Yet another 'I am the lord of the wind...'
Pages: 12
Something just popped into my mind. Sadly the original topic is already archived. (And just by the way, 'Dune' and especially '2001: a Space Odyssey' were both great movies..)
You my friend are a hypocrite. I really mean no offense. We all are. I just want to point it out. This is something I've been thinking quite a lot about lately. You say you do right things because they are right, but are they really right? How do you define right?
The answer is very simple. 'Right' is defined by the culture surrounding you. In your case it is the western, christian culture. And yet now you declare that you despise it.
Then tell me, how would you define the principals of morality? Do you really think there is a better way than what religion does?
edit: by the way, you're not being so calm and level headed because being calm is the right thing to do, you're doing it because you live in prosperity. Just a though. I'll base it later if you want.
| a long time ago chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| This is what I hate about religious morality. You're not being so calm and level headed because being calm is the right thing to do, you're doing it because you want to pass into the afterlife. You don't give to charity because helping others is its own reward, you do it so that the magic wizard will grant you everlasting life. |
You my friend are a hypocrite. I really mean no offense. We all are. I just want to point it out. This is something I've been thinking quite a lot about lately. You say you do right things because they are right, but are they really right? How do you define right?
The answer is very simple. 'Right' is defined by the culture surrounding you. In your case it is the western, christian culture. And yet now you declare that you despise it.
Then tell me, how would you define the principals of morality? Do you really think there is a better way than what religion does?
edit: by the way, you're not being so calm and level headed because being calm is the right thing to do, you're doing it because you live in prosperity. Just a though. I'll base it later if you want.
Last edited on
| The answer is very simple. 'Right' is defined by the culture surrounding you. In your case it is the western, christian culture. And yet now you declare that you despise it. |
There are right and wrongs that span beyond culture boundaries. The most obvious of which is inflicting personal injury on someone.
I've heard people claim something like "if there were no consequences for your actions [in the afterlife], what would stop people from raping and murdering in the streets?"
Such comments sicken me, because if the only thing stopping you from pillaging is fear of being punished later on, then you are a miserable human being.
I believe that's what chrisname was getting at.
| The most obvious of which is inflicting personal injury on someone. |
| The most obvious of which is inflicting personal injury on someone. |
| Such comments sicken me, because if the only thing stopping you from pillaging is fear of being punished later on, then you are a miserable human being. |
Does that apply to a lot of things? Perhaps. Does it apply to all things? Definitely not.
"Never do that to some which you wouldn't have wanted to be done to yourself." ~ Some guy who said that.
Knowing your own limits is half a definition of another average person. "I don't like being hit in the face", therefor other people will generally not like being punched in the face either.
"Never do that to some which you wouldn't have wanted to be done to yourself." ~ Some guy who said that.
Knowing your own limits is half a definition of another average person. "I don't like being hit in the face", therefor other people will generally not like being punched in the face either.
That's always been my golden rule in life. Of course, for completeness, we should add "and do no harm to others", because someone might claim they enjoy getting punched in the face :)
Last edited on
It's all very poorly defined, and I can guarantee neither of you would follow those exact rules given the right circumstances.
Would you not kill for food? Would you not cut someone's gangrenous arm? Would you not hit someone to calm them down?
Don't fool yourselves into thinking you have such a strict ruleset. It's more likely it's full of exceptions, double standards, and even omissions. You don't know everything, and there are more situations you aren't prepared for than ones you are.
Would you not kill for food? Would you not cut someone's gangrenous arm? Would you not hit someone to calm them down?
Don't fool yourselves into thinking you have such a strict ruleset. It's more likely it's full of exceptions, double standards, and even omissions. You don't know everything, and there are more situations you aren't prepared for than ones you are.
Kyon, well, I'm glad you realize that 'it' does not apply to all things (but maybe it should?). The point of this topic is to ask 'how can you tell, when it applies?' and also to claim that the answer is 'because religion said so' (or 'economy said so' or 'we don't need that any more' and etc. but not 'because it feels right' or 'because I wouldn't want that happen to me' or whatever).
@helios: I think those are technicalities that don't change the general spirit of those definitions. This reminds me of an excellent Paul Graham essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
In particular: "The real lesson here is that the concepts we use in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard. Even a concept as dear to us as I. [...] Outside of math there's a limit to how far you can push words; in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings. Everyday words are inherently imprecise. They work well enough in everyday life that you don't notice. Words seem to work, just as Newtonian physics seems to. But you can always make them break if you push them far enough."
So I think we shouldn't be too hung up on precise definitions, as it's somewhat of a futile exercise. Generally, when confronted with a situation that falls outside our definitions, we're pretty sure of what's the right thing to do. Kill for food? Not an innocent person. Cut someone's gangrenous arm? If there's no way to get them to a doctor or hospital, yes. I'm not saying these are easy decisions to make, or that, under real pressure, I'd always make the right decision. But I think it's clear what the right thing to do would be.
In particular: "The real lesson here is that the concepts we use in everyday life are fuzzy, and break down if pushed too hard. Even a concept as dear to us as I. [...] Outside of math there's a limit to how far you can push words; in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings. Everyday words are inherently imprecise. They work well enough in everyday life that you don't notice. Words seem to work, just as Newtonian physics seems to. But you can always make them break if you push them far enough."
So I think we shouldn't be too hung up on precise definitions, as it's somewhat of a futile exercise. Generally, when confronted with a situation that falls outside our definitions, we're pretty sure of what's the right thing to do. Kill for food? Not an innocent person. Cut someone's gangrenous arm? If there's no way to get them to a doctor or hospital, yes. I'm not saying these are easy decisions to make, or that, under real pressure, I'd always make the right decision. But I think it's clear what the right thing to do would be.
| Okay, but who says what "someone" means can be as clearly defined? Does a fetus count as someone? Does a dog? Do your individual cells? Venturing a bit into fantasy, does a strong AI or an alien count as someone? |
Of course you can expand into gray territories. I was aware of this, but it's not my point.
My point was that some actions are clearly "bad".
For my purposes, let's say finding a random, healthy 20 year old on the street who's lived a good life and beating them to death with a baseball bat.
Show me any culture where such a thing would be acceptable.
| Also, inflicting injury is ok during a war, or if you're attacked by someone. |
More gray areas. I didn't mean to claim that it's always black and white. I meant to say that sometimes it is. (though granted, very very rarely)
Last edited on
filipe, are you saying that even though words are ambiguous, the meanings behind them are not? Not that it matters.. I don't care much for precise definitions. The important thing is whether you think that have chosen your virtues and whether you understand them.
Sure it's always easy to say 'I'd rather starve than kill' (though most of us wouldn't). But would you rather make your children starve than kill? This could give a very honest 'yes'. Would it be wrong? I don't think so. Do you?
Disch, gray territories are the interesting ones. And to be fair, they're all pretty grayish. Brutally killing random people may be a case of black/white though. Can't think of anything. Once again, that's not the point. The question is what do you think is the basis of your morale? note: 'not to harm anyone' is not a good choice and is definitely not an honest choice.
| Kill for food? Not an innocent person. |
Disch, gray territories are the interesting ones. And to be fair, they're all pretty grayish. Brutally killing random people may be a case of black/white though. Can't think of anything. Once again, that's not the point. The question is what do you think is the basis of your morale? note: 'not to harm anyone' is not a good choice and is definitely not an honest choice.
Last edited on
| Everyday words are inherently imprecise. |
If you're making a ruleset, you can't have ambiguity, for the same reason a program can't have ambiguity. If you say "don't harm others", it's perfectly legitimate for me to ask "what if etc.?" ad nauseam. Ask a lawyer whether laws are made with precise definitions or with vague descriptions that are later interpreted "in their spirit". The words "murder" and "manslaughter" have exact definitions in all legal systems I know of.
You don't want to use precise language? Fine. But don't think you can define yourself with it.
| Generally, when confronted with a situation that falls outside our definitions, we're pretty sure of what's the right thing to do. |
| Not an innocent person. |
2. You still can't be sure of that.
| But I think it's clear what the right thing to do would be. |
| Show me any culture where such a thing would be acceptable. |
Simply because an example doesn't exist doesn't mean one couldn't exist.
Last edited on
| hamsterman wrote: |
|---|
| Kyon, well, I'm glad you realize that 'it' does not apply to all things (but maybe it should?). |
It should definitely not. And COULD definitely not, because generalizing (like helios said) is evil in these contexts - it leaves you with a hell lot of exceptions.
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Don't fool yourselves into thinking you have such a strict ruleset. It's more likely it's full of exceptions, double standards, and even omissions. You don't know everything, and there are more situations you aren't prepared for than ones you are. |
You are completely right on this case, hence why I was speaking of "general" situations. In this context, general does not refer to "the form that, in total, is most present" but rather "the form that is seen as the standard or the norm and is accepted by the majority of people to be, as they call it to be, normal".
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
| The answer is very simple. 'Right' is defined by the culture surroungo7ugjhr case it is the western, christian culture. And yet now you declaXXXXXXXXXXespise it. |
Western culture neeXXXXXXXXXXXistianity because without it western culture ceases to exist.
If you are from a westefjk for a sexkjsoeirwul you do when grandmom dies? You will probably bury her and have some sort of ceremony--and I'll bet if it is not a Christian funeral it will lofsdalkoistian funeral.
comerwhjoge (Latin)
commtrqw;ristianity)
commonfasope)
This is western culture you can despise it--but it still owns you. twit
edit: fixed grammar, and spelling errors
edit: added twit
Last edited on
Am I the only one who doesn't care too much about this discussion?
And I wonder where r0shi ran off to...
-Agnostitross
And I wonder where r0shi ran off to...
-Agnostitross
| Am I the only one who doesn't care too much about this discussion? And I wonder where r0shi ran off to... -Agnostitross |
Agreed. I don't take part as I'm pretty sure I disagree with everyone here about these sort of discussions but I see no reason to join as it's a programming forum so I don't talk about my beliefs about non-programming related topics.
Oh, and nice signature :D
Last edited on
| Western culture nee |
Kyon, by 'maybe it should' I meant that a moral principle that applies sometimes is of little value.
Albatross and MotMan, am I the only one who finds this stuff interesting? Don't you think that it is rather important to think and form time to time talk about these issues?
And by the way, what is agnosticism supposed to tell me? You say you can't know what's right? But admit it, you do know, just like we all know.
Albatross and MotMan, am I the only one who finds this stuff interesting? Don't you think that it is rather important to think and form time to time talk about these issues?
And by the way, what is agnosticism supposed to tell me? You say you can't know what's right? But admit it, you do know, just like we all know.
I have to agree to Alb' and Mott'. These topics are turning into religious/social debates, rather than discussions. I hope you know the difference yourself.
okay it's not too much to do with programming...
I think that the interaction with other has to do with proportionality
Meaning:
A lion is entitled hunt down a zebra and kill it because it's life against life
while a white hunter isn't because it's arrogance against life
that's not culture dependant. Stoning someone because he/she commited adultery cannot be covered by whatever (islamic) rule because it's clear to so see that it's running totally out of proportion which makes it wrong.
so based on this it's not too hard to distinguish right from wrong
and fetus killing is killing the 20 year old man that it could be.
I think that the interaction with other has to do with proportionality
Meaning:
A lion is entitled hunt down a zebra and kill it because it's life against life
while a white hunter isn't because it's arrogance against life
that's not culture dependant. Stoning someone because he/she commited adultery cannot be covered by whatever (islamic) rule because it's clear to so see that it's running totally out of proportion which makes it wrong.
so based on this it's not too hard to distinguish right from wrong
and fetus killing is killing the 20 year old man that it could be.
Pages: 12