Fido, Thank you so much for the interesting reply. I smell utalitarianism mixed with evolutionary anthropology in your response, so let me be more clear on what i have in mind ; i am talking about goodness in the abstract term, or how we imagine goodness now, for example, if you are in a dark alley, and you find a man with a million dollars' bag, goodness tell you that the (right) thing to do is not to kill him and take his money (although you know that no one would know about your crime) ... My question is : Why do we perceive Not Killing The Man And Stealing His Money to be a (Good) thing ( as opposite to evil ) ... Why do we consider it the (Right) thing to do ?

Thank you for indulging my ignorance,

newspeak

first you must determine your core values before determining right or wrong IMO.

if humans do not make decisions using logic (they make emotional decisions, largely unconscious) - right and wrong should apply to societal laws leaving personal decisions up to individuals and not to all thoughts and individual decisions - they should be able to do whatever they wish as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon

(judgement about right and wrong should only be in the realm of laws)

and by design humans will inevitably break laws due to their biological decision making processes

You are mixing your apples and oranges... We get our morals from ccommunity... The object of law is to allow communities to live together as nation states, which would be impossible if each community would be defending its rights and defending against its wrong..

Further, you think of rights as individual when you say: personal, they do, they wish, and rights of others... Rights and freedoms are far older than the conception of the individual as a philosophical entity, or a legal entity... Communities exist to defend rights, and no one would belong where their rights are not defended... Individualism, and treating people as individuals under law has been a disaster... There is nothing to prevent the intelligent from joining together by choice to plunder so many individuals all the time calling them a herd... It seems obvious that we are individuals, but what seems obvious is only apparant... There is not the finest line between the individual and his society, but the conception of the individual lays every individual open to plundering and injury since he cannot mount a natural defense other than that one offered by law, which is perverted by the very united powers arrayed against him... When the man goes against the corporation the man always loses...

first you must determine your core values before determining right or wrong IMO.

if humans do not make decisions using logic (they make emotional decisions, largely unconscious) - right and wrong should apply to societal laws leaving personal decisions up to individuals and not to all thoughts and individual decisions - they should be able to do whatever they wish as long as the rights of others are not infringed upon

Well I would have to say that "right and wrong" to me is no more then an odd concept that humans use to be able to guide themselves emotionally throughout their life, "Right and wrong" is created by morals, emotions, ideas, intentions, and everything else that may influence any decisions. (of course including things like cultures and such)





If humans were to use logic and not allow unnecessary things influence choices wouldn't that drastically change how the world would even be today? Not only would it be different but we would also more than likely be much more developed by now. Sadly though that would go against human nature.

this appears more like a rant, but I will respond to the points you do make;

1. community does not determine right or wrong - religion and personal belief systems as well as local, national, and international ethical debate determine laws at varying levels

2. "Further, you think of rights as individual when you say: personal, they do, they wish, and rights of others" - what does this mean? please check your grammer

3. individual rights are meant to protect the individual against corruption by those in power

rational thinking is part of the symbolic representation of reality created in the minds of philosophers

just like free-will, it only exists within abstract concepts

Sir; I don't know where to begin with you; but I will say the philosophical conception of the individual and the legal conception of the individual are actaully quite recent in human history. As for my grammer, I was copying you word for word.. But try to understand that we have a lesson before us, of Israel bombing a whole bunch of women and children.. While this seems wrong it accords with the previous conception of the individual as representative of his group, so that even when you cannot find the guilty individual, you can hold the group responsible and punish all as you are able.. Your last statement is ignorant, so I will let it go at that because I do not wish to abuse you... If you are young I may have said the same thing at your age...

get over youself and simply present your points in clear fashion so that they can be debated!

1. yes it's true that individual rights are relatively recent - what conclusion are you trying to draw from this fact?

2. I was referring to the grammer in the statement I paraphrased

3. "this seems wrong it accords with the previous conception of the individual as representative of his group" - what are you referring to? What previous conception?

Personally, I see no justification for Israel's bombing of civilians in Gaza - it makes me very angry.

Self defense is justified, but this would only require that Israel go in with the help of the international community and eliminate those rockets and find those responsible - nothing more.

There's no reason to kill civilians for the crimes of a few militants - this will only lead to more rockets.

Mara...Even inthe area of international law, such behavior is beyond legal...It is accepted for a number of reasons, none of which bears much scrutiny... But, if you look at people living in natural societies, they did not just seem more moral, but they were more moral, and they did not just seem more savage, but were more savage... Even they would rather have adopted a child than kill the child; and they all had what the Jews and Arabs have not, and that is a way of managing peace eventually through intermarriage... The differences of religion preclude that solution, and the jews have always shown they prefer to interbreed rather than breed out of their group... I have seen a whole text book of genetic illnesses affecting only diaspera Jews from around the Mediteranian Sea... There small communities could not support their generations, but that did not let that stop them...Even in America, only Jews were allowed to marry first cousins... They have a community, and the community justifies almost any behavior framed as in support of the community..Even if it appears savage... Which it often is... Community is morality.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~David Friedman"

I truthfully could not word any type of response to that area of subject at the moment :nonooo:

It was the direct use of force line, and the statement following... which I took to be a response to the line about there being no reason to kill civilians... It is just that given that morality is from community, there is reason, and justification evenif it does not survive the first objective look... It is not likely to succeed, and likely to justify more violence, and given that those people have not got the means to resolve the issue in peace so they cannot expect peace, and we suffer the specticle, while they suffer their fates... The survival of ones community justifies vengeance, but it also justifies community control because there is group responsibility...

No, what i wrote underneath that quote was simply meaning I don't feel like starting on the "war" subject and simply have nothing to say personaly on that subject.

In matters of war, I have nothing personal against any nation's people, and I therefore hope for their health. I realize that in most situations, it is the leaders of my country who make war on the leaders of their countries. It is my hope also that they realize this as well, and hold no animosity toward myself (even though they don't know me personally).

I'm not speaking of the targets, I'm speaking of the greatest perpetuation of aggression. And leaders of nations most assuredly are the target of perpetuated aggression. We've heard plenty of aggressive language suggesting that we must kill Osamma bin Laden... but I've not heard any at all suggestion that we must kill innocent children and women.