't thought about things, or I"m wrong because I'm intentionally deceiving myself, etc.

What I would like to assume here is that people have arrived at their beliefs sincerely and thoughtfully. And if that is the case, if their worldview is correct, then it SHOULD stand up to vigorous questioning, and maybe even the questioner will end up changing their opinion. And if it doesn't stand up in certain areas, then maybe the questionee (is that a word?) will change their opinion.

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I'm only trying to get people to really think and evaluate their beliefs, and be open to change if someone can convince them of an error in their outlook. Personally, I see some logical errors in the atheistic outlook, and I'm trying to point them out (unfortunately I've had some poor health and have not been able to spend a lot of time here). And if brownie (the current hotseater) thinks about what I say, and then is not convinced, then he should NOT change his opinion in that area. However, if he thinks about it and decides I have a valid point, then I would hope he would think about it more and perhaps adjust his views.

Anyway, that turned into a bit of a ramble, but I just didn't want you to feel like we were just taking potshots at your beliefs. The way I like to look at it is this : "Hey, we all love Tolkien! You guys are intelligent and nice - let's have a really vigorous debate on worldview beliefs, and challenge each other to deeper thought and consideration of questions that we may not have thought of before, and think together and laugh together and stand up for what we believe in while remaining Tolkien lovers and friends! We'll all gain greater understanding of ourselves, and of others, and that's a good thing."

[brownjenkins]

i with you rÃ*an... and, in addition, i have an incredibly thick skin... so even the less-than-considerate comments don't bother me... though i do prefer the nice ones... which is why i come here

and remember, i've never been an "atheist"... an "agnostic" is probably the closest, if you must put a label on it

on the rest, i'm just asking for some examples of these "absolutes" you and inked seem to like to refer to... the ones that defy space and time, etc.

and if your belief is, "no one can really know what these absolutes are, but they are there anyway"... that's cool too... just different from the way i see things

[Rían]

I'll have to leave it up to inky to provide those - I'm heading off for a nap!

I'll remember about the agnostic now - I guess I tend to think of you as an atheist because from what I can tell, for all intents and purposes, you're a practical atheist, if that makes sense.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'll have to leave it up to inky to provide those - I'm heading off for a nap!

I'll remember about the agnostic now - I guess I tend to think of you as an atheist because from what I can tell, for all intents and purposes, you're a practical atheist, if that makes sense.

true enough... but while the atheist insists that god does not exist... i just claim that it isn't terribly likely

an important distinction, i think

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i with you rÃ*an...

Oh, ok - I misunderstood you.

Here's a question - since you believe that morals can and should change over time, adapting to new circumstances, etc., do you think it's a possibility that some day, people might read LOTR and consider its ending (the ring getting destroyed) a tragedy? "Oh, we were SO close to winning, and then that awful Frodo and Sam destroyed the ring! That was just so terrible! I mean, Sauron and Saruman and those orcs were just sincerely trying to fight for the society that they thought was right, and Gandalf kept interferring, and then Frodo just RUINED it! What a sad, tragic ending! Why, oh why did they have to destroy that wonderful ring? And Shelob - what a terrible thing that she got hurt and possibly killed! She was sincerely trying to do what she thought was best, and just keeping to her own little cave, and then these awful intruders come in and actually HURT her!"

Do you think that's a possibility? Why or why not? If it came to pass, would you be bothered by it or think that those viewpoints are wrong somehow?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Oh, ok - I misunderstood you.

Here's a question - since you believe that morals can and should change over time, adapting to new circumstances, etc., do you think it's a possibility that some day, people might read LOTR and consider its ending (the ring getting destroyed) a tragedy? "Oh, we were SO close to winning, and then that awful Frodo and Sam destroyed the ring! That was just so terrible! I mean, Sauron and Saruman and those orcs were just sincerely trying to fight for the society that they thought was right, and Gandalf kept interferring, and then Frodo just RUINED it! What a sad, tragic ending! Why, oh why did they have to destroy that wonderful ring? And Shelob - what a terrible thing that she got hurt and possibly killed! She was sincerely trying to do what she thought was best, and just keeping to her own little cave, and then these awful intruders come in and actually HURT her!"

Do you think that's a possibility? Why or why not? If it came to pass, would you be bothered by it or think that those viewpoints are wrong somehow?

remember what i said earlier... everyone is driven by self-interest, and the insightful realize that balancing personal self interest with society's interest is ultimately good for themselves as well... as opposed to the "sauron pov"... which, like hitler, stalin, etc. can be very successful in the short-term, but unlimately fails because it leads to such animosity among the general populace

that said, situations can change and as such, change what is "best for society"... if you look back in history... prior to a few hundred years ago democracy, except at a very small, local level was practically non-exisitant... you had kings or, even in the case of rome, a relatively small group of individuals in control... does this mean that back then authoritarian government was better than democracy?

i'd say yes... without both the ability to communicate quickly over vast areas and the technological developments that allow the general populace a certain degree of free time... along with the education of that populace... the idea of a democracy in 500 AD on a national scale would be insane... it simply would not be possible to hold elections or make decisions in any accurate of timely fashion... back then, having a king (hopefully a benevolent one who did not abuse his powers) was far more "moral" a government than one ruled by all the people

this has changed with present circumstances, and one would be hard-pressed these days to come up with a good justification for autocratic rule as a better method than democracy

time and technology change what is good for society, or "moral"... imagine a future world where death itself was overcome via medical advancements... this might have a huge effect on how certain "morally wrong" acts are viewed in society

[inked]

brownjenkins,

Have you read THE ABOLITION OF MAN by CS Lewis? The discussion of moral values, logic, and the derivation of moral codes between societies is quite good, as well as how they are derived, instilled, evaluated. The work is relatively short - about 50 pages, IIRC. Well worth the trouble of locating and reading. If you should be so inclined, the argument for "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe" in MERE CHRISTIANITY is worth the time as well.

The universal human appeal to "ought" as a starting point is well worked out.

That said, I think that the vast similarities between cultures in morality in the concepts of "Do not do to others what you would not have done to you" (Buddha, IIRC) and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Jesus) represent two sides of the same coin. Though one may argue that the substitution of the positive in the latter is an advance over the former, as CS Lewis in fact does. This would be the point of closest contact in your societally driven morality model and my own absolute moral values.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

remember what i said earlier... everyone is driven by self-interest, and the insightful realize that balancing personal self interest with society's interest is ultimately good for themselves as well... as opposed to the "sauron pov"... which, like hitler, stalin, etc. can be very successful in the short-term, but unlimately fails because it leads to such animosity among the general populace

So Sauron's only error, when he killed, tortured, intimidated, etc., was that he was not insightful?

Or are you saying that there IS an absolute good - "balancing personal self-interest with society's interest"?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins,

Have you read THE ABOLITION OF MAN by CS Lewis? The discussion of moral values, logic, and the derivation of moral codes between societies is quite good, as well as how they are derived, instilled, evaluated. The work is relatively short - about 50 pages, IIRC. Well worth the trouble of locating and reading. If you should be so inclined, the argument for "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe" in MERE CHRISTIANITY is worth the time as well.

no, but will try to at some point

That said, I think that the vast similarities between cultures in morality in the concepts of "Do not do to others what you would not have done to you" (Buddha, IIRC) and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (Jesus) represent two sides of the same coin. Though one may argue that the substitution of the positive in the latter is an advance over the former, as CS Lewis in fact does. This would be the point of closest contact in your societally driven morality model and my own absolute moral values.

i agree that there are certain "morals" that make so much sense in almost any situation/time that they are "near-absolute"... at least for the time being... but that is quite different from "true-absolute" (i.e. will never change)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So Sauron's only error, when he killed, tortured, intimidated, etc., was that he was not insightful?

his error was believing that he was invincible... those who follow the "selfish-only route" are either not too smart, or they believe that they are so smart/powerful that they are beyond the reach of society... and typically they are those who at least have a certain degree of advantage over the average human, or they would not have much success in the first place... either via "magical abilities" (i.e. sauron), or charismatic leadership (i.e. hitler)

Or are you saying that there IS an absolute good - "balancing personal self-interest with society's interest"?

i'm saying it leads to a better society, at least in the current world we live in... the definition of "better" being survival and contentment among humanity... whether it is absolute, i don't know, but i doubt it... one could certainly imagine a far distant future where technology is so advanced that one could practically do whatever they wanted and have almost no negative impact on society (i.e. self-interest would take the lead in most situations)... so things that we see as immoral right now... like exposing restaurant workers who do not smoke to it second-hand... might not have the same moral weight if the hazards of such a practice were nonexistant

you've even said yourself that christianity varies sometimes in moral stance (i.e. birth control)... only "the basics" are absolute... i'm saying that "the basics" are "the basics" because they pretty much universally make sense... for at least the past hundred years or so... and on some issues more so... but i can't think of any "basic moral value" that could not conceivable change due to environmental changes... and if i go so far as to narrow the field down to the few that are most unlikely to change, it would certainly not include things like gay marriage or capital punishment

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

his error was believing that he was invincible...

So, after reading LOTR to your precious kids, your moral instruction re Sauron would be that his only error was that he thought he was invincible?

?!?!

IMO, that's just ... sad. I hope it's not true. If Sauron were to kill your precious wife and kids, your only thought would be, "This guy made an error - he thought he was invincible!"

Come now, brownie, I can't believe that.

[inked]

brownjenkins, do you really intend to elevate change to absolute status as you state 2 posts up? Because, if so, it is self-negating! "The only absolute is change. All things change.
There are no absolutes."

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So, after reading LOTR to your precious kids, your moral instruction re Sauron would be that his only error was that he thought he was invincible?

?!?!

IMO, that's just ... sad. I hope it's not true. If Sauron were to kill your precious wife and kids, your only thought would be, "This guy made an error - he thought he was invincible!"

Come now, brownie, I can't believe that.

i think it was the essence to why he took the courses of action he did... his actions were always based upon self-interest with no thought to society's interests... and ultimately, as his fate proved, ignoring society's interests will eventually be your own downfall

am i wrong on this?

i'm not saying it's the only thing he has ever done wrong... just that it is the "belief system" he based his life upon

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

brownjenkins, do you really intend to elevate change to absolute status as you state 2 posts up? Because, if so, it is self-negating! "The only absolute is change. All things change.
There are no absolutes."

once again, you err by trying to impose your idea that there must be absolutes on to mine that there are no absolutes

better to say: all things change, there are no absolutes... but some things change so slowly that certain humans tend to perceive them as absolute... and stubbornly refuse to continue to re-evaluate them

[BeardofPants]

Jeebus Tom, ye still going? Mouthy bastard ainchya?