| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"DonQuijote1954" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2004 11:16:44 AM |
| Object: |
Is there Morality? |
Evolve or Else! See...
http://pub36.bravenet.com/forum/3021914257/fetch/330301/
<It is unwise to congratulate nature for its natural nature event.
Dinosaurs were the perfect creation and die as a result of cosmic
catastrophe. And this is what worries the most; that they were adopted
to environment, powerful and disappeared.
Statement claiming lack of morality between dinosaurs is equally
nonsense as claiming the morality in motivation in human beings.>
Howdy Woj
No wait a minute, there's no ultimate morality in Nature? Shouldn't we
extend it to the Human? Or at least in reverse? Then there's no right
and wrong and Bush it's only a manifestation of the will of Nature to
prey on others, and some are predators and some are prey?
If you believe in God, on the other hand, then you must accept that he
hurled the Asteroid in disgust as only He could have taken such an
important decision that ultimately led to the rise of us Human Beings.
We could not have shared the Earth as the dinosaurs would have preyed
on us...
If you don't believe, you still got to see the will of Nature to order
efficiency over waste. The Law of the Jungle is not mandated by
Nature, and if it is, then the only response of the small animals is
to cooperate and find strenght in numbers. Then it would be a fight
for survival between between the few and the many, the big and the
small. That was the only choice left for the cooperating Little
Ants...
"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation,"
The devil
is in the SUVs
Which of the following bold environmental initiatives is the Bush
administration considering?
A. Outlawing toothpicks in deli sandwiches less than 2 inches tall.
B. Requiring Americans to watch the Channel 11 Yule log rather than
burn real wood.
C. Asking Detroit to boost sport-utility vehicle fuel efficiency by
1.5 miles per gallon by 2007.
So far, my friends, only C is on the President's agenda. But A and B
probably make more sense. Why?
Because what the administration is asking for is less than what the
automakers already were committed to doing two years ago.
Yes, back in 2000, the Ford Motor Co. pledged to raise the fuel
economy of its SUVs by 1.8 miles per gallon over the next five years.
The other car companies vowed to meet or exceed that. "So," says David
Friedman, an engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "the
automakers are already committed to doing more than the administration
is asking for."
Kinda makes Bush's proposal look a little weak, no? That's why perhaps
it's time to trust our environmental policy to someone with a bit more
integrity, not to mention long-term perspective:
God.
"What Would Jesus Drive?" is the headline of a new ad unveiled by
Evangelicals for Social Action, a group of more than 50 evangelical
Christian leaders.
Together with senior leaders from Jewish and mainstream Protestant
groups, they've formed the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment with one simple aim: making a moral issue out of what we
drive.
"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation," says the WWJD? ad.
In a two-pronged approach, the umbrella group is calling on Detroit to
make cleaner cars - and congregants to drive them.
On Wednesday, the group met with the Big Three automakers - itself a
coup - and, says Chris Preuss, a General Motors spokesman, "We had a
very good, honest, constructive meeting."
By this, Preuss means that he explained to those gathered that GM
would really love to make cars that get better mileage, but people
don't want 'em. With gas still relatively cheap, "The customer keeps
demanding more powerful, less fuel-efficient vehicles."
In other words: Don't blame Detroit for gas guzzlers. Blame Americans
for demanding them.
He has a point. But as Bob Edgar of the religious delegation points
out, our piggish predilections are at least "partly the result of the
$13 billion the auto industry spends on advertising."
Another good point. Not too many ads for SUVs discuss their impact on
global warming, climbing asthma rates and, tangentially, the push for
war in a region crucial to us only for its oil.
Thus it is a real blessing that the clergy is making us think about
such unpleasantries. Because if we really did demand cleaner cars, we
could get them.
"Right now, the technology exists that could give us a
40-miles-per-gallon fleet of vehicles in the next 10 years," says Kate
Simmons, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. These cars would cost more,
true. But that increase would be offset by savings at the pump. By
2020, Simmons says, clean cars "would save us more oil than we
currently import from the Persian Gulf and the projected yield from
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined."
Wildlife vs. pipelines. Clean air vs. asthma. God vs. Detroit. Put
this way, gas guzzling is truly a moral choice we must face.
Even if our President won't.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ide...85p-35868c.html
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=88372
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
26 Jul 2004 05:27:03 PM |
|
|
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
.
|
|
|
| User: "DonQuijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
26 Jul 2004 11:07:36 PM |
|
|
<I know that many people are going to disagree with me,but here is
what I believe,and I will not change my beliefs...>
Self-confidence is good, but stubborness will keep you from evolving,
which is even better. So in the end is bad.
<I am politically conservative. I believe this
places me in the minority.>
Don't worry, you got the power.
<I believe the government that governs least
governs best, which is the foundation of
conservative adherents.>
True, so long as you govern FOR the people, not AGAINST them.
<I believe the words in the constitution mean
what they say. I can read.>
Then you should agree on the last one.
<I believe individual liberty must be
respected in order for this experiment in
self-government to continue.>
Experiment, evolution? I thought you were stuck in your beliefs.
<I believe the toll of freedom is
responsibility. Those who fail to act
responsibly are not deserving of freedom.>
So freedom for some. Good thing is otherwise confusing.
<I believe you ought to pay your own way.
Charity begins at home, not in Washington DC.>
The People pay Washington, but they shouldn't expect anything back.
<I believe a country without borders will soon
cease to be a country.>
True, I haven't seen many countries without borders either.
<I believe you have the inalienable right to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ?
whatever that may be. >
I can live with that.
<I believe you should be able to have all the
fun you want, just not at someone else's
expense.>
Then don't become a politician, or a clown for that matter.
<I believe in times of peace we should prepare
for war. >
I guess, like how much, to the detriment of social programs?
<I believe in equality for all, but not
set-asides for some. >
Sure.
<I believe we have freedom of religion, not
freedom from religion.>
Wait a minute. We can believe in the Supreme Ape, if we chose to,
can't we?
<I believe in individual privacy.>
Sure, and also in collective property, ie. cooperative.
<I believe we should be very cautious when
discussing or considering banning things. >
Very cautious, like banning "freedom from religion."
<I believe it is my job, duty and
responsibility to raise my children to be
responsible and accountable human beings.>
Do your best, and hope for the best.
<I believe in leaving this country in better
condition when I leave it than when I
arrived.>
Depend what you mean by "better." I hope is not only shopping centers
and a more powerful military.
<I believe it is my civic duty to stand up for
what I believe.>
Most everybody is like that. I guess...
<I believe that rewarding people for negative
or irresponsible behavior only breeds more
negative and irresponsible behavior.>
I'm sure. It should be applied up to the president level.
<I believe you are the Captain of your own
vessel. It is no one else's fault if you run
aground. >
What about a storm? You don't want no rescue?
<I believe capitalism is a positive force on
the planet, not a repressive, ugly one. >
I guess it could be good, if there was real competition on a level
field.
<I believe in working hard to implement what I
believe. >
Some people just want to work less. One benefit of it is having time
to practice democracy.
<I believe success should be rewarded, not
punished. >
Exactly, go for it. Just don't drag anyone else!
<I believe there are people who disagree with
my beliefs. I don't believe they are wrong. I
know they are. >
They don't only are wrong, but also inferior. They should work for
people like you and be honest workers. They should have many
children...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DonQuijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
26 Jul 2004 09:34:23 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.26.22.27.02.294651@localhost.localdomain>...
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
Definition of morality? Off the top of my head: Something good for us,
like Epicurus'...
*Epicurus of Samos, the Greek "philosopher of the garden" who lived
341-270 BC, was an ancient sage who left us an enduring message of
optimism.
Epicurus recognizes the virtue of justice. Like the other virtues,
justice is not considered by Epicureans to be an "absolute good," but
rather an obligatory means for securing happiness. The nature of this
obligation is contractual; justice is grounded upon a promise not to
initiate harm against one's peers, nor to permit such wrongdoing to go
unpunished. Throughout history, it has proved mutually advantageous
for individuals to band together into societies implicitly or
explicitly embracing this kind of pact, because, according to
Epicurus, "the greatest fruit of justice is peace of mind." When we
live under conditions of assured protection, we can derive solace from
the expectation that we will not fall prey to criminal acts, or in the
unlikely event that we do, that there will at least be avenues of
recourse available to us. On the other hand, *those who try to cheat
the social covenant by committing crimes are subject to perpetual
anxieties that accompany the prospects of looming retaliation*.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DonQuijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 01:31:24 AM |
|
|
(DonQuijote1954) wrote in message news:<4e4a3f58.0407261834.29121b58@posting.google.com>...
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.26.22.27.02.294651@localhost.localdomain>...
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
OK, how about this SIMPLE definition... ;)
"straw-eating lion, good; blood-****ing lion, bad"
<No. Sociaties are not sheep and lion in law of the jungle but the
particles of sheep-lion duality.>
Woj, I'll explain it to you one more time... ;)
This lion is no straw-eater; he's a blood-****ing capitalist pig!!! He
knows he's putting everybody at risk because of his stupid appetite
but he keeps going: ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, WAR, etc, etc. And to
top it off, he disguises in sheep's clothing. Tell me, what can be
more *evil* than that?
This other lion is OK though...
"And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."
"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain (kingdom):
for the Earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
waters cover the sea!" (Is.11:9.)
But the meat-eater, blood-****ing lion goes around by SUV as if
challenging the God's creation. Look at what He promises: No stinking
automobiles!
ANIMAL TRANSPORT AND SAILING VESSELS AGAIN
What a wonderful place to live!--The curse will be removed, all
viciousness gone, and all killing and hurting stopped! That's why I
know that there aren't going to be any more cars there, no
automobiles: "For nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all His holy
mountain!"--Cars are one of the greatest destroyers of mankind today
and kill more people than anything else.
The only forms of transportation that are going to be left will be the
God-given, God-created, God-ordained ones--horses, camels, mules,
wagons, etc.--which were good enough for the World for more than five
thousand years before they ever heard of anything else! Most of the
World lived in peace and plenty without all these God-damned,
gasoline-powered, pollution-spouting, environment-hurting and
life-destroying automobiles!
In the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ there won't be any of these
stinking automobiles belching fumes anymore, or any of these big
smokey smoke-belching factories! So they won't have to worry about oil
anymore! They're not going to have all of this modern destructive
machinery and smoke and oil and nuclear power and whatnot! The World
is going to go back to animal transportation and carriages and wagons
etc.! They'll sure appreciate the animals then! Perhaps for
transporting heavy loads of raw materials, foods, etc., they'll go
back to sailing vessels, powered by God's Own good clean winds and
currents!
http://healinghearts.5u.com/millen/mill/m-nature.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 11:26:41 AM |
|
|
In article <4e4a3f58.0407262231.3421774b@posting.google.com>,
(DonQuijote1954) wrote:
(DonQuijote1954) wrote in message
news:<4e4a3f58.0407261834.29121b58@posting.google.com>...
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:<pan.2004.07.26.22.27.02.294651@localhost.localdomain>...
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
OK, how about this SIMPLE definition... ;)
"straw-eating lion, good; blood-****ing lion, bad"
<No. Sociaties are not sheep and lion in law of the jungle but the
particles of sheep-lion duality.>
Woj, I'll explain it to you one more time... ;)
This lion is no straw-eater; he's a blood-****ing capitalist pig!!! He
knows he's putting everybody at risk because of his stupid appetite
but he keeps going: ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION, WAR, etc, etc. And to
top it off, he disguises in sheep's clothing. Tell me, what can be
more *evil* than that?
This other lion is OK though...
"And the lion shall eat straw like the ox."
"They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain (kingdom):
for the Earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
waters cover the sea!" (Is.11:9.)
But the meat-eater, blood-****ing lion goes around by SUV as if
challenging the God's creation. Look at what He promises: No stinking
automobiles!
ANIMAL TRANSPORT AND SAILING VESSELS AGAIN
What a wonderful place to live!--The curse will be removed, all
viciousness gone, and all killing and hurting stopped! That's why I
know that there aren't going to be any more cars there, no
automobiles: "For nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all His holy
mountain!"--Cars are one of the greatest destroyers of mankind today
and kill more people than anything else.
The only forms of transportation that are going to be left will be the
God-given, God-created, God-ordained ones--horses, camels, mules,
wagons, etc.--which were good enough for the World for more than five
thousand years before they ever heard of anything else! Most of the
World lived in peace and plenty without all these God-damned,
gasoline-powered, pollution-spouting, environment-hurting and
life-destroying automobiles!
In the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ there won't be any of these
stinking automobiles belching fumes anymore, or any of these big
smokey smoke-belching factories! So they won't have to worry about oil
anymore! They're not going to have all of this modern destructive
machinery and smoke and oil and nuclear power and whatnot! The World
is going to go back to animal transportation and carriages and wagons
etc.! They'll sure appreciate the animals then! Perhaps for
transporting heavy loads of raw materials, foods, etc., they'll go
back to sailing vessels, powered by God's Own good clean winds and
currents!
*
But when??? for Christ's sake!
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "DonQuijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 11:08:51 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones <earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<earle.jones-0582AB.09264027072004@netnews.comcast.net>...
In article <4e4a3f58.0407262231.3421774b@posting.google.com>,
nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com (DonQuijote1954) wrote:
In the millennial kingdom of Jesus Christ there won't be any of these
stinking automobiles belching fumes anymore, or any of these big
smokey smoke-belching factories! So they won't have to worry about oil
anymore! They're not going to have all of this modern destructive
machinery and smoke and oil and nuclear power and whatnot! The World
is going to go back to animal transportation and carriages and wagons
etc.! They'll sure appreciate the animals then! Perhaps for
transporting heavy loads of raw materials, foods, etc., they'll go
back to sailing vessels, powered by God's Own good clean winds and
currents!
*
But when??? for Christ's sake!
I've been consulting the oracles as well as the horoscope and they
give the date for 2021, 3:33pm.
In the meantime we are going to have to endure with the Religious
Right. At that point we will be free...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
26 Jul 2004 06:44:03 PM |
|
|
In article <pan.2004.07.26.22.27.02.294651@localhost.localdomain>,
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
*
And a coherent spelling of 'coherent'.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 10:52:00 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 23:44:03 +0000, Earle Jones wrote:
In article <pan.2004.07.26.22.27.02.294651@localhost.localdomain>,
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
*
And a coherent spelling of 'coherent'.
So I misspelled it. Big deal. I'm not writing
an English thesis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liberator Veritatis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
26 Jul 2004 09:39:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
--
Liberator Veritatis
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 11:35:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:39:42 +0000, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?
Does such hold true for everyone, or does it depend on pov?
Does such hold true for all circumstances?
Or is 'morality' a quick way for each person to add 'authority'
to their likes and dislikes?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DonQuijote1954" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 11:10:24 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.27.16.35.49.996717@localhost.localdomain>...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:39:42 +0000, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?
Does such hold true for everyone, or does it depend on pov?
Does such hold true for all circumstances?
Or is 'morality' a quick way for each person to add 'authority'
to their likes and dislikes?
Listen, bro, you get a gun and that's morality... ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
28 Jul 2004 09:43:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:10:24 -0700, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.27.16.35.49.996717@localhost.localdomain>...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:39:42 +0000, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?
Does such hold true for everyone, or does it depend on pov?
Does such hold true for all circumstances?
Or is 'morality' a quick way for each person to add 'authority'
to their likes and dislikes?
Listen, bro, you get a gun and that's morality... ;)
Ah...might makes reich! :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
28 Jul 2004 11:16:15 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:10:24 -0700, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.27.16.35.49.996717@localhost.localdomain>...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:39:42 +0000, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?
Does such hold true for everyone, or does it depend on pov?
Does such hold true for all circumstances?
Or is 'morality' a quick way for each person to add 'authority'
to their likes and dislikes?
Listen, bro, you get a gun and that's morality... ;)
Ah...might makes reich! :)
It's not the Earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!
--
Enkidu
aa 2165
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without
having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of
it too?"
--Douglas Adams
Now playing . . .
[004] Guided by Voices - Learning to Hunt
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
29 Jul 2004 05:19:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:16:15 -0700, Enkidu wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:10:24 -0700, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.07.27.16.35.49.996717@localhost.localdomain>...
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:39:42 +0000, Liberator Veritatis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:27:03 -0700, "stoney"
<stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Need a coherant definition for the
m-o-r-a-l-i-t-y letter string first.
[]
No you don't -- not any more than any other string. We all know what
the term "morality" refers to well enough to start talking about it.
As to what the term "really" means, that is, all that it entails and
all that is possible when it comes to such a concept and so on, we
have to first *start* talking about it to eventually reach that
understanding.
You are disqualifying any consideration of morality until we know
everything there is to know about it.
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?
Does such hold true for everyone, or does it depend on pov?
Does such hold true for all circumstances?
Or is 'morality' a quick way for each person to add 'authority'
to their likes and dislikes?
Listen, bro, you get a gun and that's morality... ;)
Ah...might makes reich! :)
It's not the Earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!
Sometimes. Other times its the vultures and lions.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
27 Jul 2004 04:50:22 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism stoney <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
Not at all. What is 'morality?'
A morality is a social code of conduct which rates some human actions as
moral or immoral.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
31 Jul 2004 11:50:16 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10gdjgu6np6bjb6@corp.supernews.com...
A morality is a social code of conduct which rates some human actions as
moral or immoral. <
But what is the basis of the rating? That is the underlying question.
Morality is the intent to acheive good and reduce harm, and to desire this
for others as well as for oneself. So the measure of any given social rule
(or any set of such rules as a code) is how well it improves good and/or
reduces harm within society. Take slavery for example. It benefits the slave
owner but harms the slave. Two free men are a greater good than one free man
and one slave. The various goods involved may include liberty,
self-determination, innovation (two equals competing or cooperating produce
more innovation than one master and one slave and therefore greater social
good), etc. The harms would include the lack of same, plus the sense of
degradation, etc. So one may objectively assert that a rule prohibiting
slavery is "more moral" than a rule supporting it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
01 Aug 2004 06:23:57 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 04:50:16 +0000, Marvin Edwards wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:10gdjgu6np6bjb6@corp.supernews.com...
A morality is a social code of conduct which rates some human actions as
moral or immoral. <
But what is the basis of the rating? That is the underlying question.
Morality is the intent to acheive good and reduce harm, and to desire this
for others as well as for oneself. So the measure of any given social rule
(or any set of such rules as a code) is how well it improves good and/or
reduces harm within society. Take slavery for example. It benefits the slave
owner but harms the slave. Two free men are a greater good than one free man
and one slave. The various goods involved may include liberty,
self-determination, innovation (two equals competing or cooperating produce
more innovation than one master and one slave and therefore greater social
good), etc. The harms would include the lack of same, plus the sense of
degradation, etc. So one may objectively assert that a rule prohibiting
slavery is "more moral" than a rule supporting it.
Good question.
Something about the subject question started nagging at me a few days ago.
The list I inputted fits in as do my responses. It's been hard for me to
articulate since, until now, there's been no jelling of the morass.
Some has fallen into place. I'm getting the idea the subject question
is a case of 'putting the cart before the horse.'
/prior post of mine
What is Morality?
What is 'morality?'
Cannibalism?
Slavery?
Torture?
Genocide?
Theft?
Cronyism?
Arrest for wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt?
Biological Warfare?
Forced superstition conversion (FGM) or death?
The lopping off of hands for theft?
Imprisonment for merely disagreeing with the gov?
Rigged elections?
Might makes right?
Embezzlement?
Kidnapping?
They've all been deemed moral.
/quote
another poster
So? All sorts of false and incompatible statements have been deemed
"true". All you are showing is that there is disagreement when it
comes to morality. /quote
me again
Which renders the term without meaning-other than an attempt
to put 'authority' behind one's personal views. Such is as
subjective as 'good' and 'better' to name two.
/quote
My question; "Once can tell 'immoral' from 'moral' via what method?"
comes in later but, imo, it still pertains to the question; "What is
morality?"
Today is not a good day and I must rest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
01 Aug 2004 08:06:15 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.01.23.23.50.275888@localhost.localdomain...
... Which renders the term without meaning-other than an attempt to put
'authority' behind one's personal views. Such is as subjective as 'good' and
'better' to name two. ... My question; "Once can tell 'immoral' from
'moral' via what method?" comes in later but, imo, it still pertains to the
question; "What is morality?" ... <
Morality is "about" achieving good and/or reducing harm. When we say that a
person, or a principle, or a rule, or a means "is moral" we are asserting
that they contribute toward achieving the best possible good for all rather
than working the opposite.
Consider two competing principles: A) "no one should steal" vs B) "everyone
should steal". If we were to follow B, then there would be no motivation to
produce anything. Everyone would adopt instead the strategy of waiting for
someone else to produce something and then stealing it. If we follow A, then
production is immediately rewarded, and there are more goods for everyone.
Thus we can conclude that "no one should steal" is a "moral principle" and
that "everyone should steal" is immoral (comparatively).
To assert that one person or principle is more moral than another is to
assert that it is more likely to lead to the best possible good for all. To
say that a person or principle is immoral asserts that they are more likely
to result in a loss of good or significant harm for one or all of us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brendan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
19 Aug 2004 09:35:43 PM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bsgPc.6505$Jp6.101@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"stoney" <stoney@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.01.23.23.50.275888@localhost.localdomain...
Consider two competing principles: A) "no one should steal" vs B)
"everyone
should steal".
John Lennon's "Imagine" comes to mind.....
cool mixture of ideas with the crossposting. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
02 Aug 2004 12:35:13 PM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<bsgPc.6505$Jp6.101@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Morality is "about" achieving good and/or reducing harm. When we say that a
person, or a principle, or a rule, or a means "is moral" we are asserting
that they contribute toward achieving the best possible good for all rather
than working the opposite.
Consider two competing principles: A) "no one should steal" vs B) "everyone
should steal". If we were to follow B, then there would be no motivation to
produce anything.
No, that's not what morality is "about."
Stand in front of any supermarket and ask people the following questions:
Which of the following is a moral transgression? Pick the one best answer.
1) Theft.
2) Murder.
3) A married man getting a ***** from a guy in the locker room.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the answers aren't going to be
1 or 2.
Furthermore, YOU KNOW THIS. You aren't that stupid. You know that
when people talk about morality, it's about inserting tab A into slot B.
This rarefied notion of morality, and about how it's about achieving good
and/or reducing harm, is a load of bollocks, which philosophers pretend
to believe in because it gives them an opportunity to pretend to be
civilized.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
02 Aug 2004 07:09:47 PM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408020935.175b891e@posting.google.com...
No, that's not what morality is "about." Stand in front of any supermarket
and ask people the following questions: Which of the following is a moral
transgression? Pick the one best answer. 1) Theft. 2) Murder. 3) A married
man getting a ***** from a guy in the locker room. Not to put too fine a
point on it, but the answers aren't going to be 1 or 2. <
But the answers in fact are going to be 1 and 2 and 3.
Furthermore, YOU KNOW THIS. You aren't that stupid. You know that when
people talk about morality, it's about inserting tab A into slot B. This
rarefied notion of morality, and about how it's about achieving good and/or
reducing harm, is a load of bollocks, which philosophers pretend to believe
in because it gives them an opportunity to pretend to be civilized. <
Then what "ought" morality to be about? (And, for extra credit, explain why
your answer is moral).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
03 Aug 2004 10:19:08 AM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<fJAPc.23639$iK.20705@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Then what "ought" morality to be about? (And, for extra credit, explain why
your answer is moral).
Before I answer, let me say that, no fooling, no sarcasm, this is a GOOD
question, and it's in line with the kind of debate that I like to see here,
as opposed to the crap that I normally see.
I'm afraid that I might not be able to come up with a satisfactory
explanation, though. I do not claim to be a moral person. I trust my
gut, my sense of empathy. As far as I can tell, this works pretty well.
I don't steal or murder or rape, and I don't even take jobs that I think
will harm people. I've paid a high cost for some of this, but I don't
do it because of some code or principle, I do what feels right.
I see people using "morality," and what it always seems to me is a bunch
of people using some codes or principles or something in an effort to make
people who are doing perfectly reasonable things that don't hurt anybody
feel like *****. So, from an anthropological perspective, at least,
morality seems largely about hurting people, promoting bad mental health,
and killing the sparks of curiosity, exploration, and creativity. I find
this bad. Because it is opposed to how morality is usually practiced, I
do not call it morality.
It is a quintissentially moral thing, for example, for a mother to drag
her 17-year-old daughter whom she has just found out is having sex with
her 17-year-old boyfriend into the emergency room for a brutal "rape exam"
that includes plucking out 20 pubic hairs. Hardly anybody, as far as I can
tell, questions the upstanding morality of this action. I consider such an
action harmful and wrong. I cannot call it morality, because morality, as
it is used, is opposed to my viewpoint.
I think this is something like what Nietzsche was trying to get to when he
called himself an immoralist. I enjoy his writings and find a lot to agree
with. I also like the concept of the Uebermensch. "Mensch" in German
refers to the human qualities of people as opposed to the reptilian
qualities, and this is exaggerated in Yiddish to mean compassion, decency,
honesty, and honor. To be called a "Mensch" is high praise indeed.
For those who only have read a few paragraphs of Nietzche, you can also
go to Jung. Eros good, thanatos bad. Simple.
For those who like to think for themselves, I think that if they shrug
off most of the *****, they'll find it in their heads.
The point is that ordinary human decency, goodwill, and a sense of
empathy are *natural* human characteristics. They're not the only
*natural* human characteristics, as there are some destructive
characteristics that are just as natural. But all you need to do,
presuming you like them, is to allow them to flourish. You don't need
a code; you don't need a book; you don't need a religion; you don't need
principle. All you need is to allow them to come to fruition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
03 Aug 2004 05:35:52 PM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408030719.621c9824@posting.google.com...
... I trust my gut, my sense of empathy. As far as I can tell, this works
pretty well. I don't steal or murder or rape, and I don't even take jobs
that I think will harm people. I've paid a high cost for some of this, but
I don't do it because of some code or principle, I do what feels right. <
"Do what feels right" is a principle. A principle is a general, guiding rule
for behavior that is usually expressed in a brief form, to be easily
remembered.
Hmmm ... where the heck is my Buffy and Ethics book? Well, anyway, one
chapter described something called "eudamonism", an ethical theory which
suggests that our feelings guide our ethics, or rather that we are ethical
because being unethical causes us unhappiness. Even when we must personally
sacrifice, we are ultimately happier with ourselves when doing good than we
would be if we did something wrong instead.
This sense, of feeling good about doing good, and feeling bad about doing
harm, is what I think is called a "moral sense" (or perhaps "moral
sensibility").
I see people using "morality," and what it always seems to me is a bunch
of people using some codes or principles or something in an effort to make
people who are doing perfectly reasonable things that don't hurt anybody
feel like *****. ... <
But you and I are also like them. Like everyone else, we seek to convey our
own moral sensibilities to others. For example, you want people to feel bad
whenever they attempt to "make people who are doing perfectly reasonable
things that don't hurt anybody feel like *****." If they realized what they
were doing was wrong, then they would feel bad when they did it, and they
would cease doing it.
And you've introduced a second principle: "It is wrong to try to prevent
people from doing perfectly reasonable things that don't hurt anybody".
So, from an anthropological perspective, at least, morality seems largely
about hurting people, promoting bad mental health, and killing the sparks of
curiosity, exploration, and creativity. ... <
But that's only half the story. The other half is that morality is about
making people feel joyful in doing good things, assisting others, tolerating
or celebrating differences, encouraging independent thought and development,
etc. The moral sense is also about feeling good when doing good.
It is a quintissentially moral thing, for example, for a mother to drag
her 17-year-old daughter ... <
Why allow others to define what is moral? You carry that responsibility as
well as they do. If you believe that more harm than good results when a
mother drags her 17-year-old daughter to a rape test after consensual sex,
then you may assert that it is immoral. But BOTH of you will have to argue
your claim with reason and evidence showing why it is better or worse to go
your way or hers, and if there is concensus that your position is indeed
best, then laws will change. But this is a lot of hard work.
... For those who only have read a few paragraphs of Nietzche, you can
also go to Jung. Eros good, thanatos bad. Simple. <
But the mother will claim Eros supports her action. So, while the principle
(I think that's number three, so I think you've got a "moral code" there) is
simple to state, but it's application to practical problems may be complex.
The point is that ordinary human decency, goodwill, and a sense of
empathy are *natural* human characteristics. They're not the only *natural*
human characteristics, as there are some destructive characteristics that
are just as natural. But all you need to do, presuming you like them, is to
allow them to flourish. You don't need a code; you don't need a book; you
don't need a religion; you don't need principle. All you need is to allow
them to come to fruition. <
The fourth principle then is "Allow your good human nature to flourish, but
not your destructive characteristics". That's four principles. These may be
expanded through practical experience into a more detailed set of rules, or
ethical code. For example, what should a mother do if she catches her 17
year old daughter having consensual sex with her boyfriend?
As to religion, the primary function of most religions is to promote your
fourth principle. Doing what is right when you are surrounded by examples of
people who prosper at the expense of others may not come naturally. It may
require social support and mutual reinforcement. A church provides spiritual
support for people seeking to do what is right and good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
05 Aug 2004 04:57:57 PM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<crUPc.8310$Jp6.3803@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Do what feels right" is a principle. A principle is a general, guiding rule
for behavior that is usually expressed in a brief form, to be easily
remembered.
Interesting rejoinder, but it's only a principle if it's stated. I don't
usually bother state it and only do so if asked.
It's like linguistics and language. Most people learn language, and they
just talk. Linguistics are about describing this. However, the vast
majority of people who can use language can't state things in terms of
linguistics.
But you and I are also like them. Like everyone else, we seek to convey our
own moral sensibilities to others. For example, you want people to feel bad
whenever they attempt to "make people who are doing perfectly reasonable
things that don't hurt anybody feel like *****."
Not really. I don't have a lot of investment in making people feel bad for
using morality in what I consider a harmful way. I USED to do this, so I do
know what you're talking about, but nowadays, I don't much care. Have a nice
life! Or don't. Whatever.
You could always say that there is SOME element of wanting to persuade people,
but I think there's certainly a difference in degree, and at some point the
difference becomes qualitative.
And you've introduced a second principle: "It is wrong to try to prevent
people from doing perfectly reasonable things that don't hurt anybody".
If and only if you make it into a principle.
But that's only half the story. The other half is that morality is about
making people feel joyful in doing good things, assisting others, tolerating
or celebrating differences, encouraging independent thought and development,
etc. The moral sense is also about feeling good when doing good.
See, I don't think that people have to be MADE to feel joyful about doing
good things. MAKING people do stuff seems to be a lot of what morality
is about. The fact that people enjoy dessert, for example, is not called
a "moral" question, with an impetus to MAKE people feel good about enjoying
dessert because, well, people just plain enjoy dessert. If you think
otherwise, perhaps you could direct me to some weighty tomes about the
Morality of Cheesecake.
It is a quintissentially moral thing, for example, for a mother to drag
her 17-year-old daughter ... <
Why allow others to define what is moral? You carry that responsibility as
well as they do.
I didn't invent the language.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
06 Aug 2004 12:01:03 AM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408051357.2fcdef39@posting.google.com...
Not really. I don't have a lot of investment in making people feel bad
for using morality in what I consider a harmful way. I USED to do this, so
I do know what you're talking about, but nowadays, I don't much care. Have
a nice life! Or don't. Whatever. <
You don't make a big deal of it, and don't formalize it, but simply express
your feelings and welcome others to do the same. I didn't mean to suggest
you went around trying to make people feel bad about themselves. But there
are some things which you would feel strongly enough about to say "this is
wrong and should not be allowed". I suspect you would feel that way about
terrorists kidnapping and slicing off someone's head to get their way.
Right?
You could always say that there is SOME element of wanting to persuade
people, but I think there's certainly a difference in degree, and at some
point the difference becomes qualitative. <
Some moral issues may be trivial and others are of great significance. I
think you're objecting to those who seek to impose their moral viewpoint
inappropriately. Where that line is drawn is also a moral judgement.
And you've introduced a second principle: "It is wrong to try to prevent
people from doing perfectly reasonable things that don't hurt anybody". <<
If and only if you make it into a principle.<
I guess I'm saying that our gut feeling are probably consistent enough to
deduce underlying principles, whether we ever verbalize them or not.
But that's only half the story. The other half is that morality is about
making people feel joyful in doing good things, assisting others, tolerating
or celebrating differences, encouraging independent thought and development,
etc. The moral sense is also about feeling good when doing good.<<
See, I don't think that people have to be MADE to feel joyful about doing
good things. MAKING people do stuff seems to be a lot of what morality is a
bout. The fact that people enjoy dessert, for example, is not called a
"moral" question, with an impetus to MAKE people feel good about enjoying
dessert because, well, people just plain enjoy dessert. If you think
otherwise, perhaps you could direct me to some weighty tomes about the
Morality of Cheesecake. <
Okay, badly stated on my part. A moral sense is cultivated, not driven in
with a hammer. Children develop their moral judgement under the influence of
parents, teachers, and peers. What they say may be learned by rote, but
their gut feelings develop in response to their inner and outer experience.
Often parents, teachers, and churches seek to guide this development through
praise and stories and examples.
Why allow others to define what is moral? You carry that responsibility
as well as they do. <<
I didn't invent the language. <
But why go into battle against intolerance, cruelty, and injustice -- often
practiced under the banner of "morality" -- without the ability to turn it
about. The advantage (and disadvantage) of flying that banner is that you
must be willing to both provide and be receptive to evidence that one way is
better than or less harmful than another. So those that claim "morality is
on our side" are required by their integrity to potentially be on your side
(and vice versa).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
20 Aug 2004 01:40:15 AM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<jgEQc.2132$nx2.1040@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
My apologies for the delay; I don't see things as often as I like.
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408051357.2fcdef39@posting.google.com...
You don't make a big deal of it, and don't formalize it, but simply express
your feelings and welcome others to do the same. I didn't mean to suggest
you went around trying to make people feel bad about themselves. But there
are some things which you would feel strongly enough about to say "this is
wrong and should not be allowed". I suspect you would feel that way about
terrorists kidnapping and slicing off someone's head to get their way.
Right?
I'm not sure, though, that I'd couch those in moralistic terms.
In any event, if I do have a morality (which I may have), it's different from
plurality morality.
I guess I'm saying that our gut feeling are probably consistent enough to
deduce underlying principles, whether we ever verbalize them or not.
Possibly. However, take the comparison that you omitted. What about
language? People do it, and it works. However, it's far too hard for anyone
to "deduce" principles of language from it. The state of structural linguistics
is pretty poor.
I think that what you may call "morality" is more like language than it is like
playing chess.
Okay, badly stated on my part. A moral sense is cultivated, not driven in
with a hammer. Children develop their moral judgement under the influence of
parents, teachers, and peers. What they say may be learned by rote, but
their gut feelings develop in response to their inner and outer experience.
Often parents, teachers, and churches seek to guide this development through
praise and stories and examples.
Part of the reason that I find myself disagreeing with you here is that I don't
think that my sense of right and wrong was taught. I had no experience with
churches. I had few good teachers, and I don't remember particular moral
lessons. I do have experience with my parents, but if anything, it seems to me
that an internal sense of right and wrong developed inspite of my experience, not
because of it.
But why go into battle against intolerance, cruelty, and injustice -- often
practiced under the banner of "morality" -- without the ability to turn it
about. The advantage (and disadvantage) of flying that banner is that you
must be willing to both provide and be receptive to evidence that one way is
better than or less harmful than another. So those that claim "morality is
on our side" are required by their integrity to potentially be on your side
(and vice versa).
It's a good question. Do people go into battle against intolerance, cruelty, and
injustice? I've watched them. It seems to me that the vast majority go into battle
for a different kind of intolerance, cruelty, and injustice. This is archetypical
morality, pretty clearly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
20 Aug 2004 05:52:06 AM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408192240.50f83b75@posting.google.com...
... What about language? People do it, and it works. However, it's far
too hard for anyone to "deduce" principles of language from it. The state
of structural linguistics is pretty poor. ...<
Actually, every language has a structure called "grammar", which are its
"principles". And you learn those principles through experience. Such that
you now have a "gut feeling" that "cat one, brown is" is incorrect. Also,
unlike some cultures which hold boiled cats as a delicacy, you will have a
"gut feeling" that this is morally wrong.
... Do people go into battle against intolerance, cruelty, and injustice?
I've watched them. It seems to me that the vast majority go into battle for
a different kind of intolerance, cruelty, and injustice. This is
archetypical morality, pretty clearly. <
It sounds like you have a prejudice against the word "morality". Check out
the dictionary definition. Does this help?
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1979):
moral "1a: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong in behavior:
ETHICAL <~ judgments>
b:expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior < a ~ poem>
c: conforming to a standard or right behavior
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a
~obligation>
e: capable of right and wrong action <a ~ agent>"
"...syn MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE shared meaning element:
conforming to a standard of what is right and good"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
20 Aug 2004 06:36:56 PM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qJkVc.3872$2L3.2442@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Actually, every language has a structure called "grammar", which are its
"principles". And you learn those principles through experience. Such that
you now have a "gut feeling" that "cat one, brown is" is incorrect.
No. Not at all. "Grammar" is an attempt to find the rules that define
language, starting with the assumption that it has rules and trying
to define rules that correctly model them. It's well known that it's a
pretty poor approximation.
It can even be approached indirectly. Translation and semantic net
programs still suck, in spite of the fact that this has been a major
goal of computer science. At the same time, chess programs are
pretty damned good. The reason: chess is well understood; language
is not.
I don't know that it's fruitful to try to rebut your claim, as what I am
saying is in any modern textbook on linguistics and is also easily
available from any amateur study of actual utterances. If you're not
interested in linguistics enough to read anything about it and are
satisfied with what is basically a high-school conviction, there's no
way that I can persuade you to do otherwise.
It sounds like you have a prejudice against the word "morality". Check out
the dictionary definition. Does this help?
No. Dictionary definitions are an attempt to describe words as people use
them. My judgement is not a prejudice; it's a postjudice, if you will. The
word "postjudice" does not appear in any dictionary I am aware of;
nevertheless, the meaning is clear.
I look at how people use the word "morality" and then look at what they
are saying when they talk about morality. I've done this for decades,
and those are my conclusions.
Now, I could be wrong, but I am not wrong because some lexicographer
defined "morality" in a certain way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin Edwards" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
20 Aug 2004 07:05:04 PM |
|
|
"Eric Pepke" <epepke@acm.org> wrote in message
news:ef37f531.0408201536.8f983c2@posting.google.com...
... I don't know that it's fruitful to try to rebut your claim, as what I
am saying is in any modern textbook on linguistics and is also easily
available from any amateur study of actual utterances. If you're not
interested in linguistics enough to read anything about it and are satisfied
with what is basically a high-school conviction, there's no way that I can
persuade you to do otherwise.<
All you can prove is that grammar is imperfect because language is
imperfect. Language, however, always has structure, even if it is a
conglomerate of multiple sub-structures. In order for two people to
communicate using language, there must be a shared grammar, even if it
covers only one sentence.
I look at how people use the word "morality" and then look at what they
are saying when they talk about morality. I've done this for decades, and
those are my conclusions. Now, I could be wrong, but I am not wrong because
some lexicographer defined "morality" in a certain way. <
Those who write dictionaries discover definitions the same way that you did.
They look at how people use the word "morality" and at what they are saying
when they use it. The difference between you and them is that they
deliberately and systematically acquire many many examples of usage. Your
definition will likely be based on a less exhaustive sample and more likely
will reflect the limitations of your personal experience and conversations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Pepke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is there Morality? |
21 Aug 2004 04:22:37 AM |
|
|
"Marvin Edwards" <mbe2uu@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<QkwVc.30431$nx2.8632@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Wow! That was fast!
All you can prove is that grammar is imperfect because language is
imperfect. Language, however, always has structure, even if it is a
conglomerate of multiple sub-structures. In order for two people to
communicate using language, there must be a shared grammar, even if it
covers only one sentence.
It isn't enough to *declare* that language has structure. It probably
does. You also need to be able to *model* the structure accurately
before you can claim to know everything about it.
Without being able to provide an accurate model of the structure of
language, you can say anything you like about it, but empirically it's
just word salad.
Those who write dictionaries discover definitions the same way that you did.
They look at how people use the word "morality" and at what they are saying
when they use it. The difference between you and them is that they
deliberately and systematically acquire many many examples of usage. Your
definition will likely be based on a less exhaustive sample and more likely
will reflect the limitations of your personal experience and conversations.
Oh, good. We have another dictionary-worshipper here. Tell me, how many
lexicographers do you think are actually employed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
