The Responsibility of Man

[razoredge]

for cryin out loud man, Im not talking about the bullshit laws, that trivial bullshit, what a friggin distraction, Im talking about murder, theft, rape, beatings and I go even deeper than that but know damn well as not to go there with the likes of your eat em alive thinking.

Slavery, geeze... I just said history was chalk full of self serving examples.

How in the hell this correlates into the drinking age, and helmet law must be too deep for my tiny MUDPUDDLE

[razoredge]

delusion of morality... you have got to be kidding me... are you sure you believe in evolution ?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by razoredge

for cryin out loud man, Im not talking about the bullshit laws, that trivial bullshit, what a friggin distraction, Im talking about murder, theft, rape, beatings and I go even deeper than that but know damn well as not to go there with the likes of your eat em alive thinking.

This is the logical fallacy of observational selection.

are you now admitting you earlier made the hasty generalization logical fallacy when you claimed law is founded on morality?

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by razoredge

delusion of morality... you have got to be kidding me... are you sure you believe in evolution ?

I take it you're not familiar with Berkeley or methodological naturalism?---that even 'the material world' might be nothing more than a delusion advantageous to us as an organism. Otherwise I'm not quite sure why you imagine the concept of morality as a delusion, and the fact of evolution, are contradictory.

[Blowtus]

Originally Posted by Seditious

I'm certainly not saying 'we should do what makes us happy' or anything, I'm not saying we should necessarily differ to it or anything, but yes, in terms of contingent and necessary, it does seem to be the necessary end. I THINK, if I remember rightly, this is about the point we've gotten to before, like last year or sumn, where I refused to explain further. I have an evolutionary account of why this indeed would be the condition that exists, though I've always been unwilling to share it, and still it appears that while it would be useful for argument sake to do so, I'm content to just draw the battle lines here and look for an alternative to be presented, rather than detailing why I'm extremely skeptical that it could be.

Yeah this is about the point we got to lol. Nice to know we can find our way here from any angle

The cells in my body could be said to function the way they do 'because it fulfils their biological drives', and as such they create me, which I value. I could be said to function the way I do 'because I think it will make me happy', which boils down to 'because I want to', or 'because the universe says so'. If I choose to apply my 'values' to humanity as a whole, and act (in some cases at least) for the 'greater good', (using my intellect to create 'value') then yes, such could be said to happen purely because of universal causality, but in no sense do I *feel* that I am acting for or because of causality - I feel that I am acting for the 'greater good' (morally, in some view of it at least) and as such it seems to be some sort of 'subjective end', just as I think pleasure, or God, could also be viewed as subjective ends.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

The cells in my body could be said to function the way they do 'because it fulfils their biological drives', and as such they create me, which I value. I could be said to function the way I do 'because I think it will make me happy', which boils down to 'because I want to', or 'because the universe says so'.

yea, I think we have to pick and choose at the time what might be most practical...all the while of course hoping science might help give us better details. that's always nice.

Originally Posted by Blowtus

If I choose to apply my 'values' to humanity as a whole, and act (in some cases at least) for the 'greater good', (using my intellect to create 'value') then yes, such could be said to happen purely because of universal causality, but in no sense do I *feel* that I am acting for or because of causality - I feel that I am acting for the 'greater good' (morally, in some view of it at least) and as such it seems to be some sort of 'subjective end', just as I think pleasure, or God, could also be viewed as subjective ends.

yea. this is just the 'free-will illusion' problem being applied to moral concerns...as if it wasn't hassle enough on it's own! whyever it is, free-will or determinism, that we do have the values we do, and change them when we do, I think that can be put aside in the interest of the point that when we think we have some purpose in life--I must convert everyone to Islam, that is my life's work, or 'I must save the trees, that is meaningful'--it doesn't mean we're right, but that being our belief does account for our behavior, and we're acting on that belief toward the fulfillment of the goal involved because if we don't we predict we'll feel worse for it if we don't...however far we extend our values, to a cat or to a tamagotchi (virtual pet), the roots don't seem to me to be in any different soil.
It's hard to think of acting for the greater good irrespective of self-esteem and guilt and shame, or worshiping god irrespective of fear, or desire, or even of pleasure irrespective of the result pleasure has on our mood-state. these things seem to me unintelligible dissociated from the basic human end of self-satisfaction---unintelligible spoken of as 'ends in themselves', as contradictions to the idea of one end for which such things can be valued as means depending on subjective differences in the beliefs of individuals.

[Blowtus]

I guess in a sense I am finding 'self satisfaction' as an end neither here nor there - it seems as purposeless and non descriptive an end as causality but not as obviously accurate or broad. Morality / pleasure / God / other values, seem more descriptive and useful.

I definitely think there is worth to showing the evolution of 'morality' to be self serving, and not some objective state of the world - but in some way I think the power of this is that it allows further refinement of the notion, not that it necessarily destroys it.

Sorry if I sound like my view is chopping and changing - it is

[razoredge]

dude, you get off too much on your word play, Im not one to critize peoples writing but most of what you write requires a few goes at it and the sorting out of words. I realize this is a trait of some intellectual pride and can accept that but Im now getting ready to hire a translator to cut through the fat.

You believe and stand on your fallacy (nothing exists) crutch all you want, I dont apply to those concepts and that IS what they are... concepts, in fact concepts of the oh contrair, those that like to deny everything and anything for the sake of turning the obvious into a life long project.

"to be or not to be... for that is the question" "no, be doesnt exist therefore there is no question" [sorry I lack the intellect to wrap all those other words around that that jerks the mind in all directions first, but Im thinkin I can take pride in that]

No, I did not make a quick decision (plus all those other surely necessary words) to say that law was based on moral ideals. In fact the proof key word is in this qoute

are you now admitting you earlier made the hasty generalization ______ ______ when you claimed law is founded on morality?

Might be my lack of intellect but I'm really not aware that the helmet law and drinking age were in any foundational laws.

Further indications of your waffleing are in the fact that you have at the minimum... twice ignored that I clearly stated many times throughout this topic selfserving applications, distortions and twists. Yet you continue to pull examples of this as if to bear relevance on my ideals. You are even ignoring my reference to the aged global use of the ideal of the golden rule or how it came to be. [maybe it didnt because be doesnt exist]

I can accept peoples different way of going about things and their views and methods of expression but this is getting like .... ??? .... Im out here in the sun, clear as the light of day, mowing the lawn and your over in the weeds going in circles like a rabbid coon worrying about some stray blade of bluegrass you found... in the weed patch... that I didnt mow. Point being, that is easy.

As I said before the beauty about all of this is we will not at least in my lifetime and my childrens lifetime revert back to the beginning of civilization and give it a new go to see if we develope another base set of morals after much hard learned realities of social interaction, only under a new name so as to appease the current discontent.

[Seditious]

Originally Posted by Blowtus

I guess in a sense I am finding 'self satisfaction' as an end neither here nor there - it seems as purposeless and non descriptive an end as causality but not as obviously accurate or broad. Morality / pleasure / God / other values, seem more descriptive and useful.

so far as I can see they're nothing more than accessories...interchangable if a person's beliefs/values are changed.

that which their values concern remains the same---how does God affect my life, how does pleasure make me feel, how does fame benefit me.. if these things were goals in themselves it would be odd that people choose one over the other, choosing only those which happen to be able to serve as means to that person's own satisfaction. this selection seems incoherent without the standard of the subjective experience as the explanation.

[razoredge]

BTW, I'm not meaning to be ruff, Im just very frustrated with all the ignoring of good points I have made, even when they paralleled others... only to pick at little items I did not cover nor care too for their irrelevence.