| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
02 May 2006 05:54:25 AM |
| Object: |
Fundamental Moral Principle? |
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
.
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 06:18:20 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> skrev i melding
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
It has lots to reccommend it; among other things, it captures the happiness
principle, which (I believe) can be given as: The only thing that makes
people happy, is to have it their way.
I think it is fairly deep, to which its very simplicity bears witness.
When it comes to general acceptance, however, I fear that it may appear
deceptively simple, i.e. create insecurities that will express itself in
lots of questioning.
There is the question of our doing as we choose limiting other peoples'
right to do as he or she chooses.
There is the question of time - with information varying with the planning
horizon, choices may vary.
There is the question of whether this principle can be denied - what is it
opposed to?
And a truly analyticist opponent might reply that "doing as we choose" is
more or less a description of what it is to act at all, rendering the above
principle as "Everyone should do" or "Everyone should act", which is pretty
devoid of moral guidance, except the exhortation to activism.
One might also point out that this maxim (merely) transfers the problem to
the domain of choices, i.e. decision theory - "OK, I'll do as I choose - but
what should I choose?". This could lead to all sorts of semi-feebleminded
answers:
"Everyone shall choose as he or she chooses."
"Everyone shall choose what he or she is doing." (Happiness is to accept
reality...)
"Everyone shall choose what he or she thinks is best." (OK ... moving on
..... what is the best?)
"Everyone decides what he or she thinks is best."
"What he or she thinks is best is decided by each one of us for himself or
herself."
"What he or she thinks is best is decided by who we are."
"What we do, reveals who we are."
"We are what we choose to do."
"Everyone will do as he or she chooses."
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
.... which has lead us in a fine circle, and also somehow ended up in making
an ought out of an is.
My mistake, I'm sure. It's not what I would have chosen, but ....
T
.
|
|
|
| User: "D. Stephen Heersink" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 11:01:43 AM |
|
|
The Universal Ethic
First do no harm,
love kindness,
volunteer help,
do justice,
show mercy,
extend hospitality,
walk humbly,
exercise self-control
.
|
|
|
| User: "Right As Ever" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 12:34:16 PM |
|
|
"D. Stephen Heersink" <dshsfca@intergate.com> wrote in message
news:8i0f52dv08sd4jaj3tta023getgmo371ov@4ax.com...
The Universal Ethic
First do no harm,
love kindness,
volunteer help,
do justice,
show mercy,
extend hospitality,
walk humbly,
exercise self-control
That's all summed up by the fact that we are put on this earth to help
others become successful
--
Ahh, it's sooo nice to be
a Canadian these days.
Terry Pearson.
http://www.rightpoint.org
Now with RSS Feed
Helping to shape
Canada's destiny.
The Liberals are like toothless yorkies,
who will spend the next year, at least,
attempting to gum the the Tories to
death.
A good plan executed violently
today is better than a perfect plan
executed at some indefinite point
in the future.
- Gen. George S. Patton
It's called "war" and as the cliché goes,
it is not pretty. Nor is it a science, where,
if a formula is followed, the outcome is
assured. ~ Rondi Adamson,
Toronto Star, March 2006
God Keep Our Land
Glorious And Free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 06:43:23 AM |
|
|
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
************************
Since we all have free will, the rule's already in place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don H" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
05 May 2006 06:17:02 AM |
|
|
<donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146570203.096745.23270@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
************************
Since we all have free will, the rule's already in place.
# I think there's a university in the book: "Gargantua and Pantagruel" where
the motto was "Do As Thou Wilt!" - which, as an injunction, intellectually,
would lead to complete Free Thought.
Socially, our actions are restricted by the need to consider other
persons, although An-archy is the ultimate political philosophy; a
co-operative society where mutual aid, and happiness of all, becomes a
virtual instinct.
Herbert Spencer wrote a book "The Data of Ethics" in which he demonstrated
that neither pure Egoism nor pure Altruism is ideal, but Both are needed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "penny" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 12:15:52 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 04:43:23 -0700, wrote:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
************************
Since we all have free will, the rule's already in place.
We cannot choose when, where , or to whom we are born. It's a
question of luck or determinism, if you will.
Penny
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
12 May 2006 01:36:25 PM |
|
|
penny wrote:
On 2 May 2006 04:43:23 -0700, wrote:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
************************
Since we all have free will, the rule's already in place.
We cannot choose when, where , or to whom we are born. It's a
question of luck or determinism, if you will.
Penny
Are you suggesting this rule breaks down because we have no choice
BEFORE WE EXIST? Come on.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pcourterelle" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 12:51:43 PM |
|
|
"Tron" <tronfuru@frizurf.no> wrote in message
news:WJOdndQaMtEeosrZ4p2dnA@telenor.com...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> skrev i melding
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
And people wonder why the Islamic world hates the West so and why there's
been a surge in Christian fundamentalism in North America. This simple
example o f moral relativism is as fine an example as any.
For a response I suggest Plato's "Republic", particularly Socrates response
to Thrasymachus. Just a thought though.
pc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 11:14:55 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Not bad, George. I believe is it is equivalent to mine: "Always so act so
that good can be maximized for everyone."
Ther trick there is understanding that each person defines "the good" for
himself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 06:19:04 AM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Not bad, George. I believe is it is equivalent to mine: "Always so act so
that good can be maximized for everyone."
I think you're right. One bit of evidence for that is that our
political philosophies, which are both based as logical deductions from
the two principles, are identical in so many ways.
Of course there's room for fine-tuning either principle, and we could
get into some tricky debates about wording, etc. But I didn't mean
this thread as that kind of discussion, but more as a basic, teaching
one (hence my restoring the other lists), so I think I'll belay any of
that here.
Ther trick there is understanding that each person defines "the good" for
himself.
One thing that we may both be implicitly understanding, but that other
readers may not have grasped, is that principles like these (unlike,
eg, Immortalist's list beginning with "Do Not Kill"), is that they
provide an answer to the old question, "Why be moral?" The answer is
that it's a matter of simple logic. Why want a society in which
everyone can do as he chooses? Because, in such a society, I can do as
I choose. Why want a society in which good is maximized for everyone?
Because, in such a society, my good is maximized.
In short, the answer to the question, "Why be moral?" (in such an
account) is that morality is a matter of self-interest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Prunefinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 09:32:57 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
: principle:
:
: "Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
:
: A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which
would
: violate the above principle.
You're a day late, and a dollar short.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Aleister Crowley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chom Noamsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 09:26:01 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
Never watched your kids at daycare, have you...
.
|
|
|
| User: "pcourterelle" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 12:55:15 PM |
|
|
"Chom Noamsky" <eat@me.com> wrote in message
news:ZZJ5g.9796$cZ3.2588@clgrps13...
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
Never watched your kids at daycare, have you...
lol
A pretty good example of Hobbes' State of Nature.
pc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 07:41:14 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
Unless you are drugged, how on Earth is it possible not to do what you
choose?
Even with a gun to your head, you can choose to follow the directions of the
gunman or not.
We all do what we choose, and face the consequence. The most fundemental of
all processes which fits both Darwninan and creationists perspective.
The only way we truly learn.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 02:04:32 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
02 May 2006 05:03:14 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Cathcart" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
07 May 2006 03:39:50 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
But ponder on it a moment. The "shall" is supposed to be giving moral
advice to the actor, yes? Except now, the person being raped cannot
follow that advice. (Ought implies can.) So how is it that the
aggressor is doing something in violation of the principle -- of doing
something that either (a) he shall not do, or (b) making it such that
someone else is doing something that they shall not do. (Sounds like a
conceptual problem that Prof. Mack encountered with his earlier
formulations of rights theory, with their appeal to "acting as if".)
Again, without something more, I don't see the moral principle being
useful, having a basis, etc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 12:38:02 AM |
|
|
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
(Bloody philosophers)
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 04:46:55 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
In theory, yes, since consent is never sought. In practice, it's not
the raising of money per se that's wrongful, but just the way it's
done, as some people (even though they're not asked) would consent to
paying some amounts for services that would not otherwise be
forthcoming.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
If the child's old enough to be choosing (ie, to be deciding on an end
and a means), then he's old enough to old enough to be told about the
consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket; which should
be enough to dissuade him - if it isn't, then you probably have been
doing some things 'wrongful' as a parent.
If he isn't, then you have to do that for him; choosing not from the
perspective of what you want but from what he'd choose if he were able
to do that. That's known as 'guardianship,' and it's not your
responsibility.
(Bloody philosophers)
He-he.
--
Michael Gray.
Founding Member and Doorman,
Earthquack's 666 Club.
EAC Trainee Inquisitor of the month (runner up: March)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 04:31:41 AM |
|
|
In article <1146692815.877847.8350@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to.
Dude appears confused. Using this definition, a person who gets run over
by a car is engaging in hitting the car's bumper with his body, though
not choosing to. He appears unaware of the use of "passive voice."
Sad...
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
06 May 2006 07:45:11 AM |
|
|
*nemo* wrote:
In article <1146692815.877847.8350@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to.
Dude appears confused. Using this definition, a person who gets run over
by a car is engaging in hitting the car's bumper with his body, though
not choosing to. He appears unaware of the use of "passive voice."
Example of 'active voice': nemo said something irrelevant.
Example of 'passive voice': Something irrelevant was said by nemo.
Two different statements which describe the identical event. Which is
why your statement is irrelevant: 'active voice'/'passive voice' is a
distinction between statements about events, not about the events
themselves.
It's quite clear that, in a rape, the victim is not doing what she's
chosen to do, irrespective of what she is doing. Even if she's
restrained so that she's incapable of any action at all, she is
clearly not doing what she chooses through the course of the rape.
Sad...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emmanual Kann" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
07 May 2006 09:14:04 AM |
|
|
An Sat, 06 May 2006 05:45:11 -0700, George Dance hat geschreibt:
Example of 'active voice': nemo said something irrelevant.
Example of 'passive voice': Something irrelevant was said by nemo.
Two different statements which describe the identical event. Which is
why your statement is irrelevant: 'active voice'/'passive voice' is a
distinction between statements about events, not about the events
themselves.
Yes but your example of passive voice is not the form usually used. For
example: Mistakes were made. Usually passive voice is used to tell you
what happened without assigning responsibility for the action. Same as
with the OP straw man that a woman who is raped, somehow chooses the
outcome because there isn't any rapist in the sentence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 09:33:14 PM |
|
|
On 3 May 2006 14:46:55 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146692815.877847.8350@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
In theory, yes, since consent is never sought. In practice, it's not
the raising of money per se that's wrongful, but just the way it's
done, as some people (even though they're not asked) would consent to
paying some amounts for services that would not otherwise be
forthcoming.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
If the child's old enough to be choosing (ie, to be deciding on an end
and a means), then he's old enough to old enough to be told about the
consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket; which should
be enough to dissuade him - if it isn't, then you probably have been
doing some things 'wrongful' as a parent.
If he isn't, then you have to do that for him; choosing not from the
perspective of what you want but from what he'd choose if he were able
to do that. That's known as 'guardianship,' and it's not your
responsibility.
:
I am glad that you are adult enough to have admitted that you were
wrong.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 05:14:19 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On 3 May 2006 14:46:55 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146692815.877847.8350@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray wrote:
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
In theory, yes, since consent is never sought. In practice, it's not
the raising of money per se that's wrongful, but just the way it's
done, as some people (even though they're not asked) would consent to
paying some amounts for services that would not otherwise be
forthcoming.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
If the child's old enough to be choosing (ie, to be deciding on an end
and a means), then he's old enough to old enough to be told about the
consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket; which should
be enough to dissuade him - if it isn't, then you probably have been
doing some things 'wrongful' as a parent.
If he isn't, then you have to do that for him; choosing not from the
perspective of what you want but from what he'd choose if he were able
to do that. That's known as 'guardianship,' and it's [...] your
responsibility.
I am glad that you are adult enough to have admitted that you were
wrong.
About what? I'll admit that my last clause was wrong (as when I edited
it out I left in a superflouous 'not'). But I don't think you mean
that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 09:08:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:08:02 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
(Bloody philosophers)
Not a lick of sense between them all.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 03:36:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:08:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ggoi52tp8qi8cbmmar82ahi5au8ntrnjdh@4ax.com>
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:08:02 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
(Bloody philosophers)
Not a lick of sense between them all.
Aye, lad!
Not like in our day.
Yer average Working Philosopher had it tough in them there days.
Damn tough.
Down t' Kohl Minds at 4 in t' morning, wi' nought for mental
sustenance.
Deducting deontological paradigms for 15 hours a day.
That's a full thinking day, lad, and don't you forget it!
And we paid John Stewart Mill owner for t' priviledge!
Aye, philosophers nowadays don't know they're alive.
All I've got to show for it is this terrible writers' cramp, lad.
An' you tell that to t' kids of today:- and they won't believe you!
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 05:10:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:06:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:08:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ggoi52tp8qi8cbmmar82ahi5au8ntrnjdh@4ax.com>
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:08:02 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
(Bloody philosophers)
Not a lick of sense between them all.
Aye, lad!
Not like in our day.
Yer average Working Philosopher had it tough in them there days.
Damn tough.
Down t' Kohl Minds at 4 in t' morning, wi' nought for mental
sustenance.
Deducting deontological paradigms for 15 hours a day.
That's a full thinking day, lad, and don't you forget it!
And we paid John Stewart Mill owner for t' priviledge!
Aye, philosophers nowadays don't know they're alive.
All I've got to show for it is this terrible writers' cramp, lad.
An' you tell that to t' kids of today:- and they won't believe you!
Doan't eye kno' dat!
Pics on site
http://hailxenu.net/
XENU IS COMING...
Over at OT we have raised over $4,000 which is being used to fly a
banner over Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood today where Tom
Cruise will be for the premiere of Mission Impossible 3. The banner will
say ?Hail Xenu LOL <8 OT? and "The baby is Xenu's". The planes are
lifting off from an undisclosed airport 30 miles away at 5:05pm. It's a
45minutes maritime flight there. They will circle until 7:30pm and fly
back to the airport apparently its 35min maritime back to the airport.
You should see the planes flying around LA and Hollywood around 5pm and
they should be in the circling pattern around the theater around 5:50pm.
/end
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 07:27:54 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 15:10:24 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <isuk52l7ouqph5soqk5s25es6l9ac5nah3@4ax.com>
On Thu, 04 May 2006 18:06:40 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Wed, 03 May 2006 19:08:33 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
- Refer: <ggoi52tp8qi8cbmmar82ahi5au8ntrnjdh@4ax.com>
On Wed, 03 May 2006 15:08:02 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On 2 May 2006 15:03:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
- Refer: <1146607394.106452.208740@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Robibnikoff wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1146567265.055339.325270@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Everyone already does do that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Alas, they do not. When one person rapes another, eg, the person being
raped is engaging in sex though not choosing to. Which is why I would
consider rape, eg, to be a wrongful act.
So then by the extension of elementary moral equivalence, taxation is
a wrongful act.
Preventing an infant from poking their fingers into a light socket is
a 'wrongful' act.
(Bloody philosophers)
Not a lick of sense between them all.
Aye, lad!
Not like in our day.
Yer average Working Philosopher had it tough in them there days.
Damn tough.
Down t' Kohl Minds at 4 in t' morning, wi' nought for mental
sustenance.
Deducting deontological paradigms for 15 hours a day.
That's a full thinking day, lad, and don't you forget it!
And we paid John Stewart Mill owner for t' priviledge!
Aye, philosophers nowadays don't know they're alive.
All I've got to show for it is this terrible writers' cramp, lad.
An' you tell that to t' kids of today:- and they won't believe you!
Doan't eye kno' dat!
Pics on site
http://hailxenu.net/
XENU IS COMING...
Over at OT we have raised over $4,000 which is being used to fly a
banner over Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood today where Tom
Cruise will be for the premiere of Mission Impossible 3. The banner will
say ?Hail Xenu LOL <8 OT? and "The baby is Xenu's". The planes are
lifting off from an undisclosed airport 30 miles away at 5:05pm. It's a
45minutes maritime flight there. They will circle until 7:30pm and fly
back to the airport apparently its 35min maritime back to the airport.
You should see the planes flying around LA and Hollywood around 5pm and
they should be in the circling pattern around the theater around 5:50pm.
/end
Looks like a hoot!
Just Cruisin'
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
03 May 2006 12:17:15 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I'd like to suggest the following as a fundamental moral/ethical
principle:
"Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
Classic Anarchy. Problem has always been that different people's choices are
frequently not compatible. Oh well, its a good goal or aim but never seams to
work as an absolute
A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which would
violate the above principle.
Are you talking for others or just ourselves. Namely, am I responsible for
ensuring that every one gets what they choose (talk about playing god) or are
we really talking about "I shall do as I choose." If your trying to state the
broader moral with the implication that an individual is some how responsible
for would basic preclude you form doing anything that violate others choice
which of course violates your choices. The biggest flaw in this moral approach
is that living in the presence of other individuals with their own choice
"violate the above principle
The reality is everyone makes their own choice and that almost always includes
limiting our choices so that we can choose to live in the presence of other
humans. Maybe you need to modify your statement to read "everyone shall do as
he or she chooses if one chooses to do so", this way it also includes the
choice of going along with someone else's choice.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BuddhaThu" |
|
| Title: Re: Fundamental Moral Principle? |
04 May 2006 01:17:09 PM |
|
|
Dear George,
This is an interesting grammatical paradox. I call this kind of paradox
one of the angelic ones. It locks in consistency. It never pushes for
inconsistency.
I have done research on these angelic grammatical paradoxes for about 3
years.
To me, such paradoxes are like being an organic, earth friendly free
range chicken -- but with a fence. :-)
I like it.
Let us see the grammatical content. Put aside all considerations of
ethics. Take the statement as a grammatical toy.
1) "Everyone shall do as he or she chooses."
2) A 'wrong' action can be defined as an action the outcome of which
would
violate the above principle.
Therefore, if you violate the first statement, you are consistent to
it.
If you choose *not* to do whatever you choose, then you are doing
whatever you choose. You are still consistent to the first statement,
yet still paradoxical.
However, if you choose to brackett in ethics, I think there would be
consequences. ;-)
B.T.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
