If you were creator

[Eudaimonist]

I don't tend to value courage and heroism in themselves. In fact I kinda dislike when people praise others for having the courage to hold an immoral belief. I don't think that's praiseworthy. Courage is only good when it's used for good, it does no good in itself. So it's more of a secondary virtue.

That's an interesting perspective.

But what if courage means that one knows how to manage fear? Courage, in that sense, would mean that one would not be likely to panic in fearful situations, and might therefore have better peace of mind. Does that still make courage purely instrumental, in your view, or is it doing good in itself?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Freodin]

That's an interesting perspective.

But what if courage means that one knows how to manage fear? Courage, in that sense, would mean that one would not be likely to panic in fearful situations, and might therefore have better peace of mind. Does that still make courage purely instrumental, in your view, or is it doing good in itself?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'd say it would mean it is "purely instrumental". If it was anything "in itself"... it would have to mean that it would be a good thing even without the existence of "fearful situations".

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd say it would mean it is "purely instrumental". If it was anything "in itself"... it would have to mean that it would be a good thing even without the existence of "fearful situations".

That makes no sense to me. Every virtue has a context in which it applies. That doesn't make a virtue purely instrumental.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chicken Little]

no, OH definitely it has to be fully formed universe . just to avoid the de-evolving created from the narcissistic chaos it takes to
"develope" or " evolve" because that stuff goes no where fast. . just watching it happen is insanity.

 

[1Cor13:11]

I cannot disagree with this. It is possible that starvation could be eliminated in this world. We may not need another universe for that. However, I think what you are saying is that "a world where starvation is impossible would be better." This is possibly true.

You don't think a world without starvation would be better?

 

[Paradoxum]

I cannot disagree with this. It is possible that starvation could be eliminated in this world. We may not need another universe for that. However, I think what you are saying is that "a world where starvation is impossible would be better." This is possibly true.

I totally agree that most starvation could be eliminated in this world, but until then people suffer and die.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's an interesting perspective.

But what if courage means that one knows how to manage fear? Courage, in that sense, would mean that one would not be likely to panic in fearful situations, and might therefore have better peace of mind. Does that still make courage purely instrumental, in your view, or is it doing good in itself?

Is courage merely coping with fear, or going beyond coping? I'd tend to associate courage with doing something positive, rather than passively not having a panic attack.

I'd understand calling second courage though.

Having the 'courage' not to be fearful is personally good for yourself, but I wouldn't say it's morally good or praiseworthy.

So I'd still say, morally, courage exaggerates the good or bad principles within you. It can just as well make you evil as good.

 

[1Cor13:11]

Back to my original post...

If Christianity were true, then it is possible that this suffering may not be in vain. There are multiple schools of thought on this topic of theology. Some say that the child who dies of starvation without faith in Jesus does not go to heaven. Others say that just men and women who have never heard of Jesus can still go to heaven. Some verses of scripture would imply that those who suffered unfair treatment (the poor, the oppressed, the starving) will receive eternal life as long as they lived justly. Many Christians and nonchristians will want to debate this point. I would posit that scripture implies that a starving child in the global south will go to heaven when he dies.

I totally agree that most starvation could be eliminated in this world, but until then people suffer and die.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

1 Cor13:11 wrote:
Some verses of scripture would imply that those who suffered unfair treatment (the poor, the oppressed, the starving) will receive eternal life as long as they lived justly. Many Christians and nonchristians will want to debate this point.

In that case I may well take offence at the concept of "living justly". If its taking up the cross in a pacifistic, submissive fashion, then no. Thats no good, and (unless people are truly ignorant) its a vain way to live and an offence against the human spirit. Of course a child dont have much choice, but a educated person ought to try to escape from the snare. Justice for goodness is success, not failure.

 

[1Cor13:11]

I am not sure exactly what you mean.

1 Cor13:11 wrote:
Some verses of scripture would imply that those who suffered unfair treatment (the poor, the oppressed, the starving) will receive eternal life as long as they lived justly. Many Christians and nonchristians will want to debate this point.

In that case I may well take offence at the concept of "living justly". If its taking up the cross in a pacifistic, submissive fashion, then no. Thats no good, and (unless people are truly ignorant) its a vain way to live and an offence against the human spirit. Of course a child dont have much choice, but a educated person ought to try to escape from the snare. Justice for goodness is success, not failure.

 

[Freodin]

That makes no sense to me. Every virtue has a context in which it applies. That doesn't make a virtue purely instrumental.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It might be a difference in understanding what "purely instrumental" means to us.
But generally I do not understand why it does not make sense to you. Yes, of course every virtue - everything! - has a context in which it applies. But doesn't that also mean that the evaluation of - whatever - must be based in that context? And wouldn't that mean that is not possible to state what anything means "in itself"... simply because there is, basically, no "in itself"?

 

[Paradoxum]

Back to my original post...

If Christianity were true, then it is possible that this suffering may not be in vain. There are multiple schools of thought on this topic of theology. Some say that the child who dies of starvation without faith in Jesus does not go to heaven. Others say that just men and women who have never heard of Jesus can still go to heaven. Some verses of scripture would imply that those who suffered unfair treatment (the poor, the oppressed, the starving) will receive eternal life as long as they lived justly. Many Christians and nonchristians will want to debate this point. I would posit that scripture implies that a starving child in the global south will go to heaven when he dies.

Wouldn't it be better to not starve to death, and go to heaven?

 

[Percivale]

It would seem that for every good thing, when you make it possible you also make a corresponding bad thing possible, when that good is lacked. So one must choose between safety and interestingness. An afterlife makes more risk acceptable (though not the fundamentalist afterlife).

 

[quatona]

It would seem that for every good thing, when you make it possible you also make a corresponding bad thing possible, when that good is lacked. So one must choose between safety and interestingness. An afterlife makes more risk acceptable (though not the fundamentalist afterlife).

Because your axiom doesn´t apply to the "afterlife"?

 

[Percivale]

Because your axiom doesn´t apply to the "afterlife"?

I'll play a game on a harder level if I can restart it any time I need to. The afterlife is a sort of restart, where if things don't work out in this life, you can try a different life. You can take more risks if you have more chances to try.

 

[quatona]

I'll play a game on a harder level if I can restart it any time I need to. The afterlife is a sort of restart, where if things don't work out in this life, you can try a different life. You can take more risks if you have more chances to try.

Whatever helps you through the night is fine with me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am not sure exactly what you mean.

Good one. Is it virtuous to suffer or is a solution based approach always better? One can sacrifice oneself to other in service of them, but what about to ones ideals. If my ideals "kill me" who is the Jesus and who is the Judas? Who is the tortoise and who is the hare?

 

[Ken-1122]

What would your ideal possible world be? If you could create a universe, or choose one to live in, which would you think best?
For instance, should it have intelligent life, if so mortal or immortal, or some of each?
How should it begin and end, how long of a timespan between?
How easy should life be, what challenges and goals should be available?
What kind of natural world, how complex, how changeable?

Or to make it easier, you could just say what you would change about our world if you could.

I would have a world similar to the one we have right now, except I would design it in a way that life would be easier and more peaceful. In my world fruits and vegetables would grow wild the way weeds, scotch broom and other pest plants grow now, and those pest plants would have to be cultivated, fertilized, and cared for in order to survive, thus ending world hunger and all the violence associated with it. All water would be fresh water, thus ending all the suffering and violence associated with the lack of useful water in regions of the world. There would only be one race of people ending racism and all the violence, clicks, and hatred associated with that, Parasites that feed off of living creatures would be herbivores thus ending much of the disease we currently have to deal with, and I would keep in constant contact with my creation so there would be no confusion of who I am and what I wish of them thus ending religious belief and all the bad stuff associated with religion yet keeping all the good stuff.

I would do other stuff, but that is all I can think of right now


Ken

 

[1Cor13:11]

Good one. Is it virtuous to suffer or is a solution based approach always better? One can sacrifice oneself to other in service of them, but what about to ones ideals. If my ideals "kill me" who is the Jesus and who is the Judas? Who is the tortoise and who is the hare?

I would reply that a solution based approach is always better. Suffering should only take place if there is no other option or if suffering is the best option. If there is a better alternative to suffering, and yet one suffers still, suffering does not necessarily lose its worth or value.

I do not understand your points and questions on ideals, Jesus and Judas, and the tortoise and the hare. Sorry.

 

[dgiharris]

I like a universe as complex as possible, so there's always more to explore. I'm ok with some violence, as it gives a place for achievement, heroism, courage, etc, which I value above total safety. I do wish innocents were protected from the worst violence, maybe I'd have active guardian angels on duty.

I'm totally ok with creating beings that question me, I'd be disappointed if they didn't. They'd have the opportunity to learn sooner or later whether they were right. It's generally insecure, arrogant people who don't like being questioned, God is not like that.

You realize the act of having active guardian angels would completely alter the paradigm of your thinking beings. In essence, you remove free will from the equation.

the beings in this universe would not be truly free as they know that some omniscient being will smite them if they do XYZ.