Why you believe what you believe I

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Jeebus Tom, ye still going? Mouthy bastard ainchya?

just tryin' to change the world one post at a time

that said, it may be time for the next contestant... i think the "why's" for me have been made pretty clear... maybe too clear

[inked]

Well, if you are departing the hot-seat, thanks for your time and answers, brownjenkins.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Jeebus Tom, ye still going? Mouthy bastard ainchya?

Aw, it's my fault - I felt so punk after having 13 people in my house for a week over Christmas that I got pretty sick for awhile, and didn't have the energy to pose any questions to him, so I asked him to hang around and wait until I got some energy back.

Originally Posted by brownie

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

Do you think murdering someone so you can carry off his wife and force her to have sex with you is wrong?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Do you think murdering someone so you can carry off his wife and force her to have sex with you is wrong?

yep, it's a selfish action which takes no account of anyone else's interests... ultimately bad for society, and even for the individual who commits such a crime, 'cause it will come back to haunt him

[Rían]

Gosh, ya know, I just wish I could hear some ... I don't know, I guess just some outrage from you over things like that ... it just seems so cold ...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Gosh, ya know, I just wish I could hear some ... I don't know, I guess just some outrage from you over things like that ... it just seems so cold ...

we're talking about philosophies and beliefs here... obviously real world events are a whole other thing... i'm not outraged about sauron 'cause it's a book

i certainly would be about my friends or family

remember, just 'cause i say things are relative and people do things, "evil" things, for reasons, does NOT mean they are "okay"... you may oppose "evil" for biblical reasons, but i oppose it just as strongly for reasons concerning society and humanity... and my own well-being

i've argued for capital punishment in other threads... not because of the existance of some iconic absolute called "evil"... or to punish those who do wrong 'cause they "deserve it"... but for the more practical reasons, like the fact that once a person has killed, chances are good he will kill again and we do not have the ability to reliably predict whether or not this individual can be rehabilitated

that said, we are also all ruled by our emotions that sometimes trump reason... if someone did something to my child, i'd probably kill 'em, irregardless of the consequences to myself or my family... much like the mother who stands by her son even if he is a convicted murderer... close ties are one more thing that effects "relative morality"

[inked]

brownjenkins,

"Close ties" do not trump or change morality! They are judged within the same context of morality. The mother of the murderer in your example may support her child in faithfulness to her maternal love, in denial of his/her true actions, in agape to change that child's sense of self-assessment and seeking for repentance and reformation. Her emotional responses are indeed facts about her, but the morality of the response is not judged on the emotion but the appropriate response in terms of morality.

In short, emotions are responses; actions performed in response to emotion are still judged by moral standards. That component of response can be taken into account within the legal system in the sense of intention (cf. killing another human can be intentional and premeditated, intentional but unpremeditated, accidental but forseeable, truly accidental, etc., in the case of the accused). It is also a scale that is applied in the moral valuation in an analogous fashion. Hence, the concept of deserved or retributive justice, as opposed to revenge motifs. The underlying morality is used to assess the perpetrator and the individuals responding to the perpetrator (the victim's family, the perpetrator's family, the society and its laws and their validity and applicability, etc.).

[jellyfishannah]

Originally Posted by Lizra

.....being comfortable is a good thing im my book....I don't seek turmoil...been there, done that, don't see any particularly positive value in it.

What is positive value? Something that gives comfort?

I don't think they mean by "not getting comfortable" that they seek turmoil. I know this isn't at all a good comparison but I sometimes think of it as being a bit like when I am drawing or painting. If I settle for something less-than-perfect, I'll never know how much closer I could get. I wouldn't call it seeking turmoil if I tried to do better. After all, it's not as if there are very comfortable people in this world anyway. Life itself is not easier for someone who is "comfortable". I would say that a person (A Christian, especially) who feels comfortable with how things are going is a lazy person. People really only know how wrong they are when turn around and try to do right. (whatever that means)

Here I am rambling, again. I think I need to finish reading the rest of the thread before I start butting in again.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Gosh, ya know, I just wish I could hear some ... I don't know, I guess just some outrage from you over things like that ... it just seems so cold ...

Here's some outrage from me:

[Lizra]

I'm old, I like comfort...what can I say! I paid my dues as a searching youth, awash in inner turmoil ....looking back on it now, it just seems like a big exercise in exageration!

"People really only know how wrong they are when turn around and try to do right. (whatever that means)"
.....That is a bit of a puzzler ....Why would you try to do right..if you are wrong?! Chicken or egg?

[jellyfishannah]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

we're talking about philosophies and beliefs here... obviously real world events are a whole other thing... i'm not outraged about sauron 'cause it's a book

i certainly would be about my friends or family

remember, just 'cause i say things are relative and people do things, "evil" things, for reasons, does NOT mean they are "okay"... you may oppose "evil" for biblical reasons, but i oppose it just as strongly for reasons concerning society and humanity... and my own well-being

i've argued for capital punishment in other threads... not because of the existance of some iconic absolute called "evil"... or to punish those who do wrong 'cause they "deserve it"... but for the more practical reasons, like the fact that once a person has killed, chances are good he will kill again and we do not have the ability to reliably predict whether or not this individual can be rehabilitated

that said, we are also all ruled by our emotions that sometimes trump reason... if someone did something to my child, i'd probably kill 'em, irregardless of the consequences to myself or my family... much like the mother who stands by her son even if he is a convicted murderer... close ties are one more thing that effects "relative morality"

You talk as if we believe that evil is some huge eternal god itself. That it has alway been and always will be. Not so. I guess that's what Dualism believes but not Christianity.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jellyfishannah

Here's some outrage from me: ...

Thanks, jells! I needed that!

Brownie, I"m not interested in ONLY talking about what you believe in your head, but also what you believe in your heart.

Why is murder so bad? Because it disrupts society, or ... because it friggin' kills a beautiful amazing wonderful human being!!

What does your heart say about that?

(no, do NOT think of the ridiculous line in the ROTK movie, when Aragorn asks Gandy if he thinks Frodo is still alive, and says, "What does your heart tell you?" and Gandy gets this contemplative look and you hear weird scifi music and then he comes back to the present and says, "Why, how stupid I was to wonder if he was alive or not! All I had to do is use my magic powers! Stupid me, I forgot! Of course he's alive!" MAJOR )

What is your heart reaction to murder?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why is murder so bad? Because it disrupts society, or ... because it friggin' kills a beautiful amazing wonderful human being!!

both... i think human emotion is a result of our society... starting with the family... the interdependence is exactly why we find other human beings beautiful, amazing, and wonderful

do you think it is a coincidence that the ones we tend to love the most are the ones we tend to need and relate to the most?

a few years back i had two cats (one of which i still have), each about two years old at the time... ernie (orange) and bert (black)... yep, the kid's named 'em

one night ernie was acting kind of funny, so i planned to take him to the vet in the morning... the next day he was gone and no one remembered letting him out... late that night i found him in the basement behind the oil burner dead... it turns out he had a urinary infection, which can kill cats very quickly

the interesting thing was that all that day, and for quite a while afterwards, bert had suddenly become very friendly... he was not a mean cat, but not the kind who liked to be picked up or held... now he was

i think it may have been a kind of reach for emotional support on the part of bert... a connection he had developed from living with ernie for so long... and also a reaction that would probably have not manifested itself if bert had just happened to come across some random cat dead alongside the road

humans are the same (since i believe that we are just a different kind of animal... not an entirely different thing), while we can discuss ideals and absolutes, reality is much more fluid... we often judge people by how well we know them... and it doesn't even have to be as extreme as murder... you would give the benefit of doubt to someone you knew well and liked, where you might not give it to a complete stranger... the old, "he would never do that" syndrome

how closely we relate to people has a huge impact on how we judge them morally... i think anyone who claims they don't let things like race, religion or just plain friendship cloud their "moral judgement" of a person is fooling themselves

[inked]

If morals are societally driven, how do you define murder, brownjenkins? To drag up the Nazis again, since they legalized the eradication of the "defective" Germans and practiced mass killing techniques on them (before the use for 'non-Aryans'), was that murder under your definition? or exculpable terminations by societal definition?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

If morals are societally driven, how do you define murder, brownjenkins? To drag up the Nazis again, since they legalized the eradication of the "defective" Germans and practiced mass killing techniques on them (before the use for 'non-Aryans'), was that murder under your definition? or exculpable terminations by societal definition?

murder is killing another human being... society categorizes it... for me all killing is wrong, but i can accept the self-defense idea in many cases... though it gets a bit sketchy when "self-defense" results in the killing of innocents, like during wartime

any mass-murdering that does not involve self-defense, from the crusades to nazi germany, is ultimately a bad thing for the society that practices it... and for those individuals who are a part of that society

nazi germany is a good example of how morals are relative... due to the circumstances of the era, a charismatic leader was able to convince a large population that eradication of the "defective" was ok... but, much like absolute ideals, this assumption was not based upon the "real world", what was good for society in the long-term... it was based upon the beliefs of a single individual (or small group of individuals) guided by nothing more than their own self-interest... it doomed that society to eventual destruction from those it wronged

this is why all absolutes must be questioned... we have no problem questioning the ones like the above that are obviously terribly derranged... we have a lot harder time questioning the ones that have worked for a very long time and seem to be good in most, if not all, cases

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

any mass-murdering that does not involve self-defense, from the crusades to nazi germany, is ultimately a bad thing for the society that practices it... and for those individuals who are a part of that society

Is this an absolute?

this is why all absolutes must be questioned...

Including the one in the quote above?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

any mass-murdering that does not involve self-defense, from the crusades to nazi germany, is ultimately a bad thing for the society that practices it... and for those individuals who are a part of that society

What about the North American Indians? They were pushed off their land, forced to move or to become part of the country. Many were killed. It could be called a positive thing for the society that replaced it though, couldn't it? America is standing today, as it is, because of what happened to those natives.

Is your theory: "The good guys always win in the end"?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is this an absolute?

unless and until science comes up with a way to bring the dead back to life... it's one of those near-absolutes... an unchangeable fact of life for the moment... and even if we could, it would probably still be seen as immoral to take another's life without their consent... though murder might not hold the same "moral weight" it does today if it could be reversed

Including the one in the quote above?

if circumstances change, yes... but that is not in the foreseeable future

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What about the North American Indians? They were pushed off their land, forced to move or to become part of the country. Many were killed. It could be called a positive thing for the society that replaced it though, couldn't it? America is standing today, as it is, because of what happened to those natives.

Is your theory: "The good guys always win in the end"?

Maybe America would be better, but we can never know. It would certainly be a different place, and Europeans would still be a part of it.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Maybe America would be better, but we can never know. It would certainly be a different place, and Europeans would still be a part of it.

I think things were a bit more survival-decision-oriented when America was colonized (in thanks to the ever-increasing population). None the less, humans (regardless of race) have always tended to be "bully" with each other. I think absorption is far better than annihilation, but who wants to go back to barbaric land-grabbing again?? Not me...like my Mooting-Computer too much.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What about the North American Indians? They were pushed off their land, forced to move or to become part of the country. Many were killed. It could be called a positive thing for the society that replaced it though, couldn't it? America is standing today, as it is, because of what happened to those natives.

Is your theory: "The good guys always win in the end"?

i'd like to think that humanity will eventually advance to the point where actions are taken with long-term "goods" in mind... in the case of the indians, integration would have been better... but we outmatched them by such a degree that the long-term consequences of retribution if we just selfishly took what we wanted were not there to the same degree that they were against a society like nazi germany

i think we've seen this changing throughout history... the balance of survival and peaceful interaction with those that we share this planet with... 300 years ago, survival involved "conquering" other societies... until fairly recently, with advances in food production, etc... one group's suvival might very well depend upon the destruction of another's... this is not so much the case in today's world... and may not be the case at all another 300 years in the future

back to absolutes... some christians take "thou shalt not kill" literally... i.e. killing is never okay, and taking a human life is solely up to god... i'd think that most take the modified, "killing is okay when self-defense is involved"... which is basically the same as saying that killing is okay if your own society's survival and prosperity depends on it

one could call this an absolute, at least in today's world... the problem is, "self-defense" has such a wide and variable definition that it renders the "absolute" undefinable... it would be hard to hold a tribal society of 6000 years ago who killed a neighboring society over a limited resource like food during times of famine to the same moral scale as a situation like saddam's iraq when it invaded kuwait for basically monetary gain well beyond what was needed to keep iraq's society alive

by the same token, many see our current invasion of iraq necessary to contain a future threat, even though innocents will (not may) die in the process... i.e. it is morally justified... i don't want to argue that point in this thread... but, suffice it to say, there are also many people who do not think it is justified

"self-defense" is completely relative... so, effectively, "it is okay to kill if in self-defense" is also relative... there is no absolute