How to argue?

[JDaniel]

I agree with your analysis 100%.

If only everyone would accept this standard, we would need no laws at all. Too bad, that it takes two keep peace, but only one to start a war. Of course this is a utopian dream, but it is worthy to strive toward, even though it might be unattainable for a long time.

More so than that: if everyone would accept Christ, we would really need no laws at all.

jd

 

[allhers]

:slapfight: …and may the best man win.

 

[Spock]

Your point concerning the differences between the positive enunciation and the negative enunciation of the golden rule, to me is the same as saying either of the following to express one’s pleasure with a movie: (1.) “You know, I liked that movie!” and (2.) “you know, that movie wasn’t bad at all!”

Well, if that is how you perceive it, I am surprised.

The enunciation of the golden rule in its positive form was was never intended to be taken completely literally. The enunciation of it is a shortened, more succinct form of a greater length proclamation. I can see, from its words, that one could spin it to mean whatever one wants, but, that would be a violation of the very rule itself.

Obviously, the exampe I gave goes against to meaning of the GR+, but it strictly adheres to the letter of it. Can you make an example, just how can someone similarly pervert the GR-? I tried do so, and failed.

But the point goes much deeper, then the squabbling about short and long version. In a sense the GR- is very similar to the Hyppocratic oath: “First, do no harm”. Do not interfere, unless you are asked, or have a very good reason to do so. Otherwise leave the other person alone, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows best what is good for him. The GR+ assumes that you know what is best for the other person, and commands you to act accordingly, even if the other person does not ask for it.

Again, a nice old joke: “The little boy scout goes home and his father asks: what good deeds did you perform today? The kid says: I and my 4 friends helped an old, blind man across a busy street. The father says: that is very nice, but why did you need your friends to help you? Because the old guy did not want to cross the street.”

Some rules (that have made it into laws) are of the kind that we call, “purely penal.” What is a purely penal law? A good example of one is a highway speed law. No one is injured by your doing 66 in a 55 mile per hour zone (of course, providing no accident takes place). However, if you are caught, you go to court and pay a fine and get some points. One could intimate that even these laws derive from the GR as we would not want some speeder to cause us an accident. Of course, and this is the rationale used by lawmakers to promulgate such laws.

But, the truth is, compared to the number of speeders on the roads today, the odds are minute that 66 in a 55 will be the causative agent of an accident, especially when you consider that most states will up to 9 miles per hour higher without penalty. Furthermore, no one was injured and yet the punishment was imposed. Not to mention the fact that we know that unnecessary speed traps are set up, from time to time, apparently for the purpose of raising revenue!

I agree with this analysis. My generic take on laws: 1) discourage and hopefully prevent behavior, which is obviously harmful to others. 2) if there is a significant chance (and the word “significant” is where disputes may occur) then the restriction should be commensurate with the risk. Your eaxmple about the speed limits is of this kind. 3) If a behavior is harmless or beneficial to others, it should not be subject to any kind of law or regulation. (Example would be to prohibit to feed someone else’s parking meter.)

The natural law, also known as the natural moral law, is called so because it emanates naturally from our reason. If we believe in God, we know from where this emanation arose. God “implanted” it in us, in our souls. For non-believers, it comes from some kind of natural decency in men.

I doubt that there is a built-in natural decency. Sure, many (maybe even most) people exhibit such traits, but not all. What about the others, the psychopaths and sociopaths? Did God intentionally “miss” the implantation into them?

More to the point, if there are generic traits, they are the result of our biological past and the fact that humans are both individuals and social creatures. A different intelligent species would exhibit totally different norms. For example Larry Niven’s world contains the Kzinti (intelligent catlike creatures), who value only individualism and the Pierson puppeteers (a herbivore race) who only value cowardice.

The Eternal law is what we look for when we look for the ultimate moral basis for the natural law. We know, for example, that despite the fact that mankind can be “good”, at times, we have also noticed that he can be quite “bad” at others. How do we tell the difference? Is the natural law sufficient all by itself to provide an explanation, or, is it derivative of an even higher law, or set of laws? Is the natural law imposed upon us?

I don’t think there is anything of this kind.

How is the GR (+ or -) imposed upon us? Is it, in fact, imposed upon us? If there is no imposition of it, why are we obliged to follow it? If a ruler of a society causes its imposition, then that ruler has the power to do whatever he/she wants, correct? Another poster once said, “Genocide can be justified completely.”

Nobody “imposed” anything. The GR- and the GR+ can be explained by game theory, as the best startegies for maximizing our individual freedoms.

It is my opinion - and it parallels many better thinkers than me - that your “secular underpinning” leads us into a morass of conundrums

Really? How could anyone substantiate that?

 

[Spock]

More so than that: if everyone would accept Christ, we would really need no laws at all.

Ahem. Northern Ireland? When the Catholics and Protestants waged a bloody war on each other??

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ahem. Northern Ireland? When the Catholics and Protestants waged a bloody war on each other??

if britain stayed out of ireland, there would be no war, they arent wanted.

p.s. i noticed that you quit trying to defend atheism against first cause. whats up with that?

 

[Spock]

if britain stayed out of ireland, there would be no war, they arent wanted.

Christ notwithstanding? JD said that if everyone would follow Christ, there would be no need for laws. I simply pointed out that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland did wage a war on each other, and they both follow Christ. And of course, I could bring up the whole kaboodle of the Middle Ages, when everyone believed in God, and there were many bloody wars.

p.s. i noticed that you quit trying to defend atheism against first cause. whats up with that?

I picked it up again, even though I pretty much said all I wanted to say. Now here is an observation:

In the “first cause”, “prime mover”, “ontological argument”, etc, etc… there is the common attempt to prove (on fully rational grounds) that there must be a “higher, nonphysical being”. If any of these would be successful, that would negate the need for faith and revelation for the God-concept (though these might be necessary for the details). So, is there a need for faith or is there not?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Christ notwithstanding? JD said that if everyone would follow Christ, there would be no need for laws. I simply pointed out that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland did wage a war on each other, and they both follow Christ. And of course, I could bring up the whole kaboodle of the Middle Ages, when everyone believed in God, and there were many bloody wars.

the british in ireland are the cause of the war.

that said, almost no wars would happen if everyone dutifully followed Christianity, the problem is that they dont.

I picked it up again, even though I pretty much said all I wanted to say. Now here is an observation:

In the “first cause”, “prime mover”, “ontological argument”, etc, etc… there is the common attempt to prove (on fully rational grounds) that there must be a “higher, nonphysical being”. If any of these would be successful, that would negate the need for faith and revelation for the God-concept (though these might be necessary for the details). So, is there a need for faith or is there not?

first, put it on the previous thread.

the theological virtue of faith is not the same thing as the general definition of faith.

theologically faith is belief in the truth of G-ds words. in Hid Goodness and love for us, not in his existence

thats not the greatest example but you can google the theological virtue of faith if you care to.

thats a pretty common misconception, even among Christains.

 

[Detales]

The Brittain/North Ireland thing tends, in my mind, to confirm the postulate that religion and goodness are not on the same axis of experience/expression. “Good” is a quality that appears to transcends belief systems, and religion seems merely an intellectual and emotional way of attempting to account for goodness and virtue. It also provides a theoretical punishment system as incentive for those not easily inclined by temperament to good. Doesn’t seem to have much effect. Locks keep out honest people. Seems to me that people who are good are so by universal, not dogmatic principles, though dogma is used as a ruler by adherents of systems to judge others. That only causes turbulence, defeating the reason for religion while providing an arguably false sense of righteousness for any particular group of adherents.

The only genuinely good people by my lights are folks who are that way by some inner prompting. Many of those yet adhere to a religion as, I feel, a *rightful and necessary *acknowledgement of God. But in the end that adherence is detri-mental. I say that because religious differences cause friction between even good people who would without the dogmatic baggage and static get along a lot better. I am differentiating here between an actual, practical, spontaneous, undiscriminating act of treating another as oneself, and the rationale contained in any belief system across time, space, and culture for doing so.

I won’t get into it, but I have heard current and past horrific stories about God fearing people doing astonishingly evil things to other God fearing people. Much of this is between Christainists, as exemplified by Northern Ireland, between Catholics, as in the inquisition, between Christians and Muslims, between Muslims ans Muslims, between missionaries and assorted native populations, in general human to human in all its variations.

That leads me to my postulating that there is some other factor than religious adherence that is the actual factor in what might be called salvation. It also tends to support, in my mind, the idea that The Redemption has been greatly misconstrued as to its actual nature and meaning, and that it may point to something rather different than is commonly understood. Same goes for the alleged “Fall,” that having some remarkably intruging interpretations other than commonly heard by christianists.* There just seems to me to be a much more important underlying reality than simple religion, as wonderful and useful as that may have been to so many.

It doesn’t make sense to me that the same recognizable good spirit can be attributed simultaneously to such contentiously differing belief systems. Despite any one religion being potentially an avenue of great value to any particualr adherant, in general, I feel that something much more significant is in play. That factor, known, I feel would allow each one to practice whatever faith they wish for its communal benefits, yet allow the necessary baggage-free tolerance for others to practice theirs. This might be a far more reasonable and practical way than we now as a race appear to be engaging in. It might even allow for more reasonable arguments.

*I often use "christianists" to distinguish habitual practitioners of the array of NT based religions. I do absolutely believe that there are actual Christians, but they are a horse of a very different color than the ordinary Jesus believer. My personal opinion is that if Jesus returned without the trumps and fanefare, good "Christians" might do it to Him again, in all sincerity believing it was the right thing to do to a blasphemer, etc, etc. But that is another story.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock
*
Christ notwithstanding? JD said that if everyone would follow Christ, there would be no need for laws. I simply pointed out that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland did wage a war on each other, and they both follow Christ. And of course, I could bring up the whole kaboodle of the Middle Ages, when everyone believed in God, and there were many bloody wars. *

But the wars of Protestants and Catholics show they were not following Christ. Christians (so-called) do not always follow Christ. They sometimes disobey Christ. JD’s point is still valid. If all people would follow Christ, there would be no theft, no murder, no rape, etc. And many who do follow Christ do not do these things. But not everyone follows Christ.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, if that is how you perceive it, I am surprised.

It’s good to be surprised.:yup:

Obviously, the exampe I gave goes against to meaning of the GR+, but it strictly adheres to the letter of it. Can you make an example, just how can someone similarly pervert the GR-? I tried do so, and failed.

I will, but first, I will ask you for your concise re-statement of it, just so there is nothing more to haggle over once I have.

But the point goes much deeper, then the squabbling about short and long version. In a sense the GR- is very similar to the Hyppocratic oath: “First, do no harm”. Do not interfere, unless you are asked, or have a very good reason to do so. Otherwise leave the other person alone, and give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows best what is good for him.

This is why I am asking for a concise re-statement of the GR-.

The GR+ assumes that you know what is best for the other person, and commands you to act accordingly, even if the other person does not ask for it.

Hmmm. And just how does it “command you”?

Again, a nice old joke: “The little boy scout goes home and his father asks: what good deeds did you perform today? The kid says: I and my 4 friends helped an old, blind man across a busy street. The father says: that is very nice, but why did you need your friends to help you? Because the old guy did not want to cross the street.”

A good one. I had almost forgotten that one.:extrahappy:

I agree with this analysis. My generic take on laws: 1) discourage and hopefully prevent behavior, which is obviously harmful to others. 2) if there is a significant chance (and the word “significant” is where disputes may occur) then the restriction should be commensurate with the risk. Your eaxmple about the speed limits is of this kind. 3) If a behavior is harmless or beneficial to others, it should not be subject to any kind of law or regulation. (Example would be to prohibit to feed someone else’s parking meter.)

How about property? Would you say it would, therefore, be okay to take a parcel of one man’s land - that he had plenty of and really didn’t need - and title it over to someone who didn’t have any land of his own?

I doubt that there is a built-in natural decency. Sure, many (maybe even most) people exhibit such traits, but not all. What about the others, the psychopaths and sociopaths? Did God intentionally “miss” the implantation into them?

Generally, we call those people “psychopaths and sociopaths”. That would seem to imply that their brains were unbalanced. God did not “intentionally “miss” the implantation into them”. We’re physical things. Physical things occasionally get “injured”. But, aside from “psychopaths and sociopaths”, why would you believe that there is not a “natural decency” in people?

More to the point, if there are generic traits, they are the result of our biological past and the fact that humans are both individuals and social creatures.

I assume you meant “genetic”.

A different intelligent species would exhibit totally different norms. For example Larry Niven’s world contains the Kzinti (intelligent catlike creatures), who value only individualism and the Pierson puppeteers (a herbivore race) who only value cowardice.

How would we know this? How could a person make such a blanket assertion?

Nobody “imposed” anything. The GR- and the GR+ can be explained by game theory, as the best startegies for maximizing our individual freedoms.

Thus, the decision to ethnically cleanse a people set can be explained by “game theory”?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Ahem. Northern Ireland? When the Catholics and Protestants waged a bloody war on each other??

Spock:

C’mon!

jd

 

[Spock]

I will, but first, I will ask you for your concise re-statement of it, just so there is nothing more to haggle over once I have.

Very well. The GR- is: “Do not do onto others, what you would not want them to do unto you”. As I said, I could not create a scenario, which would have acted against the meaning of this principle, while following the letter of it.

Hmmm. And just how does it “command you”?

The GR+ is stated as a command to a positive action. The GR- is stated as a command to refrain from action. Obviously both can be neglected.

How about property? Would you say it would, therefore, be okay to take a parcel of one man’s land - that he had plenty of and really didn’t need - and title it over to someone who didn’t have any land of his own?

A very good problem. We could investigate this in another thread. To talk about the concept of personal property would lead far away from the point of this thread.

Generally, we call those people “psychopaths and sociopaths”. That would seem to imply that their brains were unbalanced. God did not “intentionally “miss” the implantation into them”. We’re physical things. Physical things occasionally get “injured”. But, aside from “psychopaths and sociopaths”, why would you believe that there is not a “natural decency” in people?

Well, according to your belief system God could “fix” this “injury” without anyone knowing it. The point is that the “decency” factor is not universal, it cannot be asserted that it was “implanted” from “above”.

Yes, I would think that the inclination to behave in a decent manner is present in the majority of the people. After all most people are rational to some degree, and they realize that it is in their best interest to balance the two facets of the human personality: we are both individuals and herd animals. We can forego some actions which are better for us in the short run, and choose others which are detrimental on the short run, but more advantageous on the long run. (Politicians are an exception to this. )

How would we know this? How could a person make such a blanket assertion?

I am confused. Do you think that our value system is independent from our genetic heritage? Do you think that a different race, with different traits would have a different value system? Just consider the ancient Japanese society with their samurais and warlords. They had a completely different value system. Since they firmly believed in reincarnation, for them death was not a big deal. and their society was extremely violent. They were not “nice” people at all - in the sense we use the word “nice” today.

Thus, the decision to ethnically cleanse a people set can be explained by “game theory”?

Yes, it could be. A neutral tool (game theory) can be used to support many things. Just like a hammer can be used to affix nails to a wall and also to beat someone else’s head. It is not the fault of the tool that it can be used to achieve different goals.

Though, again I am confused. What does that have to do with using the mathematical tool of game theory to explain why the GR- is such a useful method to establish an optimal ethical system?

 

[JDaniel]

The GR- is: “Do not do onto others, what you would not want them to do unto you”. As I said, I could not create a scenario, which would have acted against the meaning of this principle, while following the letter of it.

That’s not difficult. Years ago, while working as an emergency medical technician, we came upon the scene of a teenage girl who, while riding her bicycle, had been hit by a motorist in a car. (Like you, I’m not blaming he machine! ) Her left leg was bent sideways. Both bones in her lower leg were snapped in two. Straightening her leg in order to get her to go into the ambulance without causing more damage would have caused her much pain. I would not want her - or anybody - to straighten my leg and cause me that much pain. Based on that, then, what should I do? Leave her there with the hope that someone else will handle it? Or, call someone else to do something, and wait? Or, cause the pain and get her to the hospital?

You can argue all you want about matters extraneous to the situation at hand, just as I could in your scenario from GR+, but, by the letter of the GR-, I should not cause her the pain.

A very good problem. We could investigate this in another thread. To talk about the concept of personal property would lead far away from the point of this thread.

All I wanted was a simply answer, not a lengthy debate on the efficacy of property distribution.

Well, according to your belief system God could “fix” this “injury” without anyone knowing it. The point is that the “decency” factor is not universal, it cannot be asserted that it was “implanted” from “above”.

Spock, Spock, Spock. So, where would it have come from? To what end? For what goal or goals? What would be the driving motivation for honoring decency? The GR?

Yes, I would think that the inclination to behave in a decent manner is present in the majority of the people. After all most people are rational to some degree, and they realize that it is in their best interest to balance the two facets of the human personality: we are both individuals and herd animals.

But, I’m pretty sure that I could get away scot-free from just about any crime that I would want to commit. Grand larceny theft would certainly serve my interests better than adhering to some stupid Golden Rule. In fact, my Golden Rule is a bit different. It says, “He who has the Gold, makes the Rules!”

(Politicians are an exception to this.)

No doubt!

I am confused. Do you think that our value system is independent from our genetic heritage?

Of course.

Do you think that a different race, with different traits would have a different value system? Just consider the ancient Japanese society with their samurais and warlords. They had a completely different value system. Since they firmly believed in reincarnation, for them death was not a big deal. and their society was extremely violent.

You’re not thinking. You are extrapolating from the particular to the general. Because a certain set of people within a population, such as the ruling class, impose their rules and beliefs on that population, does not necessarily mean that the population all believed the same way from birth. We have seen the effects of indoctrination in our own lifetimes.

They were not “nice” people at all - in the sense we use the word “nice” today.

Many times, ruling classes are not.

Yes, it could be. A neutral tool (game theory) can be used to support many things. Just like a hammer can be used to affix nails to a wall and also to beat someone else’s head. It is not the fault of the tool that it can be used to achieve different goals.

Your statement doesn’t tell us how. But, I like the dual uses for the hammer part.

Though, again I am confused. What does that have to do with using the mathematical tool of game theory to explain why the GR- is such a useful method to establish an optimal ethical system?

What are you asking here?

jd

 

[rookieonedge]

A few observations from reading the posts:

Is human nature inherently good or bad? Some discussion seemed to generate this question. Consider the Communist system. It’s based on the philosophy that human nature is inherently good. Therefore, people will be willing to share their goods and work for the common good under the “right” conditions. What happens is that the proletariat becomes smothered by the bourgeoisie and people become separated not by class, income, socioeconomic status, but by the powerful vs. the powerless. There will still be wars and tribulations.

If human nature is inherently “bad” or “fallen,” there will indeed be wars and tribulations of all kinds. This we can attest to. With a fallen human nature, the human race is in need of redemption, which was taken on by no other than the Creator Himself, sending His Only Begotten Son into the world to be our Redeemer and our Advocate, for no one is worthy in his/her own right. But because of this salvific act, Christians, those who are remade into “other Christs,” have “washed themselves in the Blood of the Lamb.”

C.S. Lewis begins his work “Mere Christianity” considering the Natural Law which is that Moral Law which is more than just a social convention. It is that “voice” inside us that makes clear the message to save that person who is drowning, for example even though we prefer to go our own way like the Samaritan.

Considering the notion of relative morality that one’s set of “moral” rules may differ from another’s or that one philosophy is as acceptable as another:
As Lewis points out, if no set of moral ideas were any better or truer than another, there would be no sense in preferring a civilized morality to Nazi moraliy. But the moment you say that one set of moral ideas is better than another, you’re measuring against a standard. So there must be some “Real Morality” by which we can make judgments.

On the topic of suffering: For Christians all suffering brings about opportunities for redemptive suffering that we may unite it to the sufferings of Christ for the salvation of others. As we know there are unequal shares of suffering which seem to be doled out to individuals. I don’t think we can ever understand the “why” of that in this life, but we know that God is a just God, so all will be understood in the next according to His plan.
Suffering is usually looked upon as a curse. Reading the excellent posts much has already been said. I just want to make mention of “'victim souls” those chosen by God to undergo physical and spiritual suffering beyond human experience. Reading St. Faustina’s diary gave me a greater understanding of God’s great Mercy that flows from His Suffering through these souls for humanity. Another who suffered greatly is the Spaniard Siser Josefa Menendez (1890-1923). She experienced seasons of “excruciating physical and spiritual pain” as well as visions and locutions. Her diary is called “The Way of Divine Love.” Jesus personally asked her to be a victim soul. Padre Pio and Teresa Neuman were others in the last century.

A good read is a book called “The Shack.” It’s about a man whose young daughter was viciously murdered and how he met God in the Blessed Trinity. I couldn’t help but laugh with joy and surprise at how the author describes the Three. Get a flavor of this book at www.theshackbook.com.

As for salvation, who is saved? A priest giving a retreat once said:
“There is the Kingdom of God, and there is the Church.
Some who are in the Kingdom of God are not (yet–maybe will be someday on earth or in the Church Suffering or the Church Triumphant) in the Church.
And some people who are in the Church are not in the Kingdom of God.”

 

[Detales]

Enjoyed your post, “Rookie.”

Regarding the “is human nature good or bad” question, I maintain that it is neutral in terms of such a value judgement. I would say that human nature does have a propensity to unfold its possibilities, and depending on what values and attributes a person aquires those might in a dualistic value system be judged either tending toward “good” or “bad.” I however do not see any particular human separated in fact, as distinct from appearance, from a continuum of awarenss. If you are inclined to philosophy, you might read in regard to this idea *Wholeness and the Implicate Order *by David Bohm, or The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object by F. Merrell-Wolff.

It might be said that Good/Bad is an intellectual fragmentation and predominantly a left brain perception, and does not include the right brain wholeness accounting that our culture studiously ignores, yet is waking up to. It is in this area of interpretation that vital aspects of the Fall and the Redemption are not accounted for and are, by my lights, misunderstood. In fact, most of rote religion short of mystical experience may fall into this catagory, even mystical experiences yet being misunderstood by dint of rote religious adherence.

As to morals, the word itself originates with the meaning “usage” or “custom” and only in religious contexts aquires the need for being regarded in terms of absolute. The simplest morality, as far as I can see, is the Golden Rule in its two forms. Those assume the “one in Christ” as a reality, whether the other thinks they are that or not. such a stance also functionally ends argumentation other than theoretical considerations in the minds of those who like to contend nits of meaning that are linguistic contortions as distinct from practical acts. Any “real” moral system in terms of function assumes reciprocity and commonality. This ethic predates most religions, whether it is given Divine attribution or not. The only real standard, as far as I can see, is the feeling of Self, both owned and attributed to others as being equal.

As to suffering, it may be useful to distinguish it from pain. suffering, as I undersand it, it the emotional turbulence associated with stories *about *pain relative to the feeling of oneself. United with Christ, I would guess that one might yet feel pain, but not suffer, as there would be no need to construe stories about pain. It would simply be felt and not carried by emotional turbulence into the ralm of suffering. That would provide in the case of the volunteer victims a status of exemplary clarity in the face of difficulty.

As to the “next,” I am always heartened byt the statement from Franklin Jones that “This is *always already *the next world.” Also, there may be good mataphysical reason to understand that God as the eternal unchanging God does not suffer, as suffering is a temporal phenomenon. We generally attribute timelessness to God, so some other dynamic might better be invoked in this regard. This as well questions God as being a personal agent in the sense we understand each other to be such.

 

[Spock]

That’s not difficult. Years ago, while working as an emergency medical technician, we came upon the scene of a teenage girl who, while riding her bicycle, had been hit by a motorist in a car. (Like you, I’m not blaming he machine! ) Her left leg was bent sideways. Both bones in her lower leg were snapped in two. Straightening her leg in order to get her to go into the ambulance without causing more damage would have caused her much pain. I would not want her - or anybody - to straighten my leg and cause me that much pain. Based on that, then, what should I do? Leave her there with the hope that someone else will handle it? Or, call someone else to do something, and wait? Or, cause the pain and get her to the hospital?

You can argue all you want about matters extraneous to the situation at hand, just as I could in your scenario from GR+, but, by the letter of the GR-, I should not cause her the pain.

This analysis is not deep enough.

First, I don’t argue against the proper usage of the GR+. I already agreed that in some situations you are supposed to use your best judgment, and perform as you would like others perform if you were in a certain predicament.

In this scenario, you should consider the following possibilities. When someone is in dire need of help, and is able to articulate her wishes, those wishes should be obeyed, if you are certain that she is in the full command of her faculties. If she wishes to be left alone to die, that is her prerogative.

If she cannot do so, then you do whatever is the best for her, according to your best judgment. If you are unqualified to render proper assistence, then the best line of reasoning leads to call someone who is qualified.

In you scenario, this is not the case. You were qualified. To say that you would not want to get help - which will cause temporary pain, but allow the proper treatment administered in a hospital is nonsense. If that were the actual case, you would deduce that she is not in the position to make a sound decision. Temporary pain or permanent disfigurement is an easy dilemma to solve.

Once again, I don’t argue with the “spirit” of either the GR+ or the GR-. GR+ is easier to pervert. You example of how to pervert GR- is insufficient.

All I wanted was a simply answer, not a lengthy debate on the efficacy of property distribution.

Some questions cannot be answered with a sound-bite.

But, I’m pretty sure that I could get away scot-free from just about any crime that I would want to commit. Grand larceny theft would certainly serve my interests better than adhering to some stupid Golden Rule. In fact, my Golden Rule is a bit different. It says, “He who has the Gold, makes the Rules!”

Yes, that would be the typical short-term reasoning. And I seriously doubt that you could get away from “just about any crime”, though criminals usually don’t believe that they will be caught. But, nevertheless, many people use “your” version of the Golden Rule. They run over anyone else, just to pursue their own goals. And they are not necessarily “injured”, they are simply arrogant and selfish. Why did God not instill his values in them? Where is the “natural law” in their “heart”?

Of course.

I should have known better than to ask it, I guess. Now, can you give me some secular reasoning why you think that all possible intelligent races (no matter what genetic predisposition they might have) would arrive to the same set of desirable behavior? The Catholic answer is easy to guess. But I am interested in some secular reasoning, if there is any.

You’re not thinking. You are extrapolating from the particular to the general. Because a certain set of people within a population, such as the ruling class, impose their rules and beliefs on that population, does not necessarily mean that the population all believed the same way from birth. We have seen the effects of indoctrination in our own lifetimes.

Absolutely! This is precisely my point. You and I and everyone else has been indoctrinated through our formative years. Our value system is “forced” upon us, by the surroundings we have been exposed to.

Going back to the medieval Japanese society, even those who were oppressed believed that the Emperor was of divine origin, he had the mandate of heaven, and could institute any kind of oppressive society. After all, you don’t question God, why would they? And their society was fundamentally different, it was based on the forceful rule of the strong ones, and meek acceptance by the oppressed ones.

What are you asking here?

I said that the GR- can be substantiated by mathematics, as an optimal strategy based upon game theory. To that you replied that game theory could be used to substantiate genocide. I seriously doubt that, and I am a mathematician, well versed in operations research, game theory, etc. If you are another mathematician, you already know that. If you are not, all you have to do is invest about 4-5 years in college education, and then you will see what I mean.

 

[Spock]

To both Rookie and Detales.

I doubt that human nature can be described as predominantly good or bad. We all have a propensity to behave either way. The problem is quite complicated. We tend to form groups (family, relatives, tribe, nation, etc… and we feel a higher level of “belonging” to those who are closer to us.

Essentially we divide “humans” into two categories, “us” and “them”. Those who belong in the “us” group, we treat quite differently than those who belong to the “them” group. This could be analyzed in detail, possibly by sociologists and psychologists, but I am neither.

If you would have any specific questoin, which I can answer, I will glady attempt to do so.

 

[JDaniel]

This analysis is not deep enough.

First, I don’t argue against the proper usage of the GR+. I already agreed that in some situations you are supposed to use your best judgment, and perform as you would like others perform if you were in a certain predicament.

In this scenario, you should consider the following possibilities. When someone is in dire need of help, and is able to articulate her wishes, those wishes should be obeyed, if you are certain that she is in the full command of her faculties. If she wishes to be left alone to die, that is her prerogative.

If she cannot do so, then you do whatever is the best for her, according to your best judgment. If you are unqualified to render proper assistence, then the best line of reasoning leads to call someone who is qualified.

In you scenario, this is not the case. You were qualified. To say that you would not want to get help - which will cause temporary pain, but allow the proper treatment administered in a hospital is nonsense. If that were the actual case, you would deduce that she is not in the position to make a sound decision. Temporary pain or permanent disfigurement is an easy dilemma to solve.

Once again, I don’t argue with the “spirit” of either the GR+ or the GR-. GR+ is easier to pervert. You example of how to pervert GR- is insufficient.

Some questions cannot be answered with a sound-bite.

Yes, that would be the typical short-term reasoning. And I seriously doubt that you could get away from “just about any crime”, though criminals usually don’t believe that they will be caught. But, nevertheless, many people use “your” version of the Golden Rule. They run over anyone else, just to pursue their own goals. And they are not necessarily “injured”, they are simply arrogant and selfish. Why did God not instill his values in them? Where is the “natural law” in their “heart”?

I should have known better than to ask it, I guess. Now, can you give me some secular reasoning why you think that all possible intelligent races (no matter what genetic predisposition they might have) would arrive to the same set of desirable behavior? The Catholic answer is easy to guess. But I am interested in some secular reasoning, if there is any.

Absolutely! This is precisely my point. You and I and everyone else has been indoctrinated through our formative years. Our value system is “forced” upon us, by the surroundings we have been exposed to.

Going back to the medieval Japanese society, even those who were oppressed believed that the Emperor was of divine origin, he had the mandate of heaven, and could institute any kind of oppressive society. After all, you don’t question God, why would they? And their society was fundamentally different, it was based on the forceful rule of the strong ones, and meek acceptance by the oppressed ones.

I said that the GR- can be substantiated by mathematics, as an optimal strategy based upon game theory. To that you replied that game theory could be used to substantiate genocide. I seriously doubt that, and I am a mathematician, well versed in operations research, game theory, etc. If you are another mathematician, you already know that. If you are not, all you have to do is invest about 4-5 years in college education, and then you will see what I mean.

I have already spent more time than that in college to the point that my ex-wife used to call me a “professional student!” Anyway, I have other challanges I’m trying to hurdle right now. I believe that I have proven conclusively that all of this is merely an illusion. Mathematics, philosophy, science, religion: all an illusion.

Think about. You give me an argument that you think is irrefutable. I read your argument and believe - without seemingly any doubt - that you are completely insane. Because there’s no way a sane person could believe that. Likewise, I give you an irrefutable argument and you think I’m insane. No one can reach anything close to something called “agreement.” The inability of human beings to reach agreement is an absurdity that causes me to sense that all of this is an illusion.

How do you deal with it?

jd

 

[Spock]

I have already spent more time than that in college to the point that my ex-wife used to call me a “professional student!” Anyway, I have other challanges I’m trying to hurdle right now. I believe that I have proven conclusively that all of this is merely an illusion. Mathematics, philosophy, science, religion: all an illusion.

Think about. You give me an argument that you think is irrefutable. I read your argument and believe - without seemingly any doubt - that you are completely insane. Because there’s no way a sane person could believe that. Likewise, I give you an irrefutable argument and you think I’m insane. No one can reach anything close to something called “agreement.” The inability of human beings to reach agreement is an absurdity that causes me to sense that all of this is an illusion.

How do you deal with it?

I don’t think you are insane. As to how do I deal with it? I shrug and move on. It was nice to talk to you. Have a good day.

 

[JDaniel]

I don’t think you are insane. As to how do I deal with it? I shrug and move on. It was nice to talk to you. Have a good day.

If a person in my present situation was to ask you how you prove to yourself that you exist, could you? Do you have a concise concept that could be written here? This is very discouraging to me. I’m sinking into apathy.

jd