• In total there are 41 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 41 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Unread post

I think it is. At least as much as not killing flawed babies is. How can you have a concern for all when/if the situation occurs that one person's interests are directly in conflict with another's? In other words, to say "concern for the well-being of all" doesn't mean anything more than what every politician will say come election time. We know this doesn't mean anything, don't we? What is the operating principle that causes us to have a concern for all? Do you/humanists have one?
This is a good question. Having a documented set of rules to follow is only one half of the pie. The other half consists of our moral emotions. A person who can feel neither empathy nor guilt will not abide by any set of rules, whether it be absolute or relative, divine or mundane. Of course, each person feels his or her moral emotions with varying intensities. A person with healthy moral emotions will feel guilt when they do something they know is wrong.
I may misinterpret what it says, or through carelessness miss entirely what it says, but I won't twist it. I realize it's only my word but I do wonder if you think I am "twisting" its meaning since that's a charge that implies intent. If this is how you view it, well OK, but it's really not the case.
I know you're speaking hypothetically, and your point was a good one.
I think it can be contained in a single sentence.
If only it were that simple. A single sentence is meaningless without the definitions for each word involved. The definitions are meaningless without experience to tie them to. Even your reply is evidence that a single sentence does not suffice, judging by the number of questions you had. All the answers to your questions can be considered necessary information to understand the sentence. There is a pyramid of education required before any single sentence has enough potency to serve as a principle rather than a rule.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. So what do you take this sentence to mean? Is it not an absolute guiding principle?
Well, no. It tells us how our ethical values may be derived, but it doesn't answer any of the questions you've posed. There is also a grey area, where interests collide. Even though interests vary over time, we still need wisdom on how to arbitrate contrary interests that are equal on the surface. I think the equal consideration of interests may very well be implied, since it's opposite - unequal consideration of interests - obviously doesn't work.
Actually what I am most unsure about here is that you are aware you are talking about rules while I am talking about principle.
Oops, I'm guilty.

I see religious morality as a set of rules rather than principles. Rules are set by outside agencies to compel you to do what they think is right, while principles are internally motivated, by understanding the consequences of your actions as they relate to the principles. In religion, the thought of an omnipotent power constantly watching over you and judging you is an external motivator, even if it may be delusional. It's the age old question, how will you be judged when you stand in front of the gates? With a manifesto, you take an oath to abide by the principles because you understand the inherent reciprocity in following them. Even though I understand the difference between the terms, I may get lazy and mix them up. Feel free to correct me.
Yes, every act can be justified using absolute morality just as, I'll add, it can be justified through use of its more flexible cousins:"Systems kill."
I've never heard of systems kill. What does it refer to?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Kevin
Pulitzer Prize Finalist
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:45 am
15
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Unread post

Interbane wrote:If only it were that simple. A single sentence is meaningless without the definitions for each word involved. The definitions are meaningless without experience to tie them to. Even your reply is evidence that a single sentence does not suffice, judging by the number of questions you had.
I do have a lot of questions, that is true. The confusion I feel is a product of being on the one hand a nihilist and on the other knowing full well that struggle, and perhaps even to a greater degree, and without intentional irony meant, the absence of struggle, fills me with longing to do something about it - even though I know ultimately it's without meaning! And yet it isn't, because (and here I'm quoting The Flaming Lips) all we ever have is now. And right now there is desire, love, suffering... consciousness.

A single sentence does suffice for an operating principle. I do believe it to be that easy. Here are three variations of what I consider an acceptable principle: 1) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. 2) The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? and 3) Afford everything an equal consideration of interests. These are ethical principles rather than assertions of fact. That someone tries to live by the golden rule does not mean that everything she does will live up to the standard, because, yes, implementation is hard.
I see religious morality as a set of rules rather than principles.
And at least in terms of Christianity that's probably a reasonable viewpoint, but I'm not sure what prompted the references to religion since it doesn't play any significant part in my (or presumably your) view of things. OK I mentioned the golden rule but only because, regardless of its context, it's something I view as a good operating principle.
I've never heard of systems kill. What does it refer to?
It is from a song called "Punk is Dead" by a band called Crass. I want to say I haven't given enough time to think about what I've been talking about. I'm not doing so now either as actually I need to be leaving pretty soon. Anyway, this is one reason why I'd be quoting someone I'm pretty sure no one here has heard. It was just an easy 'n' quick summation meant to say (agree?) that anything can and will be perverted. Here are the lyrics (if anyone happens to know what a "velvet zippie" is I'd be interested in hearing about it):

Yes that's right, punk is dead,
It's just another cheap product for the consumers head.
Bubblegum rock on plastic transistors,
Schoolboy sedition backed by big time promoters.
CBS promote the Clash,
But it ain't for revolution, it's just for cash.
Punk became a fashion just like hippy used to be
And it ain't got a thing to do with you or me.

Movements are systems and systems kill.
Movements are expressions of the public will.
Punk became a movement cos we all felt lost,
But the leaders sold out and now we all pay the cost.
Punk narcissism was social napalm,
Steve Jones started doing real harm.
Preaching revolution, anarchy and change
As he sucked from the system that had given him his name.

Well I'm tired of staring through shit stained glass,
Tired of staring up a superstars arse,
I've got an arse and crap and a name,
I'm just waiting for my fifteen minutes fame.
Steve Jones you're napalm,
If you're so pretty (vacant) why do you swarm?
Patti Smith you're napalm,
You write with your hand but it's Rimbaud's arm.

And me, yes I, do I want to burn?
Is there something I can learn?
Do I need a business man to promote my angle?
Can I resist the carrots that fame and fortune dangle?
I see the velvet zippies in their bondage gear,
The social elite with safety-pins in their ear,
I watch and understand that it don't mean a thing,
The scorpions might attack, but the system stole the sting.

Punk is Dead.
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Unread post

Jaya Jagannath said is this dry talking with is neither verifiable nor tangible is all that you have got ? and i have to believe it ? just look at the fun of your rascaldom.
Looks like chanting the Hare Krishna mantra 1728 times a day isn't doing you much good. You might want to increase that to 2000 or more daily. :x
User avatar
Kevin
Pulitzer Prize Finalist
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:45 am
15
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Unread post

I think the funniest thing in this thread (and I consider myself a participant) is in the header - "Practical"
The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts

Unread post

A single sentence does suffice for an operating principle. I do believe it to be that easy. Here are three variations of what I consider an acceptable principle: 1) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. 2) The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? and 3) Afford everything an equal consideration of interests. These are ethical principles rather than assertions of fact. That someone tries to live by the golden rule does not mean that everything she does will live up to the standard, because, yes, implementation is hard.
What I meant regarding the single sentence is that it does no good to a man who can't read nor understand basic concepts. You need a beginner's education first. That initial education, if required to understand the sentence, means that morality can't be reduced to a single sentence. There is learning that is first required. We're looking at if from the vantage point of educated men.

Another issue is that while it is a good operating principle, it offers no wisdom on self-control, which would be necessary to follow the principle. Essentially, there is much we learn and do and lust for above and beyond the principle, to the point where it would be diluted unless you repeated it as a mantra each and every day. I'm speaking as an idealist right now. If there is a more perfect way to spread a set of principles to a population, including education from the moment they are born, it would be more than a single sentence. It would be a lifestyle, codified.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”