I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Dragar]

You probably did not value your life. I doubt you did not value all sorts of life. Otherwise, it would be indiferent for you to kill yourself, a tree or anybody else walking in the street. You valued life, but you did not value YOUR SPECIFIC LIVING CONDITIONS.

I don't value people or trees because they're alive. I value them because they're people and trees. More specifically, I prefer a world with people and trees to one without.

That was not the point. I tried to say that there are an objectively defined "instinct" in every form of living being that drives them to preserve not just their life, but also to value life in general as something very special. This "instinct" exists objectively in the universe. It's a force that says "LIFE WANTS LIFE".

I think you're using a different definition 'life' to me. You seem to have almost given it a metaphysical significance.

If what you mean by 'life' is some mysterious quality that living things possess, no, I don't value that at all. I don't even believe such a mysterious property exists.

 

[an7222]

I don't value people or trees because they're alive. I value them because they're people and trees. More specifically, I prefer a world with people and trees to one without.



I think you're using a different definition 'life' to me. You seem to have almost given it a metaphysical significance.

If what you mean by 'life' is some mysterious quality that living things possess, no, I don't value that at all. I don't even believe such a mysterious property exists.

Ok. I'll suppose you are a very special human being that feels nothing special for life. To you, to throw a rock is the same as killing a child.

But you are not the universe. If you see all forms of life, they want to reproduce, they want to exist. It may not happen with one or two individuals, some of them are even sterile, but it is not the rule. The rule that exists objectively in the universe is that life wants to preserve itself.

 

[Dragar]

Ok. I'll suppose you are a very special human being that feels nothing special for life. To you, to throw a rock is the same as killing a child.

No, it's not. I value children, too. But because they're children, not because they're life.

But you are not the universe. If you see all forms of life, they want to reproduce, they want to exist. It may not happen with one or two individuals, some of them are even sterile, but it is not the rule. The rule that exists objectively in the universe is that life wants to preserve itself.

Okay. What are trying to do here is generalise the notion that life will almost act to preserve itself (it makes good evolutionary sense, after all!) into a rule, and then turn the rule into 'should' or 'should not'.

Even if life acts to preserve itself, what does that tell us about what we 'should' or 'should not' value? The strongest of a species will tend to survive to breed, but that doesn't mean we all decide this is what 'should' happen, does it?

 

[radorth]

I wouldn't repent of doing things that seem good to me, no. Would you?

Yes I would. "Seem" is the operative word I'm afraid.

Lots of things "seem" right and turn out to be stupid, while those with an objective standard save themselves infinite grief. Choosing good and evil for ourselves is inherently foolish and the history of the world bears this out. Whether you believe Genesis has other faults or not, the knowledge of good and evil has been the disaster prophesied there. We hold a major war every few decades just to prove how "good" we are.

Of course you believe in right and wrong Zoot, and your "right" is better than other people's. God forbid you are right very often, for then you are doomed to become self-righteous. You further deny yourself the "new nature" which Christ offers. You have no need of it for you are righteous in yourself.

The best thing that ever happened to me was for everything I called "good" to come to nothing. Then I learned that indeed "he is able to do far above all you ask or think." The informed Christian has traded the righteousness of the Lord Jesus for that of Lord Self, and so alne enjoys the "peace that passes all understanding."

You discover that when you give up your own idea of "good," but most people die in their sins and pride because they would not give up their fantasies about what is "good."

Rad

 

[an7222]

Okay. What are trying to do here is generalise the notion that life will almost act to preserve itself (it makes good evolutionary sense, after all!) into a rule, and then turn the rule into 'should' or 'should not'.

Even if life acts to preserve itself, what does that tell us about what we 'should' or 'should not' value?

If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life? Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?

And if we are going against what is pretended, what is desired, we should not do it.

The strongest of a species will tend to survive to breed, but that doesn't mean we all decide this is what 'should' happen, does it?

Yes, we do. Nobody will say that it's better everybody to be handicapped. We want to be healthy because we are life and "LIFE WANTS LIFE".

 

[YWGWYS]

If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life? Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?

life doesn´t act.
the only thing i can see is a tendency of individuals, groups and species to preserve their own lives, but not (neccessarily) "life" in general or the life of other individuals, groups, species.
nature is by and large based on the principle of eating and being eaten; thus only concentrating on the "preservation"-part seems to be selective perception.
you may argue that "life" (as in the general term for everything being alive on earth) is obviously being preserved by the tendency of nature for balance, but it is gained for the price of countless physical, real deaths.

 

[an7222]

life doesn´t act.
the only thing i can see is a tendency of individuals, groups and species to preserve their own lives, but not (neccessarily) "life" in general or the life of other individuals, groups, species.
nature is by and large based on the principle of eating and being eaten; thus only concentrating on the "preservation"-part seems to be selective perception.
you may argue that "life" (as in the general term for everything being alive on earth) is obviously being preserved by the tendency of nature for balance, but it is gained for the price of countless physical, real deaths.

I'm not saying that one form of life, to preserve itself, doesn't need to kill other forms of life. I fact it happens. But the point here is that in every form of life, there's a wish of preservation, of existance. Life wants to exist and improve itself. And the more advanced forms of life will eat other forms of life. But yet life wants to exist and improve. This is an objective force of nature and we should not be against it. And if we should not be against nature (since we are part of nature), it can be considered objectively wrong. And if it is objectively wrong, it is an objective moral principle.

 

[JohnR7]

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people.

You could plug just about anything into this statement. You could say: "I don't think that castration is wrong. It maybe wrong to some people but not all people.

 

[YWGWYS]

I'm not saying that one form of life, to preserve itself, doesn't need to kill other forms of life. I fact it happens. But the point here is that in every form of life, there's a wish of preservation, of existance. Life wants to exist and improve itself. And the more advanced forms of life will eat other forms of life. But yet life wants to exist and improve. This is an objective force of nature and we should not be against it. And if we should not be against nature (since we are part of nature), it can be considered objectively wrong. And if it is objectively wrong, it is an objective moral principle.

no, life doesn´t "want" anything.

i thought i had already been clear...

what you describe, is a desire to preserve *one´s own* life. thus if i follow your line of reasoning for a moment (although there are other flaws in it, imo), the only "objective value" would be preserving *one´s own life*, and not life in general, life of other indivuals, life of other species.
from this i would conclude that killing others can be "objectively" defended (because it helps me survive) rather than the can be considered "unnatural=objectively wrong".

 

[YWGWYS]

You could plug just about anything into this statement. You could say: "I don't think that castration is wrong. It maybe wrong to some people but not all people.

yes.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Would anyone so far agree that morals are universal, such that everyone has their specific moral codes (or lack of; and even this is a code of sorts) that that they live by, but that morals are not absolute, such that there is one specific moral and cultural law that evryone should live by?

 

[Dragar]

If objectively life acts to preserve itself, and we are a form of life, why we should act to destroy life?

You're confusing 'would' with 'should'.

If we are alive, and living things act to preserve themselves, we will act to preserve ourselves.

But that says nothing about 'should'. Only that this happens.

Don't you think that somehow we are going against what is pretended?

And if we are going against what is pretended, what is desired, we should not do it.

Pretended?

Yes, we do. Nobody will say that it's better everybody to be handicapped. We want to be healthy because we are life and "LIFE WANTS LIFE".

But you're saying that 'All living things do X, therefore we should want X to happen'.

Well, with all living things the weakest die out, the strongest survive. Does this mean we 'should' encourage this'?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I have another take. Get rid of the "axes of evil" and see how the world changes.

Rad

Radorth,

Do you think Jesus would condone, allow, or aprove of violence, for any cause for any reason?

There is a reason that the early christians were pacifists, and choose not to fight back when they were thrown to the lions by the romans. Or rise up in rebellion as their Jewish forebearers did. Perhaps the christians of today have forgotten that reason, or given in to a wider lust for aproved violence.

*sorry for the side track, but I hadn't seen any other responce on this note, and am curious for the responce.

-Ash

 

[funyun]

That's mainly because it seems to you that someone who doesn't believe in objective morality is a person who doesn't have any morality.

For example, you say I'd see myself as having lowered my standards. That assumes a meta-standard against which standards are measured. I don't think such a meta-standard is intelligible, so what you call a lowering of standards is, to me, simply a change of standards.

Another way of looking at the same situation would be to say that I value my life more highly than I value vegetarianism. If I somehow wished that I valued vegetarianism enough that I would rather die than eat meat, I can only imagine it would be because I value vegetarianism over the idea of living, but value actually living over vegetarianism. Sorry. Musing out loud there.

My point is, I really do have ideals. I am just not under the delusion that they are in any way objective. I realise that they are ideals-to-me. I realise that either I didn't choose them, or I chose them based on values I didn't choose. Either my ideals are handed to me by my situation, or I choose them based on values handed to me by my situation.

When one first makes the transition from believing there are objective ideals (or values, or morals, or whatever) to realising that ideals can't be objective, there is a period of thinking this renders ideals utterly meaningless. That is a period of inconsistency, really - one part of one's thinking has not caught up with another part. Then one realises that ideals were always subjective, and that the very idea of an ideal is subjective by definition.

In one sense, it's liberating. After all, I no longer live in a universe that imposes morality and meaning on me; there are no objective demands. I can choose my own narrative, choose my own meaning, choose my own ideals. On the other hand, I am not limitlessly free. I have a horizon. A choice of narrative, a choice of meaning, a choice of ideals cannot be made without some values by which they are evaluated. And so, just as with decision-making, at some point by definition, my values are outside of my control. Either they are handed to me by my situation or I choose them based on values that are handed to me by my situation.

I am a product of my culture. I grew up on '80s cartoons and Christianity and rock music. I value liberty and happiness and consistency (The Value Previously Known As Truth) and justice and I think 13-year-olds are too young to have sex and I think women are equal to men and I think graves should be left alone and I think species extinction is bad and I think greed and hatred are bad.

I have decided to save the world. I am a libertarian socialist. I am a writer.

They're real ideals to me, real purposes, real meanings, real narratives. I recognise that my values are by definition subjective, that there is no value by which values can be evaluated. Yet, they guide my actions. I am not burdened with the issue of whether or not my values are right, because I understand that the evaluation is not possible. When I come across someone with different values, the interaction will change us both. Such is the nature of the story.

I suppose I've ranted on long enough. Time for the signature.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zoot again.

This post is in keeping with Zoot's long tradition of being one of the wisest posters in the forum.

 

[The Seeker]

You could plug just about anything into this statement. You could say: "I don't think that castration is wrong. It maybe wrong to some people but not all people.

Hence the use of the phrase "for example"

 

[an7222]

You're confusing 'would' with 'should'.

If we are alive, and living things act to preserve themselves, we will act to preserve ourselves.

But that says nothing about 'should'. Only that this happens.

Pretended?

But you're saying that 'All living things do X, therefore we should want X to happen'.

- Life wants to preserve itself;

- We are a form of life;

- We would rather preserve life because we are a form of life and life wants to be preserved;

- If we don't preserve life, we are not doing what is desired by our own nature;

In this life, we are free (I believe in limited free will) to do almost whatever you want. Although life shows as it wants to be preserved, we can go against it. But the fact that we can go against it does not mean it's the way to go, because nature teatches us that it is desirable for us to preserve not just our life and our life form, but life as a whole.

Based on this, it's very reasonable to say that life is an objective moral value, and that everything that goes against this value is by definition wrong.

Well, with all living things the weakest die out, the strongest survive. Does this mean we 'should' encourage this'?

Yes, I do. I think life wants to preserve itself. And not just this, but also life wants to improve itself.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

- Life wants to preserve itself;

- We are a form of life;

- We would rather preserve life because we are a form of life and life wants to be preserved;

- If we don't preserve life, we are not doing what is desired by our own nature;

In this life, we are free (I believe in limited free will) to do almost whatever you want. Although life shows as it wants to be preserved, we can go against it. But the fact that we can go against it does not mean it's the way to go, because nature teatches us that it is desirable for us to preserve not just our life and our life form, but life as a whole.

Based on this, it's very reasonable to say that life is an objective moral value, and that everything that goes against this value is by definition wrong.

Yes, I do. I think life wants to preserve itself. And not just this, but also life wants to improve itself.

How can you be sure that is within mankinds nature to want to preserve life? This sounds like an assumption that has been made, form which you extrapolate following morals. But how do you "know" that this assumption is true?

If mankind really wanted to preserve life, and truly believed this (as it is part of our inner nature) then we should not have wars, or murder. At the very least, these occurances should be rare. But we do have them, in all cultures over all times (excluding stone age societies lacking sufficient cause and numbers for warfare) which shows that this likely is not the case.

-Ash

 

[radorth]

No, it doesn't. We know as well as you do the things we 'should' (according to christianity) repent of. The fact that morals are relative doesn't change that in any way, because morals are independent of god (and yes, I know you don't believe that, but the OT has god performing any number of immoral acts - immoral in MY opinion, which, since morals are relative, is as good as anyone else's). If Jesus did come back, of course, non-christians could listen to him and, if they deemed it appropriate, repent of what he said to repent of.

After what skeptics have said about some of his comments like "let the dead bury their dead" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" I don't think anyone really believes you.

And christians don't have a single moral standard (certainly not the Sermon on the Mount) - which is why so many christians disagree on what is moral.

Oh I think 90% of them do all use it as the standard. Who says they don't? You?

Rad

 

[Zoot]

Yes I would. "Seem" is the operative word I'm afraid.

Lots of things "seem" right and turn out to be stupid, while those with an objective standard save themselves infinite grief.

How?


Of course you believe in right and wrong Zoot, and your "right" is better than other people's. God forbid you are right very often, for then you are doomed to become self-righteous. You further deny yourself the "new nature" which Christ offers. You have no need of it for you are righteous in yourself.

Well, I was wrong about God existing. Once you've been wrong about something that big, it kind of puts things in perspective.


The best thing that ever happened to me was for everything I called "good" to come to nothing. Then I learned that indeed "he is able to do far above all you ask or think." The informed Christian has traded the righteousness of the Lord Jesus for that of Lord Self, and so alne enjoys the "peace that passes all understanding."

You discover that when you give up your own idea of "good," but most people die in their sins and pride because they would not give up their fantasies about what is "good."

Do you choose whether or not to think that something is good?

 

[The Bellman]

After what skeptics have said about some of his comments like "let the dead bury their dead" and "no one comes to the Father except through me" I don't think anyone really believes you.

They should; it's quite obvious. The issue isn't what non-christians (once again, 'skeptic' does not equate to 'non-christian' - christians are themselves told by paul to be sceptical) think of Jesus' edicts; it's wether or not they would be able to follow these edicts if he returned.

Oh I think 90% of them do all use it as the standard.

They don't.

Who says they don't? You?

Yes, me. Who says they do? You?