Where do we draw the line on what is ethical,, moral or the reverse thereof?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;67625 wrote:

You are using oxymoron's!!

Which oxymorons am I using -- and didn't I get them from something you posted earlier?

[How do you define: "selfish dishonesty"? And if we could have a selfish kind, why not some other kind?]

My point was that we need a few other concepts to fill out the picture in Ethics. "Selfish dishonesty" does not explain enough about humean deviance and immorality. See the Handbook of Symptoms tjat psychiatrist use.

@Fido,

Fido;67641 wrote:

If you look, you might see the similarity of honor, and honesty...We can give to others their due in words as well as in deeds...In our affairs we can speak clearly, and say what we mean, and stand by our words, and not need a lawyer in our hip pocket to twist every word, or maake a federal case out of it...How did society ever survive without the burden of law in the past??? They learned to work things out...They learned to talk about their issues long before they became a matter to kill over... And before spilling blood, they would exchange women in order to unite families, and seal their bonds with shared blood... Now you ask about suicide...I wonder why there is not more of it... Because in our land where money is honor children are taught to put little store in honor... And they are raised as individuals and taught that they have no obligation to others, so there is no context for morality...If one returned the good given by parents by leaving them to shift for themselves in their old age, it is right up there with the great crime of past ages: Paricide...Why not kill strangers and heap dishonor on your family in that fashion??? This is what the individual has come to, what the individual has always been: an outlaw, a dishonorable example of humanity.... So be honest...Let your word be your bond, and weigh fairly all that you do or think...You will find then that little separates you from your primitive past, or all those who risked life and limb to make certain your life...Which is their life...

What about revisiting hate in all its forms, is hate not the seed of evil, and unselfish love in all its forms?.

Try to get and all encompassing definition for these two human attributes and there uses or misuses as adjectives

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;67896 wrote:

What about revisiting hate in all its forms, is hate not the seed of evil, and unselfish love in all its forms?.

Try to get and all encompassing definition for these two human attributes and there uses or misuses as adjectives

Evil is a disvaluation (a downgrading) of Intrinsic Value; and unselfish love is a manifestation of Intrinsic Value.-- which both The Force, and human individuals and commuities can exhibit. May The Force be with you!

Evis is a violation of a human being ...even the abuse of one.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;67896 wrote:

What about revisiting hate in all its forms, is hate not the seed of evil, and unselfish love in all its forms?.

Try to get and all encompassing definition for these two human attributes and there uses or misuses as adjectives

Hate is only the far side of fear...People are just more comfortable with fear because it makes them feel more in control; but it is not honest...

You know; I have lived with fear since I was a child, as most of us have, and some times that fear was excessive...We sometimes invite fear, or put ourselves in fearful situations, and that does not make us hate, perhaps because we cannot perceive of the situation as beyond control... When we hate, it is socially, even while it is considered unsociable...I think it is that there we would sooner be the scary guy rather than the scared guy...And I have found myself hating at times, and nothing is more pitiful and helpless... Nothing is more obnoxious than one preferring hate to reason, or to justice; but we have them...And if the question is, would you rather be Agamemnon dishonoring Achilles, or Achilles weeping at the boats, my answer is neither...I do not want to be a stick figure, or a dead person, or a fictional character...If I feel fear I want to feel it only enough so I find the cause and fix it...I prefer to be dynamic to static...

---------- Post added at 09:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 AM ----------

deepthot;67916 wrote:

Evil is a disvaluation (a downgrading) of Intrinsic Value; and unselfish love is a manifestation of Intrinsic Value.-- which both The Force, and human individuals and commuities can exhibit. May The Force be with you!

Evis is a violation of a human being ...even the abuse of one.

Why bother???Evil is a moral form, just as justice, or truth, or liberty are moral forms.. So it has no being, and only has meaning which is inevitably subjective... We can spend our whole lives defining evil, or good, or justice, or peace...Perhaps Hitler spent his whole existence defining evil...So have many people, and yet it is only a certain meaning... So when you say what evil is you say what evil it to you... Why not preface every statement of evil with: To me, evil is....

@deepthot,

deepthot;67916 wrote:

Evil is a disvaluation (a downgrading) of Intrinsic Value; and unselfish love is a manifestation of Intrinsic Value.-- which both The Force, and human individuals and commuities can exhibit. May The Force be with you!

Evis is a violation of a human being ...even the abuse of one.

I think the Force has two great attributes good and evil, the force created both did it not?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;68188 wrote:

I think the Force has two great attributes good and evil, the force created both did it not?

No, to me [with a nod to Fido] The Force is only Goodness. When two goods are put together in an incoherent way, evil may result - provided, say, one of the good is a good weapon, and the other is a good human being; and the weapon assaults the good human being. (That is one example of how ievil can result.) The Force is energy combined with goodness, which to me means all the high positive values rolled into one.

I do believe a broad consensus can agree on what the high positive values are. So this is objective, and not merely subjective.

Eventually, via education, vast multitudes will agree to accept the best definitions -- the ones which work -- work to make our lives better.

"Lookin' good!!" "Feelin' good!!" --- A quote from the end of the movie, Trading Places.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;68188 wrote:

I think the Force has two great attributes good and evil, the force created both did it not?

Hi Alan,

I would agree with you. I observe both sides in all the people I have ever met. I readily admit to having both. It makes it much easier for me to deal with life, rather than going around pretending that I only one side, or even trying to be only one side. Sometimes I am this, and sometimes I am that. And that is who I am. Like the Taiji symbol illustrates:

http://www.fengshui-magazine.com/Image4.gif

@richrf,

richrf;68400 wrote:

Hi Alan,

I would agree with you. I observe both sides in all the people I have ever met. I readily admit to having both. It makes it much easier for me to deal with life, rather than going around pretending that I only one side, or even trying to be only one side. Sometimes I am this, and sometimes I am that. And that is who I am. Like the Taiji symbol illustrates:

The force is infinitely powerful, not infinitely good, like us it has two sides of its Character. In Isaiah 45 God I create good and I create Evil I god do all these things

The yin yang depiction is a very nice and easy way to see the OBVIOUS duality of creation and existence

To try to equate a human attribute to an Infinite is preposterous

The best we can do about God the infinite is say the FORCE IS ALL THAT

"IS"

God is not a big human or great alien God IS THAT WHICH IS THAT

Peace to you

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;68508 wrote:

The force is infinitely powerful, not infinitely good, like us it has two sides of its Character. In Isaiah 45 God I create good and I create Evil I god do all these things....

To try to equate a human attribute to an Infinite is preposterous

...God IS THAT WHICH IS THAT

Peace to you

Since God is the creativity principle, if anything was created I give God the credit. However, I don't believe evil is created; evil is committed. The commission of evil occurs when two or more goods are put together in an incoherent or transpositional way. For example, a good knife cuts a good man.

Can you set a limit on how many times a person can reflect upon his own reflections? If you can't, then an infinity has been associated with a human being. One of Hartman's five philosophical proofs of the infinite value of a human individual is based upon the logic of this.

As to what I believe that God is, see my recent contribution to the Philosophy of Religion Forum, a thread
which speaks of the Evolution of Religion.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Here is the link to the thread I just mentioned. I wrote the original post there. Also see post #6 in that thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/4745-religion-its-stages-evolution.html
:

@deepthot,

deepthot;69654 wrote:

Since God is the creativity principle, if anything was created I give God the credit. However, I don't believe evil is created; evil is committed. The commission of evil occurs when two or more goods are put together in an incoherent or transpositional way. For example, a good knife cuts a good man.

Can you set a limit on how many times a person can reflect upon his own reflections? If you can't, then an infinity has been associated with a human being. One of Hartman's five philosophical proofs of the infinite value of a human individual is based upon the logic of this.

As to what I believe that God is, see my recent contribution to the Philosophy of Religion Forum, a thread
which speaks of the Evolution of Religion.

---------- Post added at 02:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 PM ----------

Here is the link to the thread I just mentioned. I wrote the original post there. Also see post #6 in that thread:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-religion/4745-religion-its-stages-evolution.html
:

we finally know something de-finite about God...He is the creativity principal... Who would have thunked it...

@Fido,

Fido;69734 wrote:

we finally know something de-finite about God...He is the creativity principal... Who would have thunked it...

Also the love principle; the fellowship and community principle, integrity, beauty, diversity within unity, authenticity, reality, friendship, empathy, et.c, etc. God is goodness. All the high values rolled into one.... along with energy and information: structured energy. Many therems about God follow from this definition. An entire theology can be spun out of it. It is a fertile concept.

I know you care about Love. God is Love. But more than that: God is the love of loves. And the creator of all creativity. God thus is the most valuable entity of which we can conceive. For if anything were more valuable, we would make that into our God.

This though is the Ethics Forum, so let's not get too distracted .......

@Fido,

Fido;69734 wrote:

we finally know something de-finite about God...He is the creativity principal... Who would have thunked it...

No need to use sarcasm be nice it is not hard pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee try

This is how god sees us I think

http://www.geocities.com/losalexspirop/creation.jpg

@deepthot,

deepthot;69827 wrote:

Also the love principle; the fellowship and community principle, integrity, beauty, diversity within unity, authenticity, reality, friendship, empathy, et.c, etc. God is goodness. All the high values rolled into one.... along with energy and information: structured energy. Many therems about God follow from this definition. An entire theology can be spun out of it. It is a fertile concept.

I know you care about Love. God is Love. But more than that: God is the love of loves. And the creator of all creativity. God thus is the most valuable entity of which we can conceive. For if anything were more valuable, we would make that into our God.

This though is the Ethics Forum, so let's not get too distracted .......

That is what God is to you... And if you are willing to accept a subjective definition for an infinite like God, what is the point of talking over the infinites of ethics with you??? In my book that is the larger part of the problem, that people wish to define God, and people want to define virtue, or want to define justice, or want to define ethics when these qualities as infinites resist definition...It is those who define who judge, who teach, who enforce, who regulate, and their actions are finite, and can easily be defined, and judged in light of the damage they do; but after all, their notions as infinites are no more fully defined...

If you would concede that we are looking for something like an objective definition for a quality that we all live our entire lives trying to define, then I might agree... If you will only say: To me, God is; or to me, Justice is, or to me, ethics is; we would be closer to the truth which is that only the most general definition will do for qualities indeterminate...The next time you need God, you will define God in light of the context... The next time you need ethics you will define God in light of the context...The next time you need Justice, you will define justice in light of the context... All these infinites are finally defined by context, but the next situation has entirely different contexts, so the infinite must be redefined...

---------- Post added at 07:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:32 AM ----------

Alan McDougall;69841 wrote:

No need to use sarcasm be nice it is not hard pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeeeeeeeee try

This is how god sees us I think

You are the kind of guy who can get hurt watching an accident...This is a rough business... Ask Socrates, or Jesus, or Gallileo, or NIetzsche.... You read a few people and have no idea how many lie maimed on the battle field of thought...What does it take to be disciplined in ones thoughts, to never give up on a working version of reality, to hold ones nose and pick the corn of truth out the crap of lazy thought??? I don't think I am doing this alone... We will get to it together, or not reach it at all... I have been rummy before; but when I was working, one of my buddies was an ex marine if there is such a thing; and what he did in Vietnam would have made him a seal by today's standards, and he saw a lot of battles, and he came back with severe mental issues, which led to drinking and drug problems...Now; when people would come in all bleary he would be the first to ride them or smack a big piece of iron in their ears with an eight pound sledge...He'd tell them: If I can come in sober, so can you...You ain't any better than me... Now; we have to be hard... Lazy thought gets people killed in real life just as in ironwork...The difference is that some odd joe buys because of a careless lack of follow through in ironwork, and in reality, bad thought kills thousands, even millions...And that should be the judge of all thought...How many people does it kill or maim... Our whole society is built of rotten thought that does not stand up before a question, but it is like a jigsaw puzzle, or a house of cards...It all interlocks, but cannot bear much prodding or probing... Do You have the courage to shake it at its foundations??? Does it matter if it falls on you so long as it falls down??? I don't really want to hurt anybody...Pain is what I want to avoid...But death too, I want to avoid; and that is at the end of rotten thought. So I will attack it...

@Alan McDougall,

Fido Respectfully you do not have the faintest idea of what "Kind of Guy I am" deepthot although I don't like his avatar title seems a likeable person and he should be eased into the harsh reality of strong philosophical debate

Of course for a finite mortal like me to say what an infinite being is or is not is preposterious, much like a cockroach debating human physics

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;70019 wrote:

Fido Respectfully you do not have the faintest idea of what "Kind of Guy I am" deepthot although I don't like his avatar title seems a likeable person and he should be eased into the harsh reality of strong philosophical debate

Of course for a finite mortal like me to say what an infinite being is or is not is preposterious, much like a cockroach debating human physics

Actually; it would make more sense for a cockroach to study physics, since the laws of physics as we understand them apply as well to them... It is not our finity that makes the study of infinite a waste of time... If we cannot possibly know the last thing we cannot say the first thing about them are true...There is no second step because there is no first step...

And you seem like the kind of guy, Al, with respect; Fido

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;63511 wrote:

To a wife of an aboriginal , it is both moral and ethical to eat the brain of her dead husband to keep his essence within herself

Never heard that them abo's resorted to such things, however I think some prion like thingies may be transmitted and cause illnesses, therefore it shouldn't be allowed.

Alan McDougall;63511 wrote:

To me killing a bird gives me a guilty conscience and I feel it as subjectively immoral (I have never killed a bird)

Imo it's extravagant thinking, you live in a society that can afford such ways. If you lived in a very poor village in Africa, you was dependand on a chickenfarm to survive, the chicken farm may even suppor very sick people to buy their medicine, without it they'll die. You wouldn't die, nor any close to you, because you live in a society with good healthcare and other buisnesses that can cover through their taxes.

Alan McDougall;63511 wrote:

Is there a bar that no one will step over, or is it constantly being raised or lowered due to circumstances of the day?

The more extravagant a society becomes, the more weird thinking it will become, as they become less dependant of everyday survival. Nor will they invent ethics and morals that will reflect the needs of countries much below their standard ..such as the fur-emperor's-new-cloth.
Such people are ruled by emotion, and will act upon emotional propaganda, not upon reasoning and logic.

If we forbad all fur in the world, the innuits who kills the seals in a very humane way, they would suffer from the fur-ban, which happend back in the 80'ies, and admittedly the antifur campaigns were never intented to hurt the innuits. Many more innocent people would get hurt from the anti fur campaign.

Stop the mass hysteria!

Alan McDougall;63511 wrote:

These differencing in morals and perceptions of morals might account for most of the troubled history down the annals of human history and suffering

Thought the most was from ambicious leaders, who was greedy and such?

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;63542 wrote:

Then eat your husbands brains when he dies like I do, it is not that easy when you think more deeply about it

Hi from sunny South Africa

If you feel bad about eating brains do not do it. It is not like the person who dies will ever know that his brains were not eaten.
Eating brains is probably a ancient cannibal tradition. Be carefull with [kuru] laughing sickness is no laughing matter so I would have to stay away from eating brains:)

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic;144558 wrote:

If you feel bad about eating brains do not do it. It is not like the person who dies will ever know that his brains were not eaten.
Eating brains is probably a ancient cannibal tradition. Be carefull with [kuru] laughing sickness is no laughing matter so I would have to stay away from eating brains:)

The women suffered more from spongiform encephalopathy whatever mad cow... The men got the meat, and the women got, were forced to eat the nervous system... All that stuff is pretty much in the past...As far as I know...
I've eaten some brains...No one I knew... No animals I had made the acquaintance of...

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;70019 wrote:

...I don't like his avatar title ....

seems a likeable person and he should be eased into the harsh reality of strong philosophical debate

Of course for a finite mortal like me to say what an infinite being is or is not is preposterious, much like a cockroach debating human physics

Alan Grant McDougall: You once wrote this: "
Love conquers all, is the enemy of time, and leads one to merge with the infinite. Hate leads to destruction, its friend is time, and so it must ultimate end in eternal darkness.
Adore, appreciate, esteem, reverence me and prize Me the giver of life show your love by virtue of worship. I am the word of life and the arm of the absolute and lead all to the omega-point."

So I guesswe both engage in the 'preposterous.'

I don't have an "avatar title." I have a nickname. What don't you like about it? Are you implying that I didn't have to think deeply in order to write my five books? Are you indirectly saying that what I post here is thoughtless? I am not paranoid so I'll not take it that way. Do you have any suggestions as to what would be a better nickname that would fit more appropriately?

Perhaps I have encountered harsh philosophical debate......

I once informed Jacob Bronowski of a thesis by Suzanne Langer that I had learned from reading one of her books. He retorted: "She has gone though the labours of an elephant to bring forth a mouse!" It got a big laught from those assembled in the room --- but it didn't deal with the issues she raised.

I find much philosophic discourse to be of that nature ...a clever put-down but not logical reasoning.

Yes, Fido, I do define terms that were formerly considered to be indefinable. Maybe they were ...before I defined them. I find that defining what one means - rither than slinging vague terms around - makes for clarity of thought. ...But that's just me......

And you are right to add "to me" after what I said. However if we all inserted that all the time it would get quite boring to behold.. It kind of goes without saying: everything anyone says about a subject is their perception (or conception) of it. Illustration: The scientist stated "It seems to me that every atom has a nucleus within it." Accurate, but redundant. If he just said the last seven words we would know that he accepts The Standard Model.

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;70019 wrote:

[...] he should be eased into the harsh reality of strong philosophical debate

Does philosophy really need to involve harshness?

Philosophy Forum

Where do we draw the line on what is ethical,, moral or the reverse thereof?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know