Goodness; the good person; and true justice

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2009 05:53 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;87599 wrote:
you can call them ideologies if you like but at the end of the day it's just some power freak brainwashing the gullible.


That statement is poetry. I like it, whether or not it's true.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 7 Jan, 2010 07:46 pm
@deepthot,
I am now in the process of writing a new book, which I will entitle A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS: with applications to issues.

I would like to ask your help on this project. What do you believe I should include? What major topics should be analyzed? What would you say are essential chapters to cover?

Thank you in advance for your ideas on how to make this a book truly worth reading.

As it is, I am writing it as a dialog among a group of people, like a conversation; it has improved readability but it tends to fragment, or distract from the logical thread exhibited in my "college text" which moves from basic assumptions to meta-ethics, to prescrptive principles (theorems), to applications ...applications such as to: the waging of war as a violation of the means-ends relationship.
Should I just incorporate all of this into the new book, just saying it in more popular language, and abbreviating it?

It seems that if I aim for the academics, the philosophers, I "snow" the layperson readers, the person in the street. And if I go for the latter as my audience, I cannot argue sufficiently to suit the philosophers, for then the 'regualr' guys and gals get bored. That is a tension I encounter.


Should I jut forget all about it, and let the writers of stories for children's books be the teachers of ethics and morals? Or is what I am attempting to do going to supply material for them to weave into their stories and illustrations?

I could use a little motivational help here -- the field is so vast. I'd like to know what I should really emphasize?

Perhaps I'll end up putting it out in serial form, a few chapters at a time -- at the risk of losing the continuity. For if this runs to volumes the question arises who will bother to (take the time to) read it? Is there an audience for it at all? My wife says "nobody cares" enough about ethics; that most people are too focused on just satisfying their basic needs, and in the little time they have after that, in spectator sports or games, or solving a crossword puzzle.

What say you?


 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 09:01 pm
@deepthot,
When I saw this thread-starting post, I was struck by the fact that you were, in part, answering a question that I have been thinking to ask in a thread: "For those of you in this forum who do not believe that religion is necessary (or even beneficial), what do you propose as an alternative means for establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society?"
So, even though I believe that the promulgation of an evolved form of religion (the Baha'i Faith) is the best means for ensuring the advancement of civilization, I will offer a few ideas regarding the lesson below from the point of view of a former science teacher:
deepthot;65870 wrote:
'good'? Take a chair, for example.


At this point, if you are dealing with a classroom of young people, it is important to get them involved in thinking about the answer to the question. So, ask them to contribute their ideas about what makes a chair a good chair. (That is, let them identify the properties of a good chair.)


Quote:
You have a picture in your mind as to what features a chair could have; and if this chair has all those qualities you'd likely call it a good one. So a 'good chair' has everything a chair is supposed to have. Of course, everyone might have a different picture with different qualities in mind, but the basic idea is that what makes anything good is for it to be 'all there' under the name you put on it.
Perhaps it would make more sense to say, "what makes it good is for it to have all or most of, the properties that a chair should have."

Quote:
Now that we know what the word "good" means, we can ask the question about what makes a good person.
"Who is a good person? Well, it would be someone who[has] all the attributes that a person ought to have. That person, it is fair to say, would have moral value, would avoid selfishness. Let's describe such a person and see if you would call such an individual 'good.'"

Does my edit make the concept clearer without diminishing the meaning that you wish to convey? (BTW, I have begun reading from the Hartman Institute website: HOME PAGE.)

Quote:
That person is one who educates himself, or herself, to do what is truly in his self-interest and who is able to see that "selfishness" is something distinctly different than "self-interest." Allow me to explain. Wisdom is knowing others and enlightenment is knowing yourself [The point to notice is that ethics is not just 'a matter of opinion,' and 'totally subjective,' as some would try to tell you. It can be objective and universal.]
I fear that your "explanation" really just introduces 2 new concepts (wisdom and enlightenment) that you know to be related to your topic, but which will be either new or practically opaque to your audience. You would do better to give concrete examples of selfishness and self-interest that illustrate your point.

Quote:
As Dr. Stephen Pinker says, "In many areas of life two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other's children in danger, and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other's child drown while we file our nails, or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys."
Again, this section would be more meaningful to your audience if it related to examples that they have experience of.

Quote:
"Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we'd both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish." (emphasis added.) It's in the nature of things that if we educate ourselves enough we come to develop this insight about our true self-interest. We reach this understanding. Does that make sense?
Quote:

To summarize my suggestion, the lesson you have written would be OK for a college age class, but if you really wish to have it work for younger students, you need to engage the students in the process of discovery of these principles. To truly make moral behavior a part of their lives, the plan should include a number of activities in which they are given a chance to make moral choices, even if only in a game. Better than a game would be a project of some sort that would be carried out by the class.

As an example, you might want to look at the Full Circle Learning paradigm that has worked so well in a number of difficult social environments: Full-Circle Learning

Quote:
{The plan is to get this lesson and its concepts taught in elementary and high-schools as part of their standard curriculum. Can you facilitate this project? Can you restate it in simpler language that even a child would understand? Can you provide an illustration, some imagery, or a story?}

Comments?


---------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------

deepthot;118372 wrote:
I am now in the process of writing a new book, which I will entitle A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS: with applications to issues.

I would like to ask your help on this project. What do you believe I should include? What major topics should be analyzed? What would you say are essential chapters to cover?

Thank you in advance for your ideas on how to make this a book truly worth reading.

As it is, I am writing it as a dialog among a group of people, like a conversation; it has improved readability but it tends to fragment, or distract from the logical thread exhibited in my "college text" which moves from basic assumptions to meta-ethics, to prescrptive principles (theorems), to applications ...applications such as to: the waging of war as a violation of the means-ends relationship.
Should I just incorporate all of this into the new book, just saying it in more popular language, and abbreviating it?

It seems that if I aim for the academics, the philosophers, I "snow" the layperson readers, the person in the street. And if I go for the latter as my audience, I cannot argue sufficiently to suit the philosophers, for then the 'regualr' guys and gals get bored. That is a tension I encounter.


Should I jut forget all about it, and let the writers of stories for children's books be the teachers of ethics and morals? Or is what I am attempting to do going to supply material for them to weave into their stories and illustrations?

I could use a little motivational help here -- the field is so vast. I'd like to know what I should really emphasize?

Perhaps I'll end up putting it out in serial form, a few chapters at a time -- at the risk of losing the continuity. For if this runs to volumes the question arises who will bother to (take the time to) read it? Is there an audience for it at all? My wife says "nobody cares" enough about ethics; that most people are too focused on just satisfying their basic needs, and in the little time they have after that, in spectator sports or games, or solving a crossword puzzle.

What say you?

I suggest that you collaborate with a good story-teller/story writer. Rather than (or in addition to) a dialogue, illustrate your points with stories that are from real life situations.
 
sword
 
Reply Fri 5 Feb, 2010 09:56 pm
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;125339 wrote:
"So, even though I believe that the promulgation of an evolved form of religion (the Baha'i Faith) is the best means for ensuring the advancement of civilization"

The idea of "an evolved form of religion" is not new at all. Pantheists, buddhists and gnostics have always taught that you can attain your own salvation by means of "self-evolution". Of course that sounds very attractive for an ego that has never experienced the humble submission a true believer experiences before his Creator, who being the One who made us, really knows better what`s best for us.
 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Sat 6 Feb, 2010 05:18 pm
@sword,
sword;125351 wrote:
1CellOfMany said: "So, even though I believe that the promulgation of an evolved form of religion (the Baha'i Faith) is the best means for ensuring the advancement of civilization"

The idea of "an evolved form of religion" is not new at all. Pantheists, buddhists and gnostics have always taught that you can attain your own salvation by means of "self-evolution". Of course that sounds very attractive for an ego that has never experienced the humble submission a true believer experiences before his Creator, who being the One who made us, really knows better what`s best for us.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 03:35 am
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;125339 wrote:
When I saw this thread-starting post, I was struck by the fact that you were, in part, answering a question that I have been thinking to ask in a thread: "For those of you in this forum who do not believe that religion is necessary (or even beneficial), what do you propose as an alternative means for establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society?".....
At this point, if you are dealing with a classroom of young people, it is important to get them involved in thinking about the answer to the question. So, ask them to contribute their ideas about what makes a chair a good chair. (That is, let them identify the properties of a good chair.)


...Does my edit make the concept clearer without diminishing the meaning that you wish to convey? (BTW, I have begun reading from the Hartman Institute website: HOME PAGE.)

...You would do better to give concrete examples of selfishness and self-interest that illustrate your point.... more meaningful to your audience if it related to examples that they have experience of.

[...To summarize my suggestion, the lesson you have written would be OK for a college age class, but if you really wish to have it work for younger students, you need to engage the students in the process of discovery of these principles. To truly make moral behavior a part of their lives, the plan should include a number of activities in which they are given a chance to make moral choices, even if only in a game. Better than a game would be a project of some sort that would be carried out by the class.

As an example, you might want to look at the Full Circle Learning paradigm that has worked so well in a number of difficult social environments: Full-Circle Learning ....-------- Post added 02-05-2010 at 10:12 PM ----------
I suggest that you collaborate with a good story-teller/story writer. Rather than (or in addition to) a dialogue, illustrate your points with stories that are from real life situations.


Thank you, 1CellOfMany.

You have made a really-constructive contribution. You're a good student and a superb teacher. I haved decided that my essay is aimed at an audience of college-age or older. For younger peole your suggestions are more than excellent!! I've already written the booklet of which I spoke in the post preceeding yours. Much of it I have learned from fellow truth-seekers at this Forum. I even incorporated in it some of the earlier posts in this very threa, as well as a couple of other threads I initiated here. I value your opinion of the booklet, as well as that of other forum discussants here. I will post a link to it soon. The essay runs to 29 double-sided pages (large type font). I have it as a PDF file. I'll attach the link to my signature eventually.

And thank you profoundly for telling us about the Full-Circle Learning activities in Southern California and in Africa. The teachers and trainers there seem to have independently stumbled up the very principles I am attempting to advance in my ethics writings. It's a nice synchronicity.

You are correct that I am model-building a secular Ethics that has the potential of "establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society" as you put it. {Many atheists and agnostics like it until they find out I believe in God -as I define it - and do feel that I believe that religion serves a useful purpose - provided it is an enlightened religion, not a primitive or tribal one with 11th century concepts dominating it.}

Why aren't you still a science teacher?

I am very grateful for your positive feedback and your appreciation of my humble scribblings. I really am. Thanks agin.
 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 09:30 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;125685 wrote:
Thank you, 1CellOfMany.
And thank you profoundly for telling us about the Full-Circle Learning activities in Southern California and in Africa. The teachers and trainers there seem to have independently stumbled up the very principles I am attempting to advance in my ethics writings. It's a nice synchronicity.

You are correct that I am model-building a secular Ethics that has the potential of "establishing and maintaining the foundations of a civilized society" as you put it. {Many atheists and agnostics like it until they find out I believe in God -as I define it - and do feel that I believe that religion serves a useful purpose - provided it is an enlightened religion, not a primitive or tribal one with 11th century concepts dominating it.}

Why aren't you still a science teacher?

I am glad to have been of assistance in your worthy endeavor! I agree with your evaluation that religion which developed in former ages and stages of civilization is not well suited to the current age. I am the follower of the Baha'i Faith, which marks the year 1844 as its beginning, and which speaks very much to an age when science and technology are advancing exponentially faster than in past ages. The author of the Full Circle Learning curriculum was directly inspired and informed by the Baha'i Writings. IMHO, the Baha'i Revelation has had many unseen influences on society already in that, before their general acceptance in society, it advocated such principles as the equality of women and men, the oneness of humanity, the equality of the races, the need for universal education, the rejection of superstition and the pursuit of scientific inquiry. Check it out at: Bahai Faith | Baha'i Faith | United States Official Website.

As to why I am no longer a science teacher, I can only say that I had a bad experience and did not perform well at my first teaching post, and so, 20 years ago, I gave it up.
 
sword
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 08:05 pm
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;125535 wrote:
Sword, it appears that you are confusing two concepts with one another: When I used the term "an evolved form of religion" I was not speaking of "attaining ... salvation by means of 'self-evolution'".


I d` rather not use the word "evolution" but progression because evolution has to do with pagan pantheist world views that have nothing to do with a truly biblical perspective. By the way there can be no more new religions:
Galatians 1:7-9

7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 01:43 am
@deepthot,
This thread is becoming digressed from its original intent.

The issue is what is the essence of Social Ethics? What are the character traits of 'the (morally) good person? Can you agree that 'We stand or fall together'? Are you ready, as some of us are, to apply this to the entire planet, Earth?


Those who want to continue discussing religion might consider moving the discussion over to the two religious forums....
 
sword
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 09:40 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;126038 wrote:
This thread is becoming digressed from its original intent.

The issue is what is the essence of Social Ethics? What are the character traits of 'the (morally) good person? Can you agree that 'We stand or fall together'? Are you ready, as some of us are, to apply this to the entire planet, Earth?


Those who want to continue discussing religion might consider moving the discussion over to the two religious forums....



Talking about morality without religion is like talking about life without oxygen.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 08:21 pm
@sword,
sword;126300 wrote:
Talking about morality without religion is like talking about life without oxygen.


That has been the case in the past. I (who am intoxicated with God) am working to develop a secular ethics, for I believe all the agnostics and atheists of the world -- and all those with contradictory and confrontational, exclusionary religions -- need an Ethics too.


So please do not divert this thread into another squabble over vague, undefined conceptions of God, and which rites and celebrations are the best.
 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 10:01 pm
@deepthot,
deepthot;65921 wrote:


...We are still fellow-sufferers. We are still connected in so many ways., connected to one another; although many of us are still not conscious of that fact. They lack awareness. At our inner core, we ARE aware of it. That's why it is to our benefit that we come to know our inner Self, come to see the interdependence, the connections.



I said, early in the post, that something is "good" if it has it all. That is, if it has every quality that you suppose things-of-that-sort to have, you will speak of it as good. But what if it has less than all? Then it is "valuable." Then we have other value words, other adjectives, to describe it:
.
.
.
So whether something is 'bad' or 'good' all depends upon the name we put on it. A good nag is a bad horse. A bad residence could be 'a good slum dwelling.' The gift of the optimist is to name things so we can call them "good.". Optimism is a wonderful quality to have. It's an asset. Pessimism is a lack of vision. It's a deficit. The pessimist is out of kilter and is the killer of hope and encouragement. We need more optimists in this world. Every true realist has to be part optimist.)


For further clarification on many of these concepts, see my treatise entitled ETHICS: A College Course, Here, safe to open, is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3

Also, you may want to check out a version of it for the non-philosopher, for the layman. It is more readable. Its title is LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. You will find it Here:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd

A thought regarding Intrinsic value: Even though one may perceive that a particular person has a unique value to one, as in "How can we tell when someone is I-valuing something? They focus; give it their attention, and come to identify with it. If they I-value a person they get involved with that person. They see qualities in the person that others, who aren't so close, don't see. To illustrate, it is the way many of us felt about our mother when we small children. That is an example of Intrinsic valuation.", I believe that Hartman intended that every human on earth has Intrinsic value, whether we are interested in them or not. We might say that, "person A has E value to me in so far as his characteristics match those of the ideal employee in the position for which I am interviewing him," but regardless of his E value in that context, any person who comes in off the street has I value because he or she is a person! In the same example, the employer's beliefs about what characteristics an employee should have to work in the position that is to be filled have S value only in so far as a person who fits those characteristics is actually a good fit for the position. By the same token, the blueprint of a house has S value to the degree that a house built to those exact specifications has sufficient E value to a potential buyer that the sale will bring a decent profit. If the blueprint has doors that are only 4 feet tall, or a staircase that is extremely steep, or some other such characteristic that does not have E value to a buyer, then the blueprint is lacking in S value. But, in the end it is the buyer, who, in himself has I value due to being a person and one who "values". This is the meaning of the hierarchy of values, as I see it:

All People have Intrinsic value. This value is infinite because all lesser values (in this model) come from people who define them. (Hartman also suggested that things might hold I value if we relate to them as we do to a person, as in the case of the Queen and the crown jewels, in that she holds the jewels in trust, and they are a symbol of the nation.)

People hold those concepts of things, those lists of characteristics of what, say, a good house or a good salesman is. It is from comparison with those characteristics that the Extrinsic value of an instance of the category is determined.

[I may be fuzzy on this, but I think that:] Systematic value can be used to describe a set of characteristics that a person holds in their mind to describe a category. I may think that a good car salesman is a person who will not take "no" for an answer, and who uses high pressure tactics to "close the deal." This character set that I have in my mind has low systemic value in the context of society (people will waste their money on things they don't need, they will have regrets about their purchase, etc.) and in the context of my business (people will warn others not to go to that dealer to buy a car, "They pressured me into buying this Pinto!") Again, people, who have Intrinsic value, are the determiners of the S value as well.

(I think the model [in terms of E values] may break down at the point where one can say, "all of these structures fit all of my criteria for 'house', but there are other criteria that I have that make a house a 'good' house, like having a fireplace and a jacuzzi, and a patio with an outdoor kitchen, etc." That is, to merely say that something is "good" because it fits the criteria for the concept of the category is not sufficient, as there may be specific "extra criteria" that are valued in themselves, but are not considered germane to defining the category.)

What do you think?
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 10:03 am
@deepthot,
#0 uhmmmmm, this is no different than what Jesus preached, nor the nobility of knight hood.

There's an ancient anecdote about an old man in ancient greece at the olympic. People would laugh and ridecule him as he fumbled his way throught the stadium in search for a seat, and noone would offer him 1. Only when he reached the spartans they would rise to offer him their seat, even those of his age or older. The other states would applaud this action whereupon the old man utterd: Everybody knows how to act, but only the spartans act upon it.

Imo it shows that if indifference has no consequenses / no punishment, people will choose the easy way out.

We can teach all we want, but if you can shrug off the teaching without consequenses we will do so.
 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Fri 12 Feb, 2010 09:11 pm
@HexHammer,
After reading again from the Hartman Institute website, I see that my analysis is far from what Axiology describes. Systemic valuation is binary: an instance either is or is not a member of a class. Obviously I had better do my homework before attempting to write an essay!
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 03:23 am
@1CellOfMany,
1CellOfMany;127296 wrote:
A thought regarding Intrinsic value: Even though one may perceive that a particular person has a unique value to one, as in "How can we tell when someone is I-valuing something? They focus; give it their attention, and come to identify with it. If they I-value a person they get involved with that person. They see qualities in the person that others, who aren't so close, don't see. To illustrate, it is the way many of us felt about our mother when we small children. That is an example of Intrinsic valuation.", I believe that Hartman intended that every human on earth has Intrinsic value, whether we are interested in them or not. We might say that, "person A has E value to me in so far as his characteristics match those of the ideal employee in the position for which I am interviewing him," but regardless of his E value in that context, any person who comes in off the street has I value because he or she is a person! In the same example, the employer's beliefs about what characteristics an employee should have to work in the position that is to be filled have S value only in so far as a person who fits those characteristics is actually a good fit for the position. By the same token, the blueprint of a house has S value to the degree that a house built to those exact specifications has sufficient E value to a potential buyer that the sale will bring a decent profit. If the blueprint has doors that are only 4 feet tall, or a staircase that is extremely steep, or some other such characteristic that does not have E value to a buyer, then the blueprint is lacking in S value. But, in the end it is the buyer, who, in himself has I value due to being a person and one who "values". This is the meaning of the hierarchy of values, as I see it:

All People have Intrinsic value. This value is infinite because all lesser values (in this model) come from people who define them. (Hartman also suggested that things might hold I value if we relate to them as we do to a person, as in the case of the Queen and the crown jewels, in that she holds the jewels in trust, and they are a symbol of the nation.)

People hold those concepts of things, those lists of characteristics of what, say, a good house or a good salesman is. It is from comparison with those characteristics that the Extrinsic value of an instance of the category is determined.

[I may be fuzzy on this, but I think that:] Systematic value can be used to describe a set of characteristics that a person holds in their mind to describe a category. I may think that a good car salesman is a person who will not take "no" for an answer, and who uses high pressure tactics to "close the deal." This character set that I have in my mind has low systemic value in the context of society (people will waste their money on things they don't need, they will have regrets about their purchase, etc.) and in the context of my business (people will warn others not to go to that dealer to buy a car, "They pressured me into buying this Pinto!") Again, people, who have Intrinsic value, are the determiners of the S value as well.

(I think the model [in terms of E values] may break down at the point where one can say, "all of these structures fit all of my criteria for 'house', but there are other criteria that I have that make a house a 'good' house, like having a fireplace and a jacuzzi, and a patio with an outdoor kitchen, etc." That is, to merely say that something is "good" because it fits the criteria for the concept of the category is not sufficient, as there may be specific "extra criteria" that are valued in themselves, but are not considered germane to defining the category.)

What do you think?



Greetings, 1CellOfMany

I was going to say "You get it !" but then the last two paragraphs spoiled it. When you write: "all of these structures fit all of my criteria for 'house', but there are other criteria that I have that make a house a 'good' house, like having a fireplace and a jacuzzi," what you have done there is to shift the concept. It is no longer "a house" (concept C) but rather "a house with a fireplace (concept C-sub-1.1); or "a house with a jacuzzi" (concept C-sub-1.2). This is how the issue of 'weighting' is handles. We say that when the concept has gone from "orange" to "fresh orange" with freshness as the sine qua non, the concept has changed. It's a new one, on a lower level of abstraction; it is more specific -- closer to the concrete world.

Every Extrinsic item has a denumerable set of predicates describing it [in a Predicate Logic], and as you know, so does the set of integers have that measure. Both are indefinitely large in their (potential) intension. Regarding any material object we could potentially always add one more descriptor, in our description of it.

Yes, society may value that salesman systemically while you value him extrinsically [or the converse might prevail.] And yes, from the point-of-view of the unified theory of Ethics, every person is to be valued intrinsically. {A technique in the military cultures of the world is to train the ranks to disvalue individuals (to dis them) to dehumanize them by calling them "monkeys" or "gooks" or "handkerchief heads" or "vermin" or some such epithet. Then when you murder them "it isn't so bad"}.

This is all phenomenology -- Hartman was a student in Husserl's classes. It means that the value dimensions are perspectives; ways of looking at something; degrees of personal involvement with it. The more involved you get, the more you are intrinsically valuing. You might do it with a single chord on the piano. Some people even love a single note more than others. [It takes all kinds to make a world........] My definition of "music" is the Intrinsic valuation of sound - or "Intrinsic sound" (for short.)

In my earlier posts I didn't want to get into these technicalities, lest readers would be frightened off.

I must commend you, 1CellOfMany, as a good student, as a man with an open-mind - in the best sense or the phrase. You have shown a willingness to learn where others are dismissive. Some - I could name - were too busy because they had to study for an exam; they may be forgiven. By all means, one should get his degrees. But awareness of all that Hartman has to teach would prove very, very useful....both to pass courses and in life, for ordering and harmonizing one's own values.

Good work !!

Keep on keeping on...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:23 am
@deepthot,
deepthot;126599 wrote:
That has been the case in the past. I (who am intoxicated with God) am working to develop a secular ethics, for I believe all the agnostics and atheists of the world -- and all those with contradictory and confrontational, exclusionary religions -- need an Ethics too.


The ethics already exist. Since when do we need ethics crafted by you? I can't help but think that my ethics just don't stand up to your personal opinions dictated by your theocracy. So you want to impose them onto me and call them secular. Well good luck with that, but I can already tell you, that you will fail.
 
deepthot
 
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 05:08 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;128160 wrote:
The ethics already exist. Since when do we need ethics crafted by you? I can't help but think that my ethics just don't stand up to your personal opinions dictated by your theocracy. So you want to impose them onto me and call them secular. Well good luck with that, but I can already tell you, that you will fail.


Greetings, Krumple

Would you be so kind as to tell us what are the ethics that you say already exists? Also tell us on what they are founded and how they differ from the Ethics of The Unified Theory.

And where did you get the idea I have a theocracy??

{You already are aware due to our interaction at The Philosophy of Religion Forum that I define "God" as "internal energy - combined with all the Intrinsic Values exponentiated." Do you not also believe in energy? Do you not also subscribe to the high values such as Goodness, Truth, and Beauty; and Humanity and Nature? That is my God. That is how I define it.}

And where did you come by the idea that I am dictating to anyone??? Where or how do you come up with these conclusions? Do you ever read [I mean read carefully] anything I have written? If so it is inconceivable that you could get that impression that I am dictating over or to anyone or that my ethics is based merely upon personal opinion: I have been urging that ethics be facts-based, and that scientific experiments be done; and that it be totally secular rather than religion-based. How in the world do you jump to such conclusions that it is otherwise?

HexHammer writes that Jesus preached some of the same things I'm saying, and implies there's something wrong there. But you aren't committing The Fallacy of Excluded Middle, are you? Just because X advocates Y and Z advocates Y doesn't make X a Z. I'm sure you know that.
 
AntiCHRISTian669
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 02:10 am
@deepthot,
I haven't taken the time to read the whole discussion so I'm not sure if this is mentioned yet. What if good and evil are just concepts? Made up. From a logical stand point 'good and evil' are based on emotions, not morals or standards. In my mind good and evil do not exist. Only right and wrong. There are certain natural laws that humans do not have the right to break. Such as killing for sport, stealing what you haven't earned, or playing on the weakness of others. Those are not "bad" behaviors. Just wrong ones, because they go against the laws of nature. Humans, at least on Earth, are the only one's who can break the laws of nature because of our free will. However I do think animals, as of late, are learning our behaviors and implimenting them. Because all things living are symbiotic and what happens to one of us effects the other. The more concepts humans create for justifyng our behaviors the more we go against nature and the more wrong we become. We are a survivor species, so our inherent selfishness is what makes us behave 'good or evil'. Which without those concepts it would just be right or wrong and we would obey nature.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 07:47 pm
@sword,
sword;126300 wrote:
Talking about morality without religion is like talking about life without oxygen.



I do not have the answers to societies problems but I am afraid that he may be right in a sense. What I am refering to is something that I would have a hard time bringing myself to do. [lie]

Trying to get rid of religion may never hapen as it seems that the human mind is so imaginative that it may never be able to be removed. I do believe that science may need to[lie] find a way to incorperate it into science.

I know that many believe that there is no God but for as long as there has been writen history and before, "it seems that we had to have something. example the sun, moon, animals, men, woman and so on. I also see where it has a use with someone who has no hope at all. I hate to lie but I am not sure that man will advance. What I mean by lieing is to say that you belive in God so that you may be able to teach reason and logic to believers.

I do not have a clue if it would work but I do believe that at least one person in a thousand may come to understand. It is sad that one would have to talk this way.:devilish:
 
deepthot
 
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2010 09:11 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;132110 wrote:
...Trying to get rid of religion may never hapen ...I know that many believe that there is no God but for as long as there has been writen history and before, "it seems that we had to have something. example the sun, moon, animals, men, woman and so on. I also see where it has a use with someone who has no hope at all. I hate to lie but I am not sure that man will advance. What I mean by lieing is to say that you belive in God so that you may be able to teach reason and logic to believers.....


My efforts to put ethics on a sounder, and more logical, basis are not an attempt to get rid of religion. If someone comes to the same place, and they got it from their religious beliefs -- fine ! Great. I just don't think the traditions of the past have done such a good job. So I am offering a new paradigm.

I have now written an Epilogue (10 more pages) which I have sent in an email to you, and which I will be glad to mail to anyone else who has finsihed studying the document as it is now - as can be read by clicking on the link offered in the signature to this post..

As to whether I believe in God, and as to what kind of a god it is, see:
http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/7683-god-can-defined-even-worshipped-adored.html

I would add this however:
I agree with the skeptics that organized religions have caused a lot of damage in human history. There are a few exceptions though, such as Hicksite Quakers; Vedanta; The B'Hai; the Unity Church in the USA. The Unitarian-Universalists. These are okay. They waged no crusades; they are not exclusionist.
The problem with religion is when it excludes others who are of a differing denomination or faith.
Otherwise a religion may actually encourage spirituality. And the spiritual life is something that can be recommended for each and all, as an enhancement and an enrichment of life.
[The best place to continue this discussion is at The Philosophy of Religion Forum, rather than here - where it is a digression from the themes of original post.]
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 04:44:10