Your philosophical world view and your life

[juvenissun]

Animals other than humans do have conflicting desires. For example, there are the desires for food and for safety, but to get food animals need to take risks.

That is not what the question which OP is talking about. I believe there is another term for the situation you mentioned. It is a choice of survivorship, not a choice of good or evil. Animals do not make that kind of choice.

 

[juvenissun]

...and your theistic explanation is?


Basically, because situations and conditions change.

Like which one?

Non-human animals? Sure looks like they do.

Cheap responses. No discussion.

 

[AlexDTX]

I understand. Cognitive dissonance such as this affects everyone, I think.

Agreed, and the more involved you are in such brutal things the greater the dissonance. I have been told that the turnover in slaughter houses is really high because few can stand killing those animals for a long time. One's heart would have to become extremely hardened to stay in such a field.

I find the changing world view thing to be of great interest, as I have undergone a number of significant changes in my thinking over the years. How do these changes in world view affect the things that you do in your life?

I have already mentioned my view of organized religion, but in concert with your next question, how I talk with people.

I imagine that you seek out people who fit your picture of how the organic Church should think. In terms of putting the welfare of others above your own, do you take actions based on that philosophical position?

Everyone has their own journey in life and I now try to be more respectful of their place in life. I no longer try to argue and convince others to agree with my opinions. That doesn't mean I abandon nor keep silent regarding my opinions. However, I have come to recognized the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives and I understand the long process that can be.

Also, the organic church are all who come to faith in Christ, which includes all those who have not yet come to faith in Christ. That being said, I have come to recognize organic pastors who are not believers in Christ, but are gifted pastorally nonetheless, because these temperaments are given at birth and are moulded and shaped by life's experiences. Teachers, for example, are teachers at birth, but lack the knowledge for teaching. Nonetheless they are people who love to research and explain to others things that others may not have any interest in the first place!

Putting the welfare of others above one's self is the definition of godly love. The righteous do what is right even to their own hurt (Ps. 15:4). I try to do so, but admit that I often fail due to my own selfish motivations. Nonetheless I keep turning in that direction. Of course the welfare of others includes saying and doing things that the others do not want. For example, a child may not want a mother to discipline him for crossing a street without looking both ways, but the mother is protecting her child from potential injury of oncoming traffic.

David, I really enjoy your kind and thoughtful answers to everyone you respond to.

 

[quatona]

Cheap responses. No discussion.

You mean you disagree with my responses?

 

[David Colin Gould]

That is not what the question which OP is talking about. I believe there is another term for the situation you mentioned. It is a choice of survivorship, not a choice of good or evil. Animals do not make that kind of choice.

I do not actually believe in 'good' or 'evil'. All of our choices, whether we term them moral choices or not, boil down to survival choices. My girlfriend said that all fear is fear of death, and on reflection I think that that is true. We do moral things because we want to feel good about ourselves or because we do not want the tribe to disapprove or because we do not want God to disapprove - we want approval, because we rely on others for our survival. But we also want food, shelter, sex, a new car. And this means that we sometimes act in ways that we and the tribe and God do not approve of. Conflicting desires.

 

[juvenissun]

You mean you disagree with my responses?

Yes and more than that.

 

[quatona]

Yes and more than that.

Ok, your disagreement is noted.

 

[juvenissun]

I do not actually believe in 'good' or 'evil'. All of our choices, whether we term them moral choices or not, boil down to survival choices. My girlfriend said that all fear is fear of death, and on reflection I think that that is true. We do moral things because we want to feel good about ourselves or because we do not want the tribe to disapprove or because we do not want God to disapprove - we want approval, because we rely on others for our survival. But we also want food, shelter, sex, a new car. And this means that we sometimes act in ways that we and the tribe and God do not approve of. Conflicting desires.

That is an exaggeration and is not true.
Survivorship means life or death. It does not mean failure or success. Animals can only worry about the former, but not the latter.

 

[David Colin Gould]

That is an exaggeration and is not true.
Survivorship means life or death. It does not mean failure or success. Animals can only worry about the former, but not the latter.

Maybe I did not explain it properly.

At a conscious level, we are of course aware that - for example - losing a board game has nothing to do with life and death. But, if we are interested in the game at all, we tend not to like to lose. This stems from our evolutionary history. Losing was not a good thing in terms of our survival. So we are hard-wired to not want to lose. Our underlying biology does not recognise the difference all that well. You have likely experienced someone losing a game and responding badly as a result.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do not actually believe in 'good' or 'evil'. All of our choices, whether we term them moral choices or not, boil down to survival choices. My girlfriend said that all fear is fear of death, and on reflection I think that that is true. We do moral things because we want to feel good about ourselves or because we do not want the tribe to disapprove or because we do not want God to disapprove - we want approval, because we rely on others for our survival. But we also want food, shelter, sex, a new car. And this means that we sometimes act in ways that we and the tribe and God do not approve of. Conflicting desires.

So...there's no good or evil, just "survival choices" that we all make? If this is the case, then if some thug breaks into your home and,...how do I put this nicely.............'takes out' the rest of your family, (and just for kicks, we'll assume he somehow lets you remain alive) then that is not an act we can deem as being evil, just a survival choice made on the part of the thug.

Interesting...

2PhiloVoid

 

[David Colin Gould]

So...there's no good or evil, just "survival choices" that we all make? If this is the case, then if some thug breaks into your home and,...how do I put this nicely.............'takes out' the rest of your family, (and just for kicks, we'll assume he somehow lets you remain alive) then that is not an act we can deem as being evil, just a survival choice made on the part of the thug.

Interesting...

2PhiloVoid

Yes, there are survival choices. And the choices that others make can hurt me.

However, just because we do not determine his act as evil, that does not mean that society - acting in the survival interests of the citizenry - would not decide to imprison this person. People do not like others hurting them.

When a river floods and people drown, we do not decide that the river was evil (well, primitive peoples may have assigned intention and moral choice to a river, but we do not). But we do take actions in an attempt to prevent future drownings.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, there are survival choices. And the choices that others make can hurt me.

However, just because we do not determine his act as evil, that does not mean that society - acting in the survival interests of the citizenry - would not decide to imprison this person. People do not like others hurting them.

When a river floods and people drown, we do not decide that the river was evil (well, primitive peoples may have assigned intention and moral choice to a river, but we do not). But we do take actions in an attempt to prevent future drownings.

There's massive moral difference between a cold-blooded killer and a flooding river, not to mention an ontological difference between the two that just seems, in my estimation, to make your analogy less than satisfactory.

As I understand you, Dave, society imprisons criminals not because those individual deviants are evil, but rather because society just "doesn't like others hurting them." So, we can dispense with well over two millennia of moral philosophy; we can ignore the significance of something like Virtue, or Utilitarian moral calculations, or Deontological duties to others...as well as any religious moral ideas.

And how did you and your girlfriend arrive at these conclusions, Dave?

2PhiloVoid

 

[David Colin Gould]

There's massive moral difference between a cold-blooded killer and a flooding river, not to mention an ontological difference between the two that just seems, in my estimation, to make your analogy less than satisfactory.

You claim that there is a massive moral difference. But given that I do not accept that claim, we end up at a different place.

As I understand you, Dave, society imprisons criminals not because those individual deviants are evil, but rather because society just "doesn't like others hurting them." So, we can dispense with well over two millennia of moral philosophy; we can ignore the significance of something like Virtue, or Utilitarian moral calculations, or Deontological duties to others...as well as any religious moral ideas.

Note that I did not say that society does not imprison people because it thinks they are evil. I would say that the vast majority of people believe in the existence of good and evil. Society imprisons or executes people for many reasons - deterence, revenge, to keep society safe from dangerous individuals, to prevent people taking the law into their own hands and so on. But if a society rejected the concepts of good and evil there would still be reasons for a system that carried out the same functions as our current justice system. I would hope that it would be a little more compassionate, however.

And how did you and your girlfriend arrive at these conclusions, Dave?

2PhiloVoid

Thought and discussion. It mainly stems from the realisation that there is no free will. If there is no free will, then there are no such things as moral agents. In that way, a flooding river is morally identical to a cold-blooded killer.

 

[David Colin Gould]

So, we can dispense with well over two millennia of moral philosophy; we can ignore the significance of something like Virtue, or Utilitarian moral calculations, or Deontological duties to others...as well as any religious moral ideas.

Well, yes, all of these notions are - in my opinion - wrong, so we can dispense with them.

 

[David Colin Gould]

Agreed, and the more involved you are in such brutal things the greater the dissonance. I have been told that the turnover in slaughter houses is really high because few can stand killing those animals for a long time. One's heart would have to become extremely hardened to stay in such a field.

If so, that is a good thing.

I have already mentioned my view of organized religion, but in concert with your next question, how I talk with people.

Everyone has their own journey in life and I now try to be more respectful of their place in life. I no longer try to argue and convince others to agree with my opinions. That doesn't mean I abandon nor keep silent regarding my opinions. However, I have come to recognized the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives and I understand the long process that can be.

Interesting. While I would like people to agree with me - because obviously I am right about everything - I too accept that change is a process and that as I talk to others I change them and they change me, even if we never get to a moment of agreement. Understanding is more important in many cases.

Also, the organic church are all who come to faith in Christ, which includes all those who have not yet come to faith in Christ. That being said, I have come to recognize organic pastors who are not believers in Christ, but are gifted pastorally nonetheless, because these temperaments are given at birth and are moulded and shaped by life's experiences. Teachers, for example, are teachers at birth, but lack the knowledge for teaching. Nonetheless they are people who love to research and explain to others things that others may not have any interest in the first place!

I am a teacher, but I do not know whether was a teacher from birth. But I certainly have qualities that make me enjoy teaching (whether I am any good at it is yet to be determined - I am a new teacher). I actually like the notion of future participants in one's beliefs as already being part of the whole. But obviously I would come at it from a slightly different perspective.

Putting the welfare of others above one's self is the definition of godly love. The righteous do what is right even to their own hurt (Ps. 15:4). I try to do so, but admit that I often fail due to my own selfish motivations. Nonetheless I keep turning in that direction. Of course the welfare of others includes saying and doing things that the others do not want. For example, a child may not want a mother to discipline him for crossing a street without looking both ways, but the mother is protecting her child from potential injury of oncoming traffic.

David, I really enjoy your kind and thoughtful answers to everyone you respond to.

True. It can be difficult to convince younger people in particular of a better course of action than one they have decided upon. Some things do need to be learned for oneself, but other things of necessity must be insisted upon.

Thank you. I do not always succeed in giving kind and thoughtful answers, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You claim that there is a massive moral difference. But given that I do not accept that claim, we end up at a different place.

Yes...I end up in the position that rivers do not kill people with cognitive premeditation...thugs do. So, will you get "angry" at a river that wipes away your family? Can a river be punished and/or rehabilitated? Or forgiven? So...again, in your estimation then, there would be little to no difference between, say, a God that floods out humanity and a river that just happens to sweep a community away...

interesting....

Note that I did not say that society does not imprison people because it thinks they are evil. I would say that the vast majority of people believe in the existence of good and evil.

...just not you, however. What if they 'sense' good and evil for a reason?

Society imprisons or executes people for many reasons - deterence, revenge, to keep society safe from dangerous individuals, to prevent people taking the law into their own hands and so on. But if a society rejected the concepts of good and evil there would still be reasons for a system that carried out the same functions as our current justice system. I would hope that it would be a little more compassionate, however.

Oh come on, Dave! How do you know there would still be reasons for an alternative law system to carry out the same functions. Really? The same functions? So, Stalinist Russia was no different in its reasoning and legal functions than...the United States?

Thought and discussion. It mainly stems from the realisation that there is no free will. If there is no free will, then there are no such things as moral agents. In that way, a flooding river is morally identical to a cold-blooded killer.

There's no free will? I beg to differ. I think Quantum Mechanics has somewhat instilled the inference that we--and the physical world we live in--do have to contend with some level of randomness in reality...

Again, there is a massive difference between a cold-blooded killer and a flooding river.

2PhiloVoid

 

[David Colin Gould]

Yes...I end up in the position that rivers do not kill people with cognitive premeditation...thugs do. So, will you get "angry" at a river that wipes away your family?

Who wouldn't be angry and upset?

Can a river be punished and/or rehabilitated?

A river cannot be punished as the term is normally understood. But it can be rehabilitated, in that structures can be put in place to try to prevent it killing people again, which is what we do with humans we wish to rehabilitate.

Or forgiven?

Forgiveness is a different issue. In my worldview, forgiveness is automatic (should be automatic - I am fallible, of course, which is a little bit of what this thread is about). Thus, there is no difference between a river and a person.

So...again, in your estimation then, there would be little to no difference between, say, a God that floods out humanity and a river that just happens to sweep a community away...

interesting....

Well, any deity that exists cannot have free will, either. So they would not be moral agents, either. But again if steps could be taken to prevent them killing then that would be of benefit.

...just not you, however. What if they 'sense' good and evil for a reason?

There may be one or two others out there.

They do not sense good and evil. What they see are actions they like and actions they do not like. They lable those things 'good' and 'evil'.

Oh come on, Dave! How do you know there would still be reasons for an alternative law system to carry out the same functions. Really? The same functions? So, Stalinist Russia was no different in its reasoning and legal functions than...the United States?

Um, there would still be reasons. Whether someone would act on those reasons is a different matter. Regarding Stalinist Russia and the United States, I did mention that there are many reasons for such a system.

There's no free will? I beg to differ. I think Quantum Mechanics has somewhat instilled the inference that we--and the physical world we live in--do have to contend with some level of randomness in reality...

It is a little odd attempting to equate randomness with free will.

Again, there is a massive difference between a cold-blooded killer and a flooding river.

2PhiloVoid

Thanks for making that unsupported assertion once more - I missed it the first time.

 

[juvenissun]

Maybe I did not explain it properly.

At a conscious level, we are of course aware that - for example - losing a board game has nothing to do with life and death. But, if we are interested in the game at all, we tend not to like to lose. This stems from our evolutionary history. Losing was not a good thing in terms of our survival. So we are hard-wired to not want to lose. Our underlying biology does not recognise the difference all that well. You have likely experienced someone losing a game and responding badly as a result.

I fail to see how would this inherited from evolution. If it is a "evolutional change", then we should see this feature or trend very clearly on chimps. Everything chimps win or lose is about survival. Very few thing human win or lose is about survival, not even war in a general sense.

 

[David Colin Gould]

I fail to see how would this inherited from evolution. If it is a "evolutional change", then we should see this feature or trend very clearly on chimps. Everything chimps win or lose is about survival. Very few thing human win or lose is about survival, not even war in a general sense.

At a conscious level, yes. But beneath the surface our biology sees it as all about survival.

Watching a sports game, we get excited. Our adrenalin rises. This is because our biology is interpreting our excitement in terms of fight or flight - survival.

 

[quatona]

At a conscious level, yes. But beneath the surface our biology sees it as all about survival.

Watching a sports game, we get excited. Our adrenalin rises. This is because our biology is interpreting our excitement in terms of fight or flight - survival.

David, this sounds like you dismiss the "conscious level" as irrelevant - sort of like helplessly being exposed to "biology".
How does your view account for the fact (?) that - at least sometimes - we seem to be able to overcome e.g. the fight or flight reflex (because we consciously realize that the given situation isn´t about survival) and find third options?