The Ultimate Sacrifice

[PsychoSarah]

I think that's a common view...rather than attempting to understand, it's easier to label and dismiss. Some people just find it easier to label someone evil, a jerk, or a box.

I thought the box label was quite accurate, they all dress similarly, they curse people out all the time and spread nasty gossip/rumors, they often don't have much in the way of talent or personality. And it isn't as if I am guessing here, I did try to talk to them (social disorder eliminates awareness that people are nasty before talking to them a bit).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought the box label was quite accurate, they all dress similarly, they curse people out all the time and spread nasty gossip/rumors, they often don't have much in the way of talent or personality. And it isn't as if I am guessing here, I did try to talk to them (social disorder eliminates awareness that people are nasty before talking to them a bit).

I imagine there was a time I thought that way too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I imagine there was a time I thought that way too.

anyways, back to the topic.

 

[Resha Caner]

If I had to guess what was missing from your understanding at the beginning was perspective.

I don't know you well, so that is possible ... actually, very likely.

If I had to guess, you think of good and bad in very black and white terms. For anyone like that, it's going to be hard to realize there's only grey.

Yes and no. I believe in moral absolutes, but I believe we as humans have perfected muddying the water such that often all we can see is gray. Further, I'm well aware others don't believe in moral absolutes - that there is only gray.

Do those comments seem as funny to you now as they did to me then?

They still seem applicable.

What answer did I give you? "Mine". Perfectly eloquent in it's simplicity. Honest, simple, true. Yet you glossed over it like I hadn't answered at all...like you never even considered what I meant. Maybe you haven't given this much thought.

There is concise, and then there is insufficient. I think post #67 was your best. Is it not possible that this exercise has helped you find a way to express yourself to those who don't know you?

Had I known you, maybe "mine" would have been sufficient. But since I didn't, it didn't say anything to me.

 

[Resha Caner]

anyways, back to the topic.

Which is? Is there something you think remains unaddressed?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Which is? Is there something you think remains unaddressed?

Not sure, is there? I am not the only one in on the conversation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't know you well, so that is possible ... actually, very likely.



Yes and no. I believe in moral absolutes, but I believe we as humans have perfected muddying the water such that often all we can see is gray. Further, I'm well aware others don't believe in moral absolutes - that there is only gray.



They still seem applicable.



There is concise, and then there is insufficient. I think post #67 was your best. Is it not possible that this exercise has helped you find a way to express yourself to those who don't know you?

Had I known you, maybe "mine" would have been sufficient. But since I didn't, it didn't say anything to me.

Still seem applicable? Fair enough...what aspect of morality do you think I haven't considered?

 

[Resha Caner]

Still seem applicable? Fair enough...what aspect of morality do you think I haven't considered?

I have no idea. It's not whether or not you've considered it, but the conclusions you come to. Your reply to my statement about community and God's Word seemed rather sarcastic. As I've mentioned, it left an impression of narcissism.

So, I imagine I'm going to disagree with you on 3 things. First, we need a guide and shouldn't expect we can find all the answers by ourself. For me that guide is God. For you it is not.

Second, even if you don't believe in God, "old books" have value. To expect that every individual is going to start over and replicate all the discoveries of moral discourse in order to arrive at the "best" answer is ridiculous. Therefore, it is reasonable to take the advice of an elder (or an old book) that behavior X is bad.

Third, I feel no obligation to support someone who is not going to enter into some kind of community with me. Take marriage for example. The U.S. is changing the definition of marriage. My position is that the benefits can't be grand-fathered in somehow. The contract has been broken. As such, I would fully support removing all the tax benefits associated with marriage. I no longer feel obligated to support the emerging American definition of marriage.

Now, if you're going to somehow lump those factors into the "desire" that motivates you and say your view covers how to respond to that ... shrug ... OK. But until it's been explicitly said so I know how your "desire" responds to those 3 things, that explanation doesn't help me much.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have no idea. It's not whether or not you've considered it, but the conclusions you come to. Your reply to my statement about community and God's Word seemed rather sarcastic. As I've mentioned, it left an impression of narcissism.

So, I imagine I'm going to disagree with you on 3 things. First, we need a guide and shouldn't expect we can find all the answers by ourself. For me that guide is God. For you it is not.

Second, even if you don't believe in God, "old books" have value. To expect that every individual is going to start over and replicate all the discoveries of moral discourse in order to arrive at the "best" answer is ridiculous. Therefore, it is reasonable to take the advice of an elder (or an old book) that behavior X is bad.

Third, I feel no obligation to support someone who is not going to enter into some kind of community with me. Take marriage for example. The U.S. has changed the definition of marriage. My position is that the benefits can't be grand-fathered in somehow. The contract has been broken. As such, I would fully support removing all the tax benefits associated with marriage. I no longer feel obligated to support the emerging American definition of marriage.

Now, if you're going to somehow lump those factors into the "desire" that motivates you and say your view covers how to respond to that ... shrug ... OK. But until it's been explicitly said so I know how your "desire" responds to those 3 things, that explanation doesn't help me much.

Well it's pretty easy really. I don't desire a crutch. When you say "I need a guide" or "I can't be expected to figure these things out for myself" you're saying you need help, something to lean on. I suppose maybe you do, the problem comes from when your "elders" or your "old book" is wrong. If you rely on it as such, you'll find it constantly gives you problems with the reality it stands denying. That answers 1 and 2. 3 is something strange which I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This isn't a place for discussion of homosexual marriage (this forum only allows that topic in certain areas) so I won't be having that conversation here. Though I would say again, this is probably part of the problem of relying on an old book or your elders. They lived in different times and circumstances, so if you rely on them for something like a "moral definition of marriage" or even "community" you can find yourself at odds with the time and circumstances you live in.

 

[Resha Caner]

Marriage was just an example. I'll try to speak in general terms if that works better.

A community is built upon agreement. When individuals insist they are above the community and not obligated to conform to those agreements, they are placing themselves outside the community. When they do that, they can no longer expect the benefits of community. I'm saying much the same thing Sarah did (#72ff).

You can agree with that or not, but whether you agree is irrelevant. A murderer may not want to go to prison. He may feel his "desires" justified the action, but that is irrelevant. The community uses force and puts him in prison because he has violated his social contract.

So, yes, I'm increasingly at odds with American society. That is where my "desires" put me. As the distance between us increases, you can expect cooperation to decrease. My example is that I don't want to support certain behavior, and I'm willing to give up a tax benefit to end support for that behavior. You may think that odd, but I don't understand why you would expect me to cooperate with something I find morally repugnant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Marriage was just an example. I'll try to speak in general terms if that works better.

A community is built upon agreement. When individuals insist they are above the community and not obligated to conform to those agreements, they are placing themselves outside the community. When they do that, they can no longer expect the benefits of community. I'm saying much the same thing Sarah did (#72ff).

You can agree with that or not, but whether you agree is irrelevant. A murderer may not want to go to prison. He may feel his "desires" justified the action, but that is irrelevant. The community uses force and puts him in prison because he has violated his social contract.

So, yes, I'm increasingly at odds with American society. That is where my "desires" put me. As the distance between us increases, you can expect cooperation to decrease. My example is that I don't want to support certain behavior, and I'm willing to give up a tax benefit to end support for that behavior. You may think that odd, but I don't understand why you would expect me to cooperate with something I find morally repugnant.

Well the only problem with yours and Sarah's example is that the "values" of the community are constantly in flux...ever changing and being redefined just like the individual. That isn't a bad thing, it's just the way it is. Every community decides these things constantly, and every individual finds themselves at odds with aspects of the communal values. Group morals aren't unlike individual morals...they change from situation to situation, moment to moment. So I'm not really sure what your point here is. If you'd like, I can give you an example of where the community sets free a murderer.

So again, you can see how my model of morality is the only one that works at all times in all instances.

 

[Resha Caner]

So again, you can see how my model of morality is the only one that works at all times in all instances.

I can't follow what you're saying, so I don't see that you've shown anything. First you said my example was a problem, and then basically tried to equate what I had said to what you have said, which would mean your model has a problem. But somehow that means your model is a good one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can't follow what you're saying, so I don't see that you've shown anything. First you said my example was a problem, and then basically tried to equate what I had said to what you have said, which would mean your model has a problem. But somehow that means your model is a good one.

Where did I equate what you said to what I said?

You go ahead and answer that first, then I'll gladly explain all of morality for you...in as few words as possible.

 

[Resha Caner]

Where did I equate what you said to what I said?

I spoke about the community. You spoke about the individual. In both of the quotes below, you claim community values are "like" (i.e. equate to) those of the individual.

"the 'values' of the community are constantly in flux...ever changing and being redefined just like the individual."

"Group morals aren't unlike individual morals"

But I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. As I said, I couldn't make sense of that post. So that's not what you meant. OK.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I spoke about the community. You spoke about the individual. In both of the quotes below, you claim community values are "like" (i.e. equate to) those of the individual.

"the 'values' of the community are constantly in flux...ever changing and being redefined just like the individual."

"Group morals aren't unlike individual morals"

But I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. As I said, I couldn't make sense of that post. So that's not what you meant. OK.

Well it seemed to me that you were abandoning the notion of an objective set of morals based upon elder's words and old books in favor of an objective set of morals based upon community values. I was simply pointing out community values are hardly objective in any way...they more resemble values of the individual in that they constantly change. If that wasn't the point you were trying to make...sorry.

So...maybe this will clear things up...all of morality explained...

There are no, never have been, never will be an "objective" set of morals. The ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, exist only as judgements made by individuals and groups of individuals. They are as ever changing as those individuals are. No individual can be entirely correct or incorrect on this matter of moral judgment. Indeed, the notion of correct or incorrect in regards to moral judgements themselves is somewhat meaningless.

So...your original question "is there bad in this world?" Yes...as much as you see in it. If you see none...then there's none. If you see a lot...then there's a lot. If you see a little...then there's a little.

Why is there bad in the world? Desire.

 

[Resha Caner]

There are no, never have been, never will be an "objective" set of morals.

I realize that is your opinion.

No individual [human] can be entirely correct or incorrect on this matter of moral judgment.

With the word I added, I would agree with this statement.

Why is there bad in the world? Desire.

And with this (Gen 3:5-6). Aside from our similarities, I was trying to point out some differences. But all in all, we've strayed a long way from post #5, which is why I originally responded to you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I realize that is your opinion.



With the word I added, I would agree with this statement.



And with this (Gen 3:5-6). Aside from our similarities, I was trying to point out some differences. But all in all, we've strayed a long way from post #5, which is why I originally responded to you.

I'm afraid that first statement was entirely fact. You wouldn't even be able to tell me what objective morals are, let alone use them to explain morality. To argue they exist without either of those is utterly hopeless...it's a view that describes almost nothing.

You didn't need to add "human"...I've never concerned myself with the morals of bunnies and squirrels. I'm sure you knew I meant humans.

I thought you just used my original post to get to the questions you asked about there being bad in the world. Remember? "I guess what I was getting at...."

 

[Resha Caner]

You didn't need to add "human"...I've never concerned myself with the morals of bunnies and squirrels. I'm sure you knew I meant humans.

I think you know why ... oops, no, I shouldn't assume that. But it might be fun if you guessed. Why did I add that word?

I thought you just used my original post to get to the questions you asked about there being bad in the world. Remember? "I guess what I was getting at...."

You are correct. I had forgotten about that. Sorry for the mistake.

I'm afraid that first statement was entirely fact. You wouldn't even be able to tell me what objective morals are, let alone use them to explain morality. To argue they exist without either of those is utterly hopeless...it's a view that describes almost nothing.

I think I probably could, but you see you're doing it to me again. You're telling me the phrase "objective morality" refers to something impossible. So, I need to know why you think that. For example, if you're going to insist that objective morality be something developed by a community of humans, then I'll have to agree with you. You're right. We can't produce objective morals ... or, for that matter, anything absolutely objective.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you know why ... oops, no, I shouldn't assume that. But it might be fun if you guessed. Why did I add that word?



You are correct. I had forgotten about that. Sorry for the mistake.



I think I probably could, but you see you're doing it to me again. You're telling me the phrase "objective morality" refers to something impossible. So, I need to know why you think that. For example, if you're going to insist that objective morality be something developed by a community of humans, then I'll have to agree with you. You're right. We can't produce objective morals ... or, for that matter, anything absolutely objective.

Why do I think objective morality impossible? Obviously any list of moral laws is going to have gaps wherein scenarios not addressed fit. You simply cannot address every human action in objective moral terms. However, you believe in it...so why shouldn't I at least give you the chance? Go ahead...list all objective moral laws...I'll wait...

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do I think objective morality impossible? Obviously any list of moral laws is going to have gaps wherein scenarios not addressed fit. You simply cannot address every human action in objective moral terms. However, you believe in it...so why shouldn't I at least give you the chance? Go ahead...list all objective moral laws...I'll wait...

First try to answer my question. Why did I add the word "human" to your statement?