The Disturbing Trend

[glomph]

I can't bring myself to read Rand, but I was really moved by the movie The Fountainhead. Its influence on my thinking had some effect on how I've handled some things in life and career, and later in an off-the-wall way looked to Brian Kenney (QAF) as a sort of role model (except for the part with the cute young guys ).

 

Rand's idea that the greatest good comes from each person's pursuit of self-interest does have some connection with reality, like Adam Smith's "invisible hand." But the practical application of that is not so straightforward. Do I know what's best for me, or even what I really want rather than need? Is there such a thing as "enlightened self-interest"? Do I prefer to pay for health care for other people and education for other people's children because I don't want to be exposed to TB (for example) or to live in a society with a bunch of idle, ignorant folk stealing my stuff, among other things?

 

In a broader sense, if there is indeed an objective reality, is my perception of that reality in any way or degree related to it, and if so how would I know?

[JamesSavik]

One of my favourite activities in my philosophy courses was to cite Rand at every opportunity. She comes closest to describing the code I live my life by, but it was always a source of great amusement to watch my liberal professors go into near apoplexy at the mention of her name.

 

We are indeed kindred spirits Menzo. I too enjoy watch hyper liberals sputter when they hit the wall.

 

Rand's thesis was that the greatest good is served when people serve their own interests first and its darned hard to argue with that. Generations of capitalism, while not perfect, has been a dynamic engine that has propelled progress in all fields of human endevor.

[AFriendlyFace]

Existence does not confer meaning nor does it offer explanation. I disagree with you, Jamie, that the fact we give things meaning renders nihilism flawed. The fact that we bestow meaning on something, for the sake of our happiness, does not imply in any way that these things actually do, in the broader sense, have any meaning.

 

I believe sincerely that the fact that we bestow meaning on something makes it meaningful, and that the meaning we assign it is complete. I don't think there is any "greater" or "broader" meaning than that we may assign.

I'm with Jamie on this one. Of course that's obvious since I do believe in meaning in a relative manner and not in an absolute manner...so obviously if something has relative meaning to someone it has as much meaning as possible (by my philosophy), which nevertheless gives it meaning.

 

If something, let's say your own happiness, has meaning for you, Menzo, then why would you argue that that doesn't give it "actual meaning"? Why would "meaning in the broader sense", make something anymore meaningful? I realize of course that you're saying there is no "meaning in the broader sense"...and actually since that seems to be a synonym for "absolute, objective meaning" (which I agree doesn't exist), then I suppose we are in agreement.

 

I guess what I'm asking is why relative meaning isn't enough for you to consider something "meaningful"? Perhaps I am selfish and egotistic (as you're arguing is a good thing) but if I consider something meaningful then it's damn well meaningful enough as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't think to call it unmeaningful...even if there were some objective standard of meaning and whatever it is I cared about failed to meet that standard I would still consider it more meaningful than this theoretical standard because it would have more meaning from my point of view (which is absolute - oh the irony - in terms of my feelings).

 

Rand has a better definition:

 

1) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

I disagree with this first point very strongly! One of my "guiding principals" is that man creates his own reality. "Reality" in the "real" sense is irrelevant. Perception - however distorted it may be - IS reality.

 

An oft cited example of this goes as follows:

 

If I believe there's a man-eating lion outside my door, and I thus conduct my life according to this premise, it is completely irrelevant whether or not there actually is one out there. It becomes my reality and it couldn't be any more real regardless of whether or not it's "real".

 

Some argue that "actual reality" has an intrinsic value over "perceived reality". I don't think it does. I think perceived reality has more of an impact and is of greater importance.

 

2) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

I disagree with this one as well. It would be lovely if that were true; however, I think man is an intrinsically irrational beast, and I think feelings and emotion more often guide his actions and are the "go to" for survival. Fight or flight is the first line of defense and this is seldom rational. Rationality is a very conscious and willed response. It is by no means universal to men.

3) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

MMMKAY, I can buy that one as a decent approach. Though not the only.

4) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

This one I more or less agree with as an ideal.

 

And Kevvers, I think we're totally on the same page. That's my issue with deontology and utilitarianism both, that they're too constricted and deal in preset rules. Utilitarianism is more flexible than deontology, but I think that they sort of complete each other. Not in the sense that there's nothing else that should be added to them, but more that they actually compliment each other rather well if one is careful to develop criteria for selecting which one to use at a given time.

I agree, it does seem as though we're more or less on the same page in terms of beliefs and actions. Our differences seem to more of semantics and degrees of conviction about various points.

 

I can't bring myself to read Rand, but I was really moved by the movie The Fountainhead. Its influence on my thinking had some effect on how I've handled some things in life and career, and later in an off-the-wall way looked to Brian Kenney (QAF) as a sort of role model (except for the part with the cute young guys ).

 

Rand's idea that the greatest good comes from each person's pursuit of self-interest does have some connection with reality, like Adam Smith's "invisible hand." But the practical application of that is not so straightforward. Do I know what's best for me, or even what I really want rather than need? Is there such a thing as "enlightened self-interest"? Do I prefer to pay for health care for other people and education for other people's children because I don't want to be exposed to TB (for example) or to live in a society with a bunch of idle, ignorant folk stealing my stuff, among other things?

 

In a broader sense, if there is indeed an objective reality, is my perception of that reality in any way or degree related to it, and if so how would I know?

Very astute questions and observations, glomph!

 

 

 

LOL, this thread certainly gets my vote as the most intellectually stimulating and enjoyable of the new year

 

Take care all and have an excellent day! (however you perceive that)

 

-Kevin

Edited February 7, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[AFriendlyFace]

Any other thoughts from anyone? Especially those we haven't heard from yet?

[Graeme]

Any other thoughts from anyone? Especially those we haven't heard from yet?

My thought is that it seems that a lot of effort has been spent trying to define a moral structure to live by. Since definitions for something as complex as humanity and human interaction are, almost by definition , flawed because they try to put lines around something that is amorphous, I don't see huge benefit to myself in trying to argue the differences between the points of view. Just look at the discussion above where Jamie (Razor) and Kevin (AFriendlyFace) appear to have two different definitions for the same word (Relativism). The discussion was flawed from the initial statement because they weren't reading the same thing in the same words. The difference of opinion was eventually sorted out, but it is an example of how easy it is to confuse, rather than clarify, by trying to define something.

 

I have my own (poorly defined) moral code and it is what I live by. I'm hoping that my example will help my two boys to develop their own, similar, moral code, but that will be their decision.

 

I tend to lean towards pragmatism -- which means I will go with what works, rather than trying to analyse things too deeply. Pragmatism isn't perfect, but it works for me I'm happy that I'm a moral person and since my opinion is the only one that's important in this area, that's good enough for me :mace:

[AFriendlyFace]

My thought is that it seems that a lot of effort has been spent trying to define a moral structure to live by. Since definitions for something as complex as humanity and human interaction are, almost by definition , flawed because they try to put lines around something that is amorphous, I don't see huge benefit to myself in trying to argue the differences between the points of view. Just look at the discussion above where Jamie (Razor) and Kevin (AFriendlyFace) appear to have two different definitions for the same word (Relativism). The discussion was flawed from the initial statement because they weren't reading the same thing in the same words. The difference of opinion was eventually sorted out, but it is an example of how easy it is to confuse, rather than clarify, by trying to define something.

Hmm, well I certainly agree that there may not be very much practical reason to further discuss it. I was just having a really good time discussing it. Indeed, I can say without reservation that I've enjoyed this thread more than any other in recent memory (not that I haven't enjoyed the others as well of course).

 

Also, I feel like discussing it and thinking about it so deeply has helped me further flesh it out in my own mind. It's given me new things to think about as well.

 

Finally, I feel as though I know additional (and very relevant information IMO) about the people involved in this discussion. I do feel a bit closer to them

 

I tend to lean towards pragmatism -- which means I will go with what works, rather than trying to analyse things too deeply. Pragmatism isn't perfect, but it works for me I'm happy that I'm a moral person and since my opinion is the only one that's important in this area, that's good enough for me :mace:

That certainly makes sense, and I'll sit here and define my concept of a moral system all day (and enjoy it ), but of course when it comes down to it I agree that the important thing is just that it works for me.

 

-Kevin

[Menzoberranzen]

Graeme, when you say you do what 'works' what, in the moral sense, does that mean?

 

Racism works. Heterosexism works. Murdering people and getting away with it works.

 

I'm a fan of pragmatism (but don't get me started on pragmatic truth theory) but I'm not sure exactly how you extend it to a moral theory as well. Pragmatic ethics exist, but to say that something is moral because it 'works' doesn't really make sense because, as I noted, murdering people for pleasure 'works.'

 

Menzo

[S.L. Lewis]

*reads through the various posts and says to herself* Wow... *proceeds to post*

Myself, I am a mix of everything, I suppose. I don't really know, since I never really thought about it. I supposed you can say that my moral code has the religious ascept as its base, with some social moral code layered on that, while still being a realist on top of that. Yes...I forgot the names. Oops...

The religious aspect, is actually a mix of religions and beliefs, that I really won't go into since it's mostly about my beliefs and how they dictate some moments.

[Graeme]

Graeme, when you say you do what 'works' what, in the moral sense, does that mean?

 

Racism works. Heterosexism works. Murdering people and getting away with it works.

 

I'm a fan of pragmatism (but don't get me started on pragmatic truth theory) but I'm not sure exactly how you extend it to a moral theory as well. Pragmatic ethics exist, but to say that something is moral because it 'works' doesn't really make sense because, as I noted, murdering people for pleasure 'works.'

 

Menzo

A good question, but I'm not sure I know how to answer it

 

It means that I feel good about what I do, about what I choose. That I feel that I'm doing things for the 'right' reasons. All of that is very subjective, of course, and I can't really say where I get my opinion about what is 'good' from, though I suspect it is largely from the environment I grew up in (which was partially religious).

 

At one point in the past, I called myself a Christian Agnostic. I didn't know if God existed, but I thought that the basic Christian ethics were good ones to follow, and that's what I try to do. I now consider myself to be a Christian, but I have always recognised that a significant part of my views on right and wrong have been influenced by the Bible, even if I don't feel obliged to "obey" the instructions in it. If you like, I'm as bad as the Christian Fundamentalists, in that I pick and choose the parts of the Bible I want to follow. In my case, I just pick the parts that I think are good

[Menzoberranzen]

A good question, but I'm not sure I know how to answer it

 

It means that I feel good about what I do, about what I choose. That I feel that I'm doing things for the 'right' reasons. All of that is very subjective, of course, and I can't really say where I get my opinion about what is 'good' from, though I suspect it is largely from the environment I grew up in (which was partially religious).

 

At one point in the past, I called myself a Christian Agnostic. I didn't know if God existed, but I thought that the basic Christian ethics were good ones to follow, and that's what I try to do. I now consider myself to be a Christian, but I have always recognised that a significant part of my views on right and wrong have been influenced by the Bible, even if I don't feel obliged to "obey" the instructions in it. If you like, I'm as bad as the Christian Fundamentalists, in that I pick and choose the parts of the Bible I want to follow. In my case, I just pick the parts that I think are good

 

Thanks for clarifying; I think most people follow something similar to that. Trying to analyze moral theory can be...daunting.

 

And in defense of my favorite religious group, I'm sure that the evangelicals are only choosing the parts of the bible that they think are good. They just have bad judgement, that's all

 

Menzo

[AFriendlyFace]

Thanks for clarifying; I think most people follow something similar to that. Trying to analyze moral theory can be...daunting.

And in defense of my favorite religious group, I'm sure that the evangelicals are only choosing the parts of the bible that they think are good. They just have bad judgement, that's all

LOL, I was thinking that too. While we're on the topic of asking people questions though, you never answered mine from above, Menzo (granted it was buried in a very long response):

 

Existence does not confer meaning nor does it offer explanation. I disagree with you, Jamie, that the fact we give things meaning renders nihilism flawed. The fact that we bestow meaning on something, for the sake of our happiness, does not imply in any way that these things actually do, in the broader sense, have any meaning.

 

I believe sincerely that the fact that we bestow meaning on something makes it meaningful, and that the meaning we assign it is complete. I don't think there is any "greater" or "broader" meaning than that we may assign.

I'm with Jamie on this one. Of course that's obvious since I do believe in meaning in a relative manner and not in an absolute manner...so obviously if something has relative meaning to someone it has as much meaning as possible (by my philosophy), which nevertheless gives it meaning.

 

If something, let's say your own happiness, has meaning for you, Menzo, then why would you argue that that doesn't give it "actual meaning"? Why would "meaning in the broader sense", make something anymore meaningful? I realize of course that you're saying there is no "meaning in the broader sense"...and actually since that seems to be a synonym for "absolute, objective meaning" (which I agree doesn't exist), then I suppose we are in agreement.

I guess what I'm asking is why relative meaning isn't enough for you to consider something "meaningful"? Perhaps I am selfish and egotistic (as you're arguing is a good thing) but if I consider something meaningful then it's damn well meaningful enough as far as I'm concerned and I wouldn't think to call it unmeaningful...even if there were some objective standard of meaning and whatever it is I cared about failed to meet that standard I would still consider it more meaningful than this theoretical standard because it would have more meaning from my point of view (which is absolute - oh the irony - in terms of my feelings).

 

 

 

The reason I'm so interested is that really it seems to me like the only major difference between our moral philosophies is that relative meanings and truths satisfy me and don't seem to satisfy you. We both seem to agree that absolute ones don't exist. I think I've clarified pretty well why I consider relative ones to be significant enough to consider.

 

-Kevin

Edited February 9, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[Menzoberranzen]

I think that the meaning I derive from my existence gives me reason to continue living, and gives me reason to adopt a moral code that is somewhat in sync with the rest of the world, but that is a subjective 'meaning.' Really, whether I live or commit suicide, behave 'morally' or 'immorally' makes no difference because there are no universal laws that state what is moral or immoral. How can there be meaning in an objective, secular sense?

 

My happiness, while important to me, is irrelevant to the universe we live in. My existence is irrelevant and the world would go around much the same if I wasn't there. That's what I mean by no meaning. I think it's human arrogance that leads people to believe that we are somehow important; as if a few thousand years out of billions one one flyspeck planet somehow makes us more than cosmic dust.

 

Menzo

[AFriendlyFace]

I think that the meaning I derive from my existence gives me reason to continue living, and gives me reason to adopt a moral code that is somewhat in sync with the rest of the world, but that is a subjective 'meaning.' Really, whether I live or commit suicide, behave 'morally' or 'immorally' makes no difference because there are no universal laws that state what is moral or immoral. How can there be meaning in an objective, secular sense?

 

My happiness, while important to me, is irrelevant to the universe we live in. My existence is irrelevant and the world would go around much the same if I wasn't there. That's what I mean by no meaning. I think it's human arrogance that leads people to believe that we are somehow important; as if a few thousand years out of billions one one flyspeck planet somehow makes us more than cosmic dust.

 

Menzo

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, and I already understood that to be your position. But that's not quite what I meant to ask.

 

As I see it all of that goes back to the concept of there not being any "universal" or "absolute" definition of what it is to have meaning, of which we are in agreement. My question is more of whether or not you agree that there is relative meaning in a subjective sense. I already agree that there isn't in an absolute, objective sense.

 

You say that your happiness is important to you, thus I would think that to you it had significance and meaning. Is this the case? If it is the case then to me that means that you do believe in relative meaning.

 

If you do believe in relative meaning (which I conclude is indeed the case based on your statement that your happiness has meaning to you). Furthermore, it appears that you also have a "relative" sense of what is "right" or "wrong". Once again we are in agreement that there is no objective, universal standard, and yet you do have a moral code by which you live. As I understand it you would find, for example, torturing an innocent person for no reason, to be something that would violate your morals and ethical code. Thus, if there is no objective and absolute rule that says torturing innocent people is wrong, then this is a relative wrong which you've personally adopted.

 

So with those two assumptions in mind (and please correct me if I've misconstrued either) then what I'm primarily curious about is where exactly you "draw the line" which prevents you from labeling yourself, or being labeled as, a relativist (with relativism being defined, in this context, as something which has relative meaning and is "right" or "wrong" in a relative sense)?

 

I'm not trying to argue that you are a relativist (although by my...relative definition it appears that you are), what I'm mostly curious about is how someone who holds themselves to be a nihilist and yet has an individual sense of meaning and ethics, makes this distinction.

 

 

-Kevin

[Menzoberranzen]

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of that, and I already understood that to be your position. But that's not quite what I meant to ask.

 

As I see it all of that goes back to the concept of there not being any "universal" or "absolute" definition of what it is to have meaning, of which we are in agreement. My question is more of whether or not you agree that there is relative meaning in a subjective sense. I already agree that there isn't in an absolute, objective sense.

 

You say that your happiness is important to you, thus I would think that to you it had significance and meaning. Is this the case? If it is the case then to me that means that you do believe in relative meaning.

 

If you do believe in relative meaning (which I conclude is indeed the case based on your statement that your happiness has meaning to you). Furthermore, it appears that you also have a "relative" sense of what is "right" or "wrong". Once again we are in agreement that there is no objective, universal standard, and yet you do have a moral code by which you live. As I understand it you would find, for example, torturing an innocent person for no reason, to be something that would violate your morals and ethical code. Thus, if there is no objective and absolute rule that says torturing innocent people is wrong, then this is a relative wrong which you've personally adopted.

 

So with those two assumptions in mind (and please correct me if I've misconstrued either) then what I'm primarily curious about is where exactly you "draw the line" which prevents you from labeling yourself, or being labeled as, a relativist (with relativism being defined, in this context, as something which has relative meaning and is "right" or "wrong" in a relative sense)?

 

I'm not trying to argue that you are a relativist (although by my...relative definition it appears that you are), what I'm mostly curious about is how someone who holds themselves to be a nihilist and yet has an individual sense of meaning and ethics, makes this distinction.

-Kevin

 

You are defining relativism in a way that is inescapable. I challenge you to find anyone in the world who doesn't have some things that they consider 'wrong.' No matter how strong a nihilist you find, he will never tell you he doesn't think torturing people for pleasure is wrong. I don't deny that charge; I consider it 'wrong' based on the way I have evolved. Firstly, the fact that I consider it wrong doesn't make it so. Secondly, that is not the definition of moral relativism, which is what I was defending myself against. Moral relativism is the assertion that the same action can be simultaneously right for one person and wrong for another. A good example would be slavery; were slave owners of two hundred years ago immoral despite the fact that it was an accepted practice?

 

Nihilism, as I mentioned, is not a practical moral theory in that it doesn't give guidance on how to live one's life. Obviously, by rejecting the claim that truth is ascertainable, it could be self-consistent and still do so. However, it is in our natures to act as if every choice were equally meaningless, and so we search for something to guide us by. I think the basic claims of rational egoism are false (hence my claim to nihilism) but, in the context of the world we live in, I think it is the preferable system of morality. According to the definition you're using, that is relative, and I won't deny that but I will deny that it is moral relativism as it is technically defined.

 

Menzo

[glomph]

Racism works. Heterosexism works. Murdering people and getting away with it works.

 

But they don't work too well for the victims.

 

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is the way a central key to ethical behavior was said when I learned it as a kid. I know it's been said many times, many ways, and has become an old chestnut. But any system of ethics that leaves it out doesn't in any meaningful sense to me "work."

 

I'll even put in a plug for the very simplistic-sounding "What would Jesus do?" If just the Christians could apply that in some serious way, our society would be quite different. I continue to marvel--sometimes out loud and sometimes at church--how so much of what passes for the Christianity is at odds with what Jesus taught and what he did.

 

Sorry for getting too religious there. I now return you to your regularly scheduled philosophical discussion.

[quietriot]

Hope this response is not frowned upon as spam or being off-topic.

There are two works that have had a major impact on my life and way of thinking.

"The Republic" by Plato is one, and "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is the other.

So many think it right to injure others because "our cause is right and just".

In the end all these people end up proving is that they are no better than their adversaries and sometimes prove to be far worse. The Bolsheviks, Jacobins, and various religious zealots make for vivid illustrations of this.

In "The Republic" Plato concluded that man was not meant to know "the good", but could only come to an approximation thereof.

So what's left?

"A man has to live with himself, and he should see to it that he keeps good company"

Anything else?

[AFriendlyFace]

You are defining relativism in a way that is inescapable. I challenge you to find anyone in the world who doesn't have some things that they consider 'wrong.' No matter how strong a nihilist you find, he will never tell you he doesn't think torturing people for pleasure is wrong. I don't deny that charge; I consider it 'wrong' based on the way I have evolved. Firstly, the fact that I consider it wrong doesn't make it so. Secondly, that is not the definition of moral relativism, which is what I was defending myself against. Moral relativism is the assertion that the same action can be simultaneously right for one person and wrong for another. A good example would be slavery; were slave owners of two hundred years ago immoral despite the fact that it was an accepted practice?

Relativism is inescapable! It's the way of the future

 

Anyway, I stated above that for me relativism far, far exceeds simple "moral relativism"; as I said it forms the core of my way of looking at and interacting with world. Moral relativism itself in the purist form is a complicated animal. Many aspects of it I agree with, some I don't.

 

For example, to answer your question about slavery, no I don't think the slave owners themselves were immoral, at least not en mass. The practice of slavery, in my opinion, was immoral; however, that does not mean that the practitioners themselves were immoral. If they were conditioned to believe that their actions were justifiable and if they never questioned this belief then while I think the actions were "immoral", I wouldn't consider the people immoral. Similarly I would consider it immoral for an American of today to own slaves because today's people should "know better". Thus in a sense I agree with moral relativism in this matter, and in a sense I don't.

 

I'm very, very hesitant to actually label individual people as immoral, or worse "evil". I'm not so reluctant to labels their actions as "immoral" or "evil", but in order to label someone themselves as "evil" I believe their motivations and intentions are paramount. Since very few people willfully do what they know to be wrong and immoral I think there are very few people whom I would label as "immoral" or "evil". Doing so is...short-sighted.

 

To use a more controversial, but resonating example, I do not assume the perpetrators of the 9/11 bombing are "evil". I think it was a horrible thing, and I think the actions are terrible, but I think chances are most of those individuals sincerely believed they were doing what was "right" or even "noble". Obviously I disagree, and obviously I don't think they should be allowed to do those things; however, that doesn't make them "evil" only "mistaken".

 

It seems that unlike most people I do not feel the need to morally "condemn" someone to very adamantly condemn and fight against their actions and beliefs. Another good example is Christian Evangelicals who bolster homophobia. Obviously I'm no fan of homophobia and I will go to great lengths to stop them or discredit them. I will delight when they fail or get humiliated because their message is my enemy and so they too are my enemy. However, I do not think they are "evil" or "bad". In fact I think most of them are very sincere and "good", and in many ways admirable even. I will nevertheless combat their intolerant messages aggressively.

 

Many people seem to have to believe that their enemy is completely evil or bad to feel strong, confident, and righteous enough to do something to stop them...I find that very sad and confusing. People, and certainly the world, are much better off when everyone remembers that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that they themselves are repugnant. That is the sort of lazy, closed-minded absolutism I find very off-putting.

 

But they don't work too well for the victims.

 

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is the way a central key to ethical behavior was said when I learned it as a kid. I know it's been said many times, many ways, and has become an old chestnut. But any system of ethics that leaves it out doesn't in any meaningful sense to me "work."

 

I'll even put in a plug for the very simplistic-sounding "What would Jesus do?" If just the Christians could apply that in some serious way, our society would be quite different. I continue to marvel--sometimes out loud and sometimes at church--how so much of what passes for the Christianity is at odds with what Jesus taught and what he did.

 

Sorry for getting too religious there. I now return you to your regularly scheduled philosophical discussion.

I agree that this is an excellent guide to morality

 

Indeed, if I could instill one moral guideline in my child - or anyone for that matter - it would be this one. For example all the cases above that I agreed were immoral would be solved by following this guideline.

 

Do I want to be enslaved myself? No

Do I want someone to come and attack me? No

Do I want someone to tell me I can't be with the one I love and am attracted to? No again!

 

Do I want someone to feed me when I'm starving? Yes

Do I want someone to forgive me when I err? Yes

Do I want someone to treat me kindly when I venture into foreign places? Yes again!

 

 

Another guiding principle I have when deciding how to live or what to do, is to simply remember one simple belief which I consider true in the majority of cases:

 

The world would be a much better place if everyone minded their own damn business and left everyone else alone.

 

Hope this response is not frowned upon as spam or being off-topic.

There are two works that have had a major impact on my life and way of thinking.

"The Republic" by Plato is one, and "Animal Farm" by George Orwell is the other.

So many think it right to injure others because "our cause is right and just".

In the end all these people end up proving is that they are no better than their adversaries and sometimes prove to be far worse. The Bolsheviks, Jacobins, and various religious zealots make for vivid illustrations of this.

In "The Republic" Plato concluded that man was not meant to know "the good", but could only come to an approximation thereof.

So what's left?

"A man has to live with himself, and he should see to it that he keeps good company"

Anything else?

Well said, quiet. I agree that these are very good books, and should probably be required reading for humanity. I certainly can't imagine people frowning on this post, and if they do...well let them frown

 

Have an awesome day all!

Kevin

Edited February 11, 2008 by AFriendlyFace