| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SITARAM" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2004 06:28:57 AM |
| Object: |
Relative vs Absolute Morality |
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sitaram
http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan
http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&cid=83189
http://www.zen-forum.com/a16/b2002/c12/d1/e2815/z7
I wrote some things several years ago about relative vs. absolute morality in
response to questions from someone who leaned towards christian views and
absolute morality, but had some questions... and I took the side of relative
morality
During the course of that correspondence on realtive vs absolute morality, one
reader posted a fascinating paragraph in response, at a message board:
Is the American Indian way better or the African-American way? Am I
unnecessarily agonizing over Hamlet's dilemma?
Was Karna, the hero of Mahabharata or was it Yudhishthir or Arjuna?
Was Antigone right or Kreon?
Did Tennyson say it all in Ulysses or The Lotus Eaters?
Which group is right, Steven Weinberg and Sartre, Mother Teresa and Gandhi, or
J .Paul Getty and Mick Jagger?
During that correspondence on relative vs. abs. morality, I wrote:
(HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION) could you personally be moral in a world in which there
ARE NO ABSOLUTES? And what would be your MOTIVE for being moral (remaining
moral) in such a world of no absolutes? This is a most interesting question.
I took the position (in that dialogue), that someone who is ethical in a world
of no absolutes manifests a higher, nobler ethos than someone who acts from
fear of consequences (or out of desire for consequences)
Socrates frequently argued that it is impossible (in a certain sense) for
someone to literally desire other than "the good" (at least their notion of
what good is)... and recently, I have been thinking how, in nature, survival
and evolution is driven by "good" in the sense of survival, dominance,
propagation,... a mechanistic form of ethos inherent in matter and
mathematics... i.e. nothing could mutate and evolve towards other than that
sort of good, or it would become inefficient, unstable, extinct
The fellow I corresponed with (names Sean), had in mind a universe ruled by an
absolute god, and his notion of absolute was something like 10 commandements,
one true faith, that sort of thing... (i called the post "the Sean dialogues")
For me, in the human sphere of thought and action, that which is not motivated
by "quid pro quo" is higher (and when you think about it, more absolute and
less relative in its nature)
Aristotle spoke of "anangke" (necessity), which is a sort of morality, but an
inescapable one, since we do not have the option to elect otherwise
Consider the "morality/ethics" of the surface area of a growing sphere in
relation to its volume... (which is like a growing cell), as the surface area
increases by a function of the square of the radius, the volume is increasing
by a function of a CUBE of the radius..
and in organisms, cells, surface area is "prime realestate" for metabolism,
hence the ananke (necessity) that one cannot have a cell the size of
philadelphia (or a monster that devours cleveland)
The devil is in the details, as they say. Kissenger said "nothing clears the
mind more quickly than a total lack of alternatives"
It is when we are faced with choices, free will, alternatives (the devil in the
details), that ethical issues arise, it seems to me
100 years ago, kidney failure was not a choice, it meant write your will. now,
it is a choice, and may involve various ethical questions
It occurs to me that nothing exists for humanity until it is recognized or
discovered (man is measure of all things notion, weak/strong anthropomorphism),
yet obviously things like calculus and "imaginary numbers" were "there" when
the neandrathals were scavanging for morsels...
Sexual morality would have no meaning until the point in time when organisms
evolve with a sexual form of reproduction... yet religions seek some "absolute"
morality regarding sexuality
I suppose the Rosetta stone was "unthunk" (and sunk in mud) for a few
centuries... in the sense that it was forgotten by civilization
"unthinking" may be "re-thinking" in certain circumstances, which religion
terms repentance (with regard to lifestyles), and science would call disproof
(spontaneous generation, phlogiston, ether)
Koko the gorilla was taught a several hundred word sign language vocabulary.
Koko thought up "cursing" on her own, putting signs together to say "you stnkng
toilet", and koko was asked the very existential question "What are you"
to which the gorilla answered : "me GOOD gorilla, koko" (which is a rather
thought provoking answer to hear from a gorilla)
In sartre's "being and nothingness", the "I" is afloat in a sea of otherness.
everything is "other" to "I". Duality is a different sense of otherness,
true/false, hot/cold, up/down
Kant's antinomies are another aspect of otherness
Speaking of "self" and "other", I wonder why shakespeare chose to explore
various profound issues, rather than limit himself to simpler pagentry which
would surely have amused his audiences just as well. did shakespear do it for
himSELF or for OTHERs ... surely much of the profoundness flew over the
audiences head (and even a scholar must study the writings, rather than simply
attend a performance)
Lately I am intrigued with the question: power corrupts and knowledge is power,
so can knowledge corrupt?
Perhaps everything is a tool, and it is we who corrupt ourselves, and misuse
tools
It is interesting to consider that Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught
Aristotle, Aristotle was tutor to Alexander the Great, and Alexandar the Great
attempted to conquer the world
As Plato points out, the best Guardian must of necessity have the
knowledge/potential to be the best thief
Since the best guardian would know how every thiefs mind works, in order to
guard against them
An expert moralist/ethicist must by definition know unethical/immorality inside
and out (and spend much time speaking/writing about it)
In modern terms, I suppose, the best anti-virus software designer has the
knowledge/ability to be the best hacker (and vice versa)
Socrates was accused, among other things, of making the weaker argument defeat
the stronger
and, of course, corrupting the youth (though contemporary youth are so clever
in that arena that they seem to need little outside help)
There is an amusing account in ancient Greek, about Aristides the Just being
present at the very assembly where he was ostracised, and someone in the crowd
next to him was writing "Aristides" upon the ostraka (pottery shard),... so
Aristides asked him why (the man did not recognize Aristides), ... the man
answered "I am just so tired of hearing 'the just', 'the just' all the time!"
I suppose ignorance and envy and suspicion fuel the ill will which a simple
person (like the soldier who slew Arcimedes) feels towards some
philosopher/scientist/intellectual
When a bedouin nomad found the Nag Hammadi manuscripts buried in the sand in a
jar (in a leather pouch, together with a copy of Plato's Republic), he brough
them home and an illiterat family member used some manuscripts for fire
kindling before they were discovered by the world
or... I should say.. before the remainder were rescued
I was so enthralled when I learned that Plato's republic was among the
manuscripts
I am suddenly reminded of Nabakov's remark that "curiosity is the highest form
of insubordination", that iranian professor who wrote "Reading Lolita in
Tehran" greatly emphasizes that remark, with regard to the zeal of tyrranous
regimes in suppressing intellectual curiosity and free speech
I just now remembered how Martin Luther (of the Reformation), said that one
must pluck out the eyes of reason
http://www.2think.org/hii/mlquotes.shtml
Scholars hesitated to include the Book of Esther among canonical books, because
it does not have a single occurance of the tetragrammaton, ... and it is so
interesting that among the dead sea scrolls, fragments were found from every
old testament book, EXCEPT Esther
The greek orthodox point to the significance of the funeral shroud remaining in
a heap, explaining that in those times, it was a winding sheet, just like an
egyptian mummy, so that to find it lying intact (undisturbed, retaining the
form of the body), would indicate something supernatural, since human
intervention would have necessitated UNwinding the strips...
but... there is a wonderful point in Esther about the supremem importance of
free will choice, when her uncle Mordecai implores her to aid her people, he
says (paraphrasing) "it is within your free will choice to help your people,
but IF you choose not to, the help will come from elsewhere, but you shall not
share in the reward).... free will choice is emphasized so exquisitely in
various passages
A search engine will reveal that the word "sacred" occurs nowhere in the KJV,
and occurs only ONCE in the apocrypha, in one of the books of Maccabee, where
they deside to institute a "sacred" holiday
Sartre says we are free to do anything except give up our freedom (since such a
"giving up" itself would be an exercise of freedom)
It is very interesting that the word "faith" occurs only TWICE in the entire
old testament, the first in Deut. in the NEGATIVE, "becaue of your
FAITHlessness, my anger has been kindled like a fire and shall burn to the
lowest sheol (hell, also the first occurence)"... and of course the second is
in Habbakuk, which Martin Luther used as a foundation (for the just shall live
by faith)... but the Hebrew meaning of the word is VERY different from the new
test. greek "pisteos"
Some scientists once did an experiment with two monkeys (true story), one
monkey was termed the "executive" monkey, since he controlled a push button,
and had to make certain decisions. Whenever the "executive monkey made the
wrong decision, he received an electric shock. The second monkey had no control
over the button, but received a shock every time the executive monkey was in
error (i think he was the blue collar monkey). The executive monkey developed
cardiovascular disorders and depression.
The blue collar monkey suffered no ill effects, and retired after 20 years
I recently read the comment that science never convinces anyone, it is simple
that the next generation gradually learns the lessons of science, and it
becomes accepted, commonplace (common sense)
I also read that the reason moses wandered in the wilderness with his people
for 40 years, is that 40 years is the length of one generation, so all the
fogies who remembered the fleshpots of egypt would die off.... there is
something cleansing about the succession of new generations
+++++
"Wisdom Number Measure Hunger Thirst"
http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan/page311.htm
Michael: not always, in fact ... Ps 63 has got thirst first ... (vs 2/3), and
vs 6 speaking about hunger
Sitaram: in which translation... I did this a while ago, cant remember about
other occurances
Michael: or Amos 8:11 .. it reads: 11 Days are surely coming, (My Lord
Adonai's oracle.)
Michael: when I will send hunger on the land;
Michael: not hunger for bread, or thirst for water,
Michael: but for hearing Adonai's words.
Sitaram: huger comes first there
Sitaram: hunger
Michael: ah true , sorry I was searching somewhere else
Sitaram: the first occurance of "love" in old testament is where Jacob says
that he loves the game meat which Esau brings him, ... how curious that this is
first mention of love, in context of hunger for meat
Michael: Psalm 63 :: King James Version (KJV)
Michael: Listen to this Printer-FriendlyPage BookmarkthisPage See this
passage inPrevious chapter | This chapter | Next chapter
Michael: Psalm 63 :: King James Version (KJV)
Michael: Psalm 63
Michael: 1O God, thou art my God; early will I seek thee: my soul thirsteth
for thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a dry and thirsty land, where no water
is;
Michael:
Michael: darn sorry
Michael: verse 5 has this :My soul shall be satisfied as with marrow and
fatness; and my mouth shall praise thee with joyful lips:
Sitaram: maslow once wrote (and this was repeated by Abraham Hershel in "The
Prophets") : we must learn to understand what we see, rather that to see only
what we understand...
Michael: so here thirst comes first... but I rewckon the Hebrew term is the
same for both... just checking that
Sitaram: but... as a PHRASE, you will not find, I think "thirst and hunger",
but only "hunger and thirst"
Sitaram: ha ha, and of course, those other verses you found were inserted by
the wicked heretics
Sitaram: demonic verses
Sitaram: salman rushdie
Sitaram: just joking
Michael: lamentations ...lol... 4
Michael: The tongue of the sucking child6 cleaveth1 to the roof of his mouth
for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man breaketh [it] unto them.
Michael: there we have thirst first and hunger second
Michael: but I'm not yet finished
Michael: now I check hunger
Sitaram: good work... hmmm.. interesting... a nursing child knows only
thirst,... cannot eat yet.... (aquinas wrote that his summa was "weak milk"
rather than "strong meat")
Michael: theres Isaiah 55 too, sorry im still searching...
Michael: 55:1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that
hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without
money and without price.
Michael: the problem is that _in English_ it's always hunger and thirst
Michael: not in Hebrew
Michael: the lamentations verse is surely a chiasm... so sucking child is
paralleled with young child, and thirst is paralleled with search for bread...
which is hunger
Michael: The tongue of the sucking child6 cleaveth1 to the roof of his mouth
for thirst: the young children ask bread, [and] no man breaketh [it] unto them.
Michael: there we have thirst first and hunger second
Michael: but I'm not yet finished
Michael: now I check hunger
Sitaram: good work... hmmm.. interesting... a nursing child knows only
thirst,... cannot eat yet.... (aquinas wrote that his summa was "weak milk"
rather than "strong meat")
Michael: theres Isaiah 55 too, sorry im still searching...
Michael: 55:1Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that
hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without
money and without price.
Michael: the problem is that _in English_ it's always hunger and thirst
Michael: not in Hebrew
Michael: the lamentations verse is surely a chiasm... so sucking child is
paralleled with young child, and thirst is paralleled with search for bread...
which is hunger
Michael: it seems that not all of the verses you quoted do have the doubled
ra'ab we tameh'
Sitaram: thanks for these insights,... I am saving them off the screen
.
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative vs Absolute Morality |
04 Mar 2004 06:46:37 AM |
|
|
SITARAM wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sitaram
http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan
http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&cid=83189
http://www.zen-forum.com/a16/b2002/c12/d1/e2815/z7
I wrote some things several years ago about relative vs. absolute
morality in response to questions from someone who leaned towards
christian views and absolute morality, but had some questions... and
I took the side of relative morality
During the course of that correspondence on realtive vs absolute
morality, one reader posted a fascinating paragraph in response, at a
message board:
At a quick estimate, I counted over 70 paragraphs. Which paragraph in
particular was it that you considered "fascinating"?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TehGhodTrole" |
|
| Title: Re: Relative vs Absolute Morality |
04 Mar 2004 07:11:20 AM |
|
|
SITARAM wrote:
http://www.egroups.com/group/Sitaram
http://www.geocities.com/tulsidas_ramayan
http://sulekha.com/chpost.asp?forum=philosophy&show=0&cid=83189
http://www.zen-forum.com/a16/b2002/c12/d1/e2815/z7
I wrote some things several years ago about relative vs. absolute
morality in response to questions from someone who leaned towards
christian views and absolute morality, but had some questions... and
I took the side of relative morality
During the course of that correspondence on realtive vs absolute
morality, one reader posted a fascinating paragraph in response, at a
message board:
At a quick estimate, I counted over 70 paragraphs. Which paragraph in
particular was it that you considered "fascinating"?
--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
Your Free Insult: Jesus loves you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
