Hypothesis: Actions that display an internal sense of courage, strength, determination, and independence rank higher than those that display cowardice, laziness, and weakness.

Notice, this is about intentions, not consequences. This aligns it with Kant's deontological approach, however, not with his categorical imperative, but with the ethics of Nietzsche.

High ranking ethical behaviour is solely aligned with motivations and symptoms of courage, strength, determination, and independence. The consequences of such behaviour is irrelevant, only the intent matters.

In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration.

sounds circular to me

Not sure I follow.

the position on the courage-cowardice scale may be taken into consideration when ranking behaviour but in itself it is not sufficient.

The ranking of ethics is always done - whether one knows it or not - according to the power of its redemptive force. This is not exclusive to religious ethics, by any means, even if 'redemption' has a strong association with some religions. The concept of redeeming is the foundation concept of any coherent ethics.

'WHat is redemptive?' is, of course, the start of any ethical discussion.  Is courage or cowardice? In themselves - neither.

Soren wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 11:09am:

the position on the courage-cowardice scale may be taken into consideration when ranking behaviour but in itself it is not sufficient. The ranking of ethics is always done - whether one knows it or not - according to the power of its redemptive force. This is not exclusive to religious ethics, by any means, even if 'redemption' has a strong association with some religions. The concept of redeeming is the foundation concept of any coherent ethics. 'WHat is redemptive?' is, of course, the start of any ethical discussion.  Is courage or cowardice? In themselves - neither.

I am not sure why redemption should be the first principle of ethics. Perhaps you could expand?

Upon reflection of the centrality I placed on intentions, I now believe that consequences must be a part of ethics as well. I believe so, because, if the intent fails we can learn why, in part, by examining the consequences surrounding the actions of the act in question.

Your hypothesis is self referencing. Suppose you had a hypothesis: the red marbles go in the left box, and the blue marbles go in the right box. It is true, but nevertheless meaningless. Likewise, any system to rank is meaningless without a mechanism for judging the outcome.

freediver wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 8:05pm:

Your hypothesis is self referencing. Suppose you had a hypothesis: the red marbles go in the left box, and the blue marbles go in the right box. It is true, but nevertheless meaningless. Likewise, any system to rank is meaningless without a mechanism for judging the outcome.

Well, all ethical systems are self-referencing in one way or another. They all use a criteria of judgment and refer back to the self to see whether one has upheld was is referred to as "right" or "wrong".
But maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "self-referencing"?

All ethics and morals are human creations (they're like an artform), so I can't see how they couldn't be self-referencing in some way. Maybe you're looking for some external or objective measure for ethics?

I don't think your hypothesis is an actual hypothesis.

It's a hypothesis insofar as it's experimental and could be implemented with the right social and political mechanisms in place; and not based on any so-called hard facts of what is considered ethical.

How is it experimental?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2010 at 1:51pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 11:09am: the position on the courage-cowardice scale may be taken into consideration when ranking behaviour but in itself it is not sufficient. The ranking of ethics is always done - whether one knows it or not - according to the power of its redemptive force. This is not exclusive to religious ethics, by any means, even if 'redemption' has a strong association with some religions. The concept of redeeming is the foundation concept of any coherent ethics. 'WHat is redemptive?' is, of course, the start of any ethical discussion.  Is courage or cowardice? In themselves - neither. I am not sure why redemption should be the first principle of ethics. Perhaps you could expand?

To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts.

To what end? So that all humanity can live in peace. Peace on earth - redemption.

Hope accompanies ethics. Hope is always for redemption, for peace, for fulfilled equilibrium.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 5:58pm:

High ranking ethical behaviour is solely aligned with motivations and symptoms of courage, strength, determination, and independence. The consequences of such behaviour is irrelevant, only the intent matters.

Independence is not exclusively aligned with an ethical behaviour. In fact independence can be seen as going against the flow or the order of things, and in some cases it can disrupt the status quo.

You mention the word lazy. It's a vague concept. In some cases it is better to do nothing than do something, because doing nothing results in the lowest achievable risk.  (can ethics be defined in terms of risk?)



I prefer to think in terms of risk to society and to oneself.  In some cases it's clear cut, but in other cases, doing what you intent to be good can end up doing a considerable amount of harm to others.  For that reason, no action can be defined as more ethical than another. It depends on the observer.  

This is where Western philosophy is totally at odds with Eastern philosophy. Taoists propose that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts their will against the world, they disrupt that harmony. Taoism does not identify one's will or independence as the root problem. Instead, it asserts that one must place ones will in harmony with the natural universe.

If you think about all examples of grossly unethical behaviour, it usually comes down to a misguided individual who thinks he is doing something beneficial for humanity by sticking to his rigid principles of courage, strength, determination, and independence. In most cases, he is severely disrupting the natural order of things - rocking the boat if you will.  Of course, if the boat is already rocking, rocking it in the opposite direction may help.

Intent is irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

So I'm going to disagree with you  ;)

Allow me to substitute - the optimum application of accurate contextual knowledge. Let's throw out independence and go for a broadly consultative approach that minimises harm to all involved.

The key is knowledge - and mutual understanding/ agreement.


Quote:

To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts.

I agree. We need to adapt to the circumstances. To go with the natural flow of things rather than continually being disruptive.

muso wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:39pm:

Quote: To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts. I agree. .... So I'm going to disagree with you  ;)

Well, that's cleared up, then.

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:41pm:

muso wrote on Dec 23rd, 2010 at 7:39pm: Quote: To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts. I agree. .... So I'm going to disagree with you  ;) Well, that's cleared up, then.

Not you. ::) I should have made myself clearer. This was my reply to you:



Quote:

I agree. We need to adapt to the circumstances. To go with the natural flow of things rather than continually being disruptive.

The rest was directed at Time. OK, I changed my post to make it clearer.

Not very scientific tonight, are we?
:D

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:53pm:

Not very scientific tonight, are we? :D

That's because we're discussing waffleology.

Risk is relevant to ethics though.

The epitome of "unethical behaviour" is insisting on the indiscriminate application of "golden rules" without even bothering to consult those affected, or think through the consequences.

Ethics could be regarded in terms of reducing real and perceived risk to a level as low as practically achievable.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 5:58pm:

In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration.

Surely the basis for 'Ranking Ethics' must be based in the 'real world'.
And be based on, effectively, some form of real world 'feed back loop', which would enable an 'observer', to measure the [actual] consequences of [human] actions?
And which also have a bearing on the motives for particular human actions, choices ?


e.g.
Sorta what like God, is said to be doing, with us [mankind].

I refer you to the parable of Jesus, about the wheat and the tares.

Matthew 13:24
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:36
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37  He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38  The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39  The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40  As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.



I know that i have introduced a 'religious' aspect to this discussion.
And if some of you see that as a diversion, i'm sorry.

But i am interested in meditating upon what we would term, human motives, and human ethics.

Thanks Yadda,

That's an excellent example of corrupted ethical values.  It takes the view that people are either wheat or tares - good or evil.  It's a nice simplistic primitive view of the world that in no way reflects the state of things.  Absolutely no room for tolerance or understanding.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2010 at 7:47pm:

sounds circular to me

About half the square of the radius x PI + the square root of the circumferance/3.

OR 6 X 9 = 42.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

Thanks Yadda, That's an excellent example of corrupted ethical values.  It takes the view that people are either wheat or tares - good or evil.  It's a nice simplistic primitive view of the world that in no way reflects the state of things.  Absolutely no room for tolerance or understanding. That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars.

Hang on a minute with the pre-digested, unthinking reflex nonsense.

It is a view that take freedom very, very seriously and treats it as a real and central feature of human life.  Not surprising, of course, since you can't have an ethical view unless you take freedom seriously. AFter all, ethics is about your impact, as determined by you. Ethics is about how you act freely. Biological function are not ethical.

Quote:

As regards its foreign policy the Government considers its highest mission to be the securing of the right to live and the restoration of freedom to our nation. Its determination to bring to an end the chaotic state of affairs in our country will assist in restoring to the community of nations a State of equal value and, above all, a State which must have equal rights. It is impressed with the importance of its duty to use this nation of equal rights as an instrument for the securing and maintenance of that peace which the world requires today more than ever before. May the good will of all others assist in the fulfillment of this our earnest wish for the welfare of Europe and of the whole world.

(Adolf Hitler)

A good example of harvesting the Tares first. 6 million tares in fact.  

Equal rights to all wheat. Tares don't even warrant mention.  

Impeccable ethics. Jolly good Christian gentleman.


Quote:

It is a view that take freedom very, very seriously and treats it as a real and central feature of human life.

Indeed.


Quote:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Quote:

The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Wonderful example of ethics and intent.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

The epitome of "unethical behaviour" is insisting on the indiscriminate application of "golden rules" without even bothering to consult those affected, or think through the consequences. Ethics could be regarded in terms of reducing real and perceived risk to a level as low as practically achievable.

So you think it is unethical to go rock fishing?

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

Thanks Yadda, That's an excellent example of corrupted ethical values.  It takes the view that people are either wheat or tares - good or evil.  It's a nice simplistic primitive view of the world that in no way reflects the state of things.  Absolutely no room for tolerance or understanding. That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars.

That is your opinion.

+++
IMO, there is probably nothing more unethical in the world today, than the 'humanist' worldview, and those who promote so called liberal 'ethics'.

IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil.

The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned.
Why is that?

Just take a moment, and look at the total moral mess the Western world is in today.
IMO, this is the consequence largely, of the influence of 'academics' and godless social 'theorists'!
IMO, almost all of the 'humanist', and social engineering type areas of academia, are clearly, divorced from reality.
They are living in a la-la-land, and are unethically ignoring the consequences of their own mistaken social experiments.
They are engrossed in a politically correct idiocy, which is a denial of the real world consequences of their own moral 'inadequacy'.
i.e.
These people who promote 'humanist values' are totally, morally corrupt, and they seem to exhibit a hatred for truth.
And why?
Because the truth confronts and exposes the error of their claptrap [<--- that's a technical term] social theories.

Humanist, and liberal ethics seem embrace an idea, and want to teach us, that man is naturally good.

Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and to reject what is evil.
Today, they and we, are taught that, essentially, good and evil do not exist.
And we are taught that all people are equally like us.
Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'.
And we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and 'racist'.

IMO, refusing to condemn the wicked, so as to 'avoid conflict', and so as to promote 'social harmony', is not an ethical position.
It is idiocy.

IMO, 'humanism', teaches mankind, to abandon all spiritual discernment.
IMO, such a position, teaches mankind, to embrace an empty, worldly, 'humanist' 'value' system, a 'religion', a political system, which uses the authority of a false 'righteousness', to rule over a 'blind', worldly directed mankind, imo.

'Humanism' spiritually guts us, imo.

We are taught, to abandon all spiritual discernment, and instead, embrace an 'empty', worldly 'value' system.
And 'humanism' often seeks to puff up our self pride, but leaves us without any discernment, and without a moral compass and without any spiritual hope.
We are spiritually, dumbed down by 'humanist' values.
And it is intentional 'end game', imo.


+++

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Karl Popper

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil."
Thomas Mann


+++

Above i said;

"And we are taught that all people are equally like us."

That is not a 'racist' statement.
It is simply a determination, that i have come to, that some people make very poor choices in life.
And some people make much better 'ethical' choices in life.
That is all.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 4:57pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 7:47pm: sounds circular to me About half the square of the radius x PI + the square root of the circumferance/3. OR 6 X 9 = 42.

Your obviously in deep thought, to come up with 6 X 9 = 42.    ;D

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 3:48pm:

That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars.

Yes, i see what you mean muso.
Calling Hilter, a fascist [confronting the truth], in the 1930's would have been a mistake, and ethically wrong, ......and, would have caused WWII to break out, much earlier.
/sarc off



+++


muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 10:53pm:

Quote: ....May the good will of all others assist in the fulfillment of this our earnest wish for the welfare of Europe and of the whole world. (Adolf Hitler) A good example of harvesting the Tares first. 6 million tares in fact.   Equal rights to all wheat. Tares don't even warrant mention.   Impeccable ethics. Jolly good Christian gentleman.

I'll mention the 'tare'.
He is the one called Hitler.


+++
muso,
Can't you see, that you are coming at this Hitler thing all ar$e about?
i.e.
It was the peace movement [post WWI, the 'tolerant' pacifists] who counselled that [pre WWII] England must not confront Hitler and German fascism,
...BECAUSE TO CONFRONT HITLER MAY CAUSE ANOTHER WAR.

That was the argument of the 1930's pacifists.
The peace movement in England argued that to secure peace and 'social harmony' in Europe, that it was worth appeasing Hilters claims on neighbouring states.

Well, guess what!
Hitler, an evil man, was not appeased.

And it could be argued, by some, that it was that spirit pacifism in the face of evil [i.e. a fear of confronting the truth about Hitlers evil, and ultimate intentions], and 'tolerance' towards German aggression, pre WWII, that caused the WWII we had, to be much more extended, and intensive, than what it needed to be.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LWXfO_9CJtc/SWwlzp3ir3I/AAAAAAAAEag/PQYprRH4xck/s400/neville_chamberlain_PEACE.jpg

Neville Chamberlain, now acknowledged by history, as Hitler's stooge




+++
How is peace in the society of man achieved, in the real world?

Is peace achieved through the appeasement of bullies and evil men [e.g. Hitler]?
Today, many people appear to believe that peace comes merely from 'wanting it' [i.e. desire], or from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction], in the face of the violence of evil men.

muso,
Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men.

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it!
Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.



And the ethics, of appeasement?

Is the argument of the ethical person, that the 'tolerance' of any wickedness, is a path towards peace?
Well i say that such a imaginings, are pure poppycock!

The appeasement of evil [men], does not lead to peace.
The aggression and violence of evil men, is not overcome, by our surrender, to the designs of those evil men.
That path leads only to slavery, and death.

How is peace achieved, in the real world?
Peace comes through sacrifice, and our willingness to fight for truth, and to fight for what is right[eous].
And, as ugly as the words may sound to someone such as yourself; Peace comes through judgement.

Peace among men comes as a consequence of righteous judgement.
Peace among men comes when wicked men are judged, and when their fellows [other wicked men] come to understand that their wicked actions, will bring judgement upon them.


p.s.
To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good?
But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

muso wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 9:55am: The epitome of "unethical behaviour" is insisting on the indiscriminate application of "golden rules" without even bothering to consult those affected, or think through the consequences. Ethics could be regarded in terms of reducing real and perceived risk to a level as low as practically achievable. So you think it is unethical to go rock fishing?

Ethics relates to risk to society rather than the individual, and it's not the only factor that determines whether it's ethical or not.  Hypothetically if you went rock fishing under conditions that you would very likely be washed into the sea then that would only affect yourself, unless there was an expectation that a rescue team should try to rescue you, thus endangering their own lives.

Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S.

Yadda wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 3:28am:

muso wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 3:48pm: That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars. Yes, i see what you mean muso. Calling Hilter, a fascist [confronting the truth], in the 1930's would have been a mistake, and ethically wrong, ......and, would have caused WWII to break out, much earlier. /sarc off +++ muso wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 10:53pm: Quote: ....May the good will of all others assist in the fulfillment of this our earnest wish for the welfare of Europe and of the whole world. (Adolf Hitler) A good example of harvesting the Tares first. 6 million tares in fact.   Equal rights to all wheat. Tares don't even warrant mention.   Impeccable ethics. Jolly good Christian gentleman. I'll mention the 'tare'. He is the one called Hitler.

In retrospect, no argument, however to Hitler and the large number of Germans who voted for him, the Jews were the tares.

The problem is that there is no feedback loop. There was no message from God saying "caveat elector" In fact the main body of Christianity (the Catholic Church) actually supported Hitler.

It's very easy for one individual to use this parable to justify some pretty terrible actions, and therein lies the problem.

You might say that it's twisting the truth, but imagine yourself in the position of a 1930's Germany  and tell me that you wouldn't vote for Hitler, despite the fact that many Christians did just that.

How would you know that Hitler was one of the tares? Would you ask God?

Soren wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:

Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S.

Risk of harm to society. Give me any ethical principle and it can be graded in terms of risk.

(I may be sticking my neck out here, but I'm pretty sure that the golden rule relates to ethics)

OK, there may be some skewing depending on how dysfunctional the society is.  

Let me apply another criterion - that of mental well being. In other words, an ethical state or act should be beneficial (or low risk) to both the individual and society as a whole, and beneficial (or low risk) on both the material and mental levels.

(minor grammatical correction)

Yadda wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 3:28am:

p.s. To be an ethical person, don't we have to make choices, which we think will have consequence, for good? But, to make an ethical choice, don't we first need to be able to discern, between good, and, evil???

Can you accept that what may be good for one person or community may be bad for another? It's all a question of reference point.

Think of it like a financial transaction. One man's bargain is another man's loss. Eventually everything balances out.  

Let's say that a community is in danger of losing their livelihoods, and one enterprising person diverts water from a river during near-drought conditions to grow more crops. The community thrives. That person is a hero (good)

Downstream,  another community suddenly finds that it's out of water. People starve - children die. Now that man is a murderer (bad).

The two communities are in different countries.

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:12pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:01pm: Risk? Risk of what? Ethics is not just OH&S. Risk of harm to society. Give me any ethical principle and it can be graded in terms of risk.

Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression.

How does the emergence of Christian ethics fit your OH&S hypothesis of 'oh, ethics - it's all just risk-minimisation'?

Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

Christian ethics has a strong teleological focus which causes a considerable skewing in societies that are largely Christian.  

You could call it results-based ethics. In the case of Christianity, it's a question of risk of going to hell or a fall from grace, spending a minimum time in purgatory, depending on the particular sin and branch of Christianity.

Quote:

How does the emergence of Christian ethics fit your OH&S hypothesis of 'oh, ethics - it's all just risk-minimisation'?

I thought I explained that risk minimisation was just one factor.

Yadda wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 3:28am:

muso, Can't you see, that by pursuing such logic [in the world], the logic that peace comes from 'wanting it' or, that peace comes from embracing 'pacifism' [inaction in the face of evil], we would simply become the slaves of violent, evil men. We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it! Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28).

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 11:04pm:

Clearly to murder a person is unethical.

He wasn't murdered. He was sentenced to death. Not the same thing, ethically.

Quote:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34). But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28). Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14). We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12). Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9). Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble (1 John 2:9-10).

That's a nice load of crap.
Do so, and you will find yourself "downstream" without a paddle..just as religions would wish for you.

It's all well and good to purport benevolance when you can afford it, but when you can't, then sorry, it's just mano-a-mano as it's always been.
There really is no other choice.

If you're talking about ethics, then you must also include the distinct possibility of your own non-existence and how your ethics will relate to that possibility.

"Ethics" has always relied upon abundance. Without sustainable nourishment, ethics goes out the window, or takes on a different reality.
We will crawl over each other, knaw at each other, and even eat each other if circumstances dictate.

You may as well do your very best to take down everybody else before they get the opportunity to take you down. Otherwise you are risking your own God given worth.

Aquire for yourself a castle with a very large moat, you deserve it. You deserve to dictate for yourself where and when you may toss an ounce of bread to the plebs. If you give them the opportunity, they will take all from you.

Don't give a sucker an even break.

Quote:

That's a nice load of crap.

Well, I just wanted give Yadda a chance to reply, but is it entirely? What were the circumstances of India gaining independence in 1948?  

Yadda - You are a follower of Jesus Christ. How do you reconcile your statement:


Quote:

We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it! Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace.

......with Biblical teachings?

It's clearly not what the Bible says. The whole message of Jesus in the gospels is one of peaceful resistance - Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek.

Nowhere does it say to attack aggressors. In fact the parable of the tares makes exactly that point. I'll expand on that if you wish, but basically the message is that it is not our position to judge and take action - it will all be set right on the day of judgement.

Soren wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 11:20pm:

muso wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 11:04pm: Clearly to murder a person is unethical. He wasn't murdered. He was sentenced to death. Not the same thing, ethically.

It all depends on the perspective, which is exactly the point I was making before.  Was the Roman Empire a civilizing influence that brought peace to an unstable and turbulent region -that did what it had to do in order to suppress lawlessness and disorder?  - Or was it a brutal  occupying army? Either way the ethical basis of society was skewed.

The clear message of Jesus was one of peaceful resistance. John Dominic Crossan is one of the world's most renowned scholars of the historical Jesus.

This is what he had to say recently on "The Spirit of Things":


Quote:

John Dominic Crossan: As a historian I am completely convinced, historically speaking, that Jesus was crucified by Pilate. And now from that I get two things—and this is not original with me necessarily. First of all, he had to be doing something that was a public threat to Roman law and order, or he would simply have been garrotted, say, in the barracks and tossed over the wall. Pilate would not have wasted a squad of soldiers, who had to stay there until they were certain Jesus was dead, and iron nails and all the rest of it except to make a public statement: 'This person has done something publicly against Roman law and order. We are going to execute him publicly as a warning.' But then the other part of that—equally important—is that Pilate made no attempt to grab Jesus' followers, as you find in the story of Barabbas, for example—for Barabbas is a violent rebel, might be called a freedom fighter from the Jewish point of view, and he's in jail along with his followers. So Pilate's action tells us two important things: Jesus is a revolutionary, but he's non-violent; otherwise his followers would be rounded up. And the way that the Romans—and it's also true of Antipus of course and John the Baptist—the way they handled non-violent revolutionaries, radical people who are not just being a nuisance but are negating the whole Roman law and order and Roman occupation but doing it non-violently, what you do is you pick off the leader and if you're still at it, we'd pick off your next leader, and your next leader, until you get the message.

Soren wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:53pm:

Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression.

- not unlike today's situation between (that most Christian of countries) the United States, and Julian Assange in fact.

They would definitely crucify him if they could get a hold of him.

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:08pm:

In retrospect, no argument, however to Hitler and the large number of Germans who voted for him, the Jews were the tares. The problem is that there is no feedback loop.

Yes there is.
Many people just choose to ignore it.
And when they persistently do that, 'the feedback loop' 'goes away', and therefore cannot [can no longer] speak to us.

Conscience.



+++

muso,

I will respond to your "Biblical teachings?" and quotes comments.
Its coming.

muso wrote on Dec 26^th, 2010 at 10:08pm:

How would you know that Hitler was one of the tares? Would you ask God?

Response...

Dictionary;
ethical = = morally correct.

Dictionary;
ethics = =
1 moral principles governing or influencing conduct.
2 the branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles.


The highest ethical position, imo, would be to allow all persons to decide what is in their own best interests.
And to then, allow those persons to act in their own best interests.

Of course those persons whom we define as a criminal and as non-criminal, would make different life choices.
But the criminal, and the non-criminal personality, would each consider that they were acting ethically.
e.g.
A criminal always considers that, in destroying another person so as to further their own [selfish] interests], they are acting ethically.
Why so?
Because otherwise, the criminal personality could not act in the way they do.
Because, what we believe [including criminals], always determines how we act [i.e. what we believe affects our behaviour, and our life choices].


Ethics is about [determining, AND, having already determined] what is good. [i.e. the feed back loop]
Ethics is about making choices [which have consequences], based what we believe is good, and morally acceptable.
We come to such determinations, on a personal level, through the 'feed back loop' of life's experience.

But how do we, or how should we, define what is 'good'?
And how do we, or how should we, define what is 'evil', or wicked behaviour?

+++

PROPOSITION...
If there is no God, then good and evil are meaningless concepts, except as they are defined by society, and/or by ourselves.
Logically, [if we can ignore or evade societies rules, i.e. if we can evade its 'ethics'] we ourselves [within our own 'sphere of influence'] always become the absolute arbiters of what is 'good', and, 'evil'.

Q.
And so, what happens, 'ethically', within an environment where there are no overriding rules?

A.
Whatever gives us pleasure, and materially enriches us [so as to enable us to gain yet more pleasure], IS DEEMED TO BE GOOD.
And whatever stands in the way of us obtaining pleasure, logically, HAS TO BE BAD, AND 'EVIL'.

Q.
And what is [or seems to be,] the primary 'morality' which has precedence in this age?

A.
"If it feels good, do it!"

And, in an environment where ['morality'] rules are essentially absent, feelings of 'guilt', are 'illogical', as feelings of guilt do not serve us, in the delivery of those things which give us pleasure.

So the logic of an unethical [in my eyes] man goes;
"Why shouldn't i do whatever will give me the most pleasure in this life??"

+++

PROPOSITION...
The criminal and a non-criminal personality will always be in conflict, and will always define 'ethical behaviour' differently.
A criminal personality, and a non-criminal personality, will ALWAYS be in conflict with each other [on some level], because their respective interests do not coincide [concur] - on an 'ethical' level.

+++

IMO, 'freedom', and 'the pursuit of pleasure', to this generation of mankind, means being able to do whatever they like,
...so long as there are no adverse consequences for themselves.
And that is basically what our society actually teaches our children.
[i.e. avoid consequences, at all costs!]

Like their community leaders [i.e. politicians], this generation want to exercise authority and freedom, but, they invariably seek to reject responsibility [for the consequences of their choices].
Not so?
Look at the stories on the TV news each night.

IMO, the moral 'imperative' for modern, natural man, is this;
Whether i do something good, OR, or whether i do something evil, is unimportant.

What is important, is this;
Is such an action 'in my interests', AND, can i get away with it?
If i can, AND, if such an action is in my interests, it is 'good', otherwise it is 'bad'.

If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'.
How would immoral behaviour be defined?

I offer this;
Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."]
I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it.
i.e.
"If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"

Well, i am a person who does believe in the scientific process.
And i deeply believe in the scientific principle of 'cause and effect'.


+++
To me, freedom means, i should try to separate myself from those influences, which, if i allow them act upon me, and my life, they will cause my bondage [through their consequences].
i.e.
If i separate myself from wickedness, in my life, i will, remain free, AND, happy.
This is the principle of, 'Cause and effect'.
Its not rocket science.

Some time ago, i saw an approximation of our society's 'morality' emblazoned on a T-shirt;
"Its only illegal if they catch you."

Murder?
Paedophilia?
The assault and rape of granny's within the confines of their own homes, by young house breakers?

Its only illegal if they catch you?

If that is not the prevailing 'moral principle', for many, then may i suggest that you have not been watching the nightly TV news.

muso wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 7:54am:

Soren wrote on Dec 26th, 2010 at 10:53pm: Those who thought that crucifying Jesus was the answer thought that very thing. They nailed him up to minimise risk. Yet Christianity spread, despite the continued perseution and repression. - not unlike today's situation between (that most Christian of countries) the United States, and Julian Assange in fact. They would definitely crucify him if they could get a hold of him.

The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed.

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:58am:

If 'ethical behaviour' is defined as acting 'morally'. How would immoral behaviour be defined? I offer this; Immorality = = I make my own rules. [i.e. I am my own god. "...shewing himself that he is God."] I can do whatever i like, as long as i can get away with it. i.e. "If there are no consequences [brought upon me] for my actions, then what's the prob!!?"

Further...

Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself.

Leviticus 19:18
...thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The OT Bible teaches and encourages altruism, through adoption of moral standards, and through [applied] judgements, made against a moral standard.
[i.e. God's moral standard.]

I am a student of the Bible.
And IMO, the OT Bible does teach man ethical behaviour.

And in my experience, people who reject that last proposition [that the laws in the OT Bible teach ethical behaviour in man], are either,
1/ uninformed [i.e. wilfully ignorant], or,
2/ they are invariably people who seek to reject any responsibility for the consequences of their own choices.

Immediately above, i said,
"Morality = = I treat others, as i would like to be treated myself."
i.e.
I believe, that if i murder, i forfeit the right to my own life.
i.e.
I believe that if i murder, then it is a moral act, for another person to act towards me, in the way i myself have behaved.

Deuteronomy 19:19
Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20  And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

+++

"We had thought that we were human beings making a spiritual journey; it may be truer to say that we are spiritual beings making a human journey."
Teilhard de Chardin

muso wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 6:57am:

Yadda - You are a follower of Jesus Christ. How do you reconcile your statement: Quote: We are kidding ourselves [we are living in la la land!], if we believe that aggression, or violence, is 'overcome', by our surrender to it! Or if we believe that the appeasement of evil and wicked men, is a way to peace. ......with Biblical teachings? It's clearly not what the Bible says. The whole message of Jesus in the gospels is one of peaceful resistance - Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek. Nowhere does it say to attack aggressors. In fact the parable of the tares makes exactly that point. I'll expand on that if you wish, but basically the message is that it is not our position to judge and take action - it will all be set right on the day of judgement.

muso,
It is a fair and good Q, to put to me!


Quote:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34). ...Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28). Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14). ....When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12). Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult... (1 Peter 3:9). Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. ... (1 John 2:9-10).

muso,
I do not consider myself to be special.
I recognise that i am a flawed person [and that i am far from perfect].

I pray it will not be the case, but maybe my God will reject me, as not coming up to his required standard.
And, i pray and ask God daily, to heal me, of my personal flaws.


Response...

MY POSITION on that whole issue of self defence....
We have to live in the world, but [imo] the whole point of us living in this world, is that our experience(s) teaches us to choose [between the good, and the evil].
IMO, our life in this world teaches us discernment, through being cognisant of the consequences of our past [wise and foolish] choices.

Whereas we have Jesus message, and scripture like Matthew 5:38-39!

Matthew 5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

IMO, such a doctrine would teach us that any need for discernment between good and evil is superfluous, because, as Christians, Matthew 5:39 teaches us that we are not to take any action against evil!
Therefore, because we should take no action [against evil, when we see it], we would have no need to choose [in life].

Therefore, such a doctrine ['resist not evil'] would inevitably lead us into an abandonment of discernment between good and evil.
And in our embracing of such a doctrine, we would also have to embrace an abandonment of our [or any active] defence of what is good.

BUT contrawise,
#1;
When i read the words of Matthew 5:39, i think that perhaps we should throw open the doors and gates of all the prisons.
And then in the same next moment, i know that that, would be [morally] wrong.

#2;
When i read the words of Matthew 5:39, i come to the position, that any action in our self defence is unjustified and wrong [as judged by our God].
And then in the same next moment [in my flawed judgement], i know that that idea, would be wrong, mistaken.

Why do i come to that assessment???

CONTINUED, next post...

.

Coming back to the issue of self defence....

Imagine this scenario...
An innocent [perhaps a weak and vulnerable] person is on a public street, and is being attacked, assaulted, or threatened with death, by an 'evil doer',
.....in seeking to protect the 'victim', does a Christian have the moral authority to defend the weaker person, and 'attack' the attacker[s]???

e.g.
Q.
If a woman on a public street was being attacked by two men, [and if we are brave enough] do we have the moral authority to 'attack' her attacker(s)?

Surely the answer to such a question, is a no brainer.
IMO yes, we have the moral authority to 'attack' the attacker(s), to seek to defend a victim of violence.
Surely???

Now, coming back again, to a related issue;

Is self defence ok?

To answer such a question ["Is self defence ok?"] with certainty, all we need do is substitute ourself into the place of the victim, in the scenario above [of a victim being attacked on a public street].

So, is self defence ok?
Of course it is [imo].
Surely, if defending a '3rd person' victim, from violent attack is morally justifiable [and i believe that it is], then our own self defence, is also morally justified, on the very same moral basis.
Surely?

And imo, therefore the moral answer to the question [of, "Is self defence ok?"], is always the same, no matter who the victim is.

AND YET, Jesus advice to us was, 'resist not evil'.
I am perplexed,
...and i am a flawed individual!

+++
I stand before God, and i know that i will be judged [by God] for my choices, and for my [personal] discernment.
Personally, i want and seek God's love, and i want to be redeemed [from this world], but when i read Matthew 5:39, i admit that i am challenged by the 'resist not evil' teaching/command that is given.

If that [passivity in the face of evil] is truly what God wishes from his children, then i doubt that i would [will!] rate as being worthy [as a child, as his child] in God's eyes.
That thought both saddens and frightens me.

And maybe God will not forgive me [for my self-willed disrespect of the words of Matthew 5:39], and maybe God would not redeem me.

When i read Matthew 5:39, a fear wells up inside of me [a fear of God's rejection of me], because i know that it is not within me, to behave in this way [with such passivity in the face of violence, and evil].
Indeed, when i see the violence of evil and wickedness in the world, it makes me angry in my heart.

As i said, i pray that God will heal me.

Job 28:28
And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Psalms 97:10
Ye that love the LORD, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 8:13
The fear of the LORD is to hate evil:...

Proverbs 9:10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Amos 5:15
Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the LORD God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph.


My reading of the OT reminds me of verses which tell of a God [i hope it is my God!] who loves judgement [righteous judgement].

Jeremiah 9:23
Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
24  But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 55:6
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
7  Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.


+++
Despite everything which i have written above, [as a flawed person] i am encouraged in my faith when i read...

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25  When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

+++

Muso,
Do i believe that we are allowed, by God, to make mistakes?
That we will be forgiven, for our sins?

'We're only human, we're supposed to make mistakes.'
- - Billy Joel

Psalms 32:1
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
2  Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed.

When, not if, imo.

The USA has lost all moral legitimacy, imo.

Within the last few decades each subsequent US administration [executive government] has been a disgrace, to the memory of their own founding fathers, to those fine people who founded the USA.
Recent US administrations have all been crooks and carpet baggers, the lot of em.


I like Obama
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241185795/36#36

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 1:29pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 11:03am: The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed. When, not if, imo. The USA has lost all moral legitimacy, imo. Within the last few decades each subsequent US administration [executive government] has been a disgrace, to the memory of their own founding fathers, to those fine people who founded the USA. Recent US administrations have all been crooks and carpet baggers, the lot of em. I like Obama http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241185795/36#36

And that's the nature of noble ideals...

They're at their best when espoused in the evening, in front of an open fire while quaffing expensive scotch...

While out on the street, reality transmogrifies them into the vacuous niceties of the naive.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 1:29pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 11:03am: The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed. When, not if, imo. The USA has lost all moral legitimacy, imo. Within the last few decades each subsequent US administration [executive government] has been a disgrace, to the memory of their own founding fathers, to those fine people who founded the USA. Recent US administrations have all been crooks and carpet baggers, the lot of em. I like Obama http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241185795/36#36 And that's the nature of noble ideals... They're at their best when espoused in the evening, in front of an open fire while quaffing expensive scotch... While out on the street, reality transmogrifies them into the vacuous niceties of the naive.

Ideas and concepts, are not worth our time to even ponder, to even meditate upon?
Is that what you are trying to convey?   :)


John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


Sacrifice, made for others [for those we love and or value].
Or personal sacrifice made for the concept of some good ideal.
A ridiculous and utterly futile thought???

helians sig;


Quote:

Conviction is the art of being certain

That is why there are so many convicts residing in prisons.
The courts are certain, they did it.    :P

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 3:07pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 1:56pm: Yadda wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 1:29pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 11:03am: The US is in the grip of the most powerful motivator - hysterical fear. The US now perceives any criticism as an assault on the integrity of the nation. They have subsequently invoked the greatest justification for any means to its end - Survival. They believe they are going to be destroyed. When, not if, imo. The USA has lost all moral legitimacy, imo. Within the last few decades each subsequent US administration [executive government] has been a disgrace, to the memory of their own founding fathers, to those fine people who founded the USA. Recent US administrations have all been crooks and carpet baggers, the lot of em. I like Obama http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1241185795/36#36 And that's the nature of noble ideals... They're at their best when espoused in the evening, in front of an open fire while quaffing expensive scotch... While out on the street, reality transmogrifies them into the vacuous niceties of the naive. Ideas and concepts, are not worth our time to even ponder, to even meditate upon? Is that what you are trying to convey?   :)

No, I'm saying ideals are easily espoused, harder to actualise... And the higher the ideal, the more certain it will be betrayed by the actions of its proponent.

I'm sure slavery weighed heavily on Jefferson's heart in the evening, by the fire, whilst quaffing scotch, as he put quill to paper to bring into being the lofty rhetoric of the American Declaration of Independence.

Never more heavy I'd bet than at the penultimate scribal moment as the sentiment welled up from his soul that "all men are created equal". But not so heavy as to give up the lucre he earned by his enslavement of newly American people of colour.

In the cold light of day, out on the street (or the plantation) the price of his ideals, the price to morally enrich himself and stand like the god of ethics lived, would have been and rightly should have been, his own financial bankruptcy.

Unfortunately the evening ended, the fired died and the scotch ran out.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

The epitome of "unethical behaviour" is insisting on the indiscriminate application of "golden rules" without even bothering to consult those affected, or think through the consequences. Ethics could be regarded in terms of reducing real and perceived risk to a level as low as practically achievable.

Ethics and Law have much in common since quite often our values are codified in statute. Interpreting things, when poorly written, can lead to absurd outcomes. (i.e. Do not use lifts in case of fire.) To counter this there are statutory rules of interpretation. One of those rules is called the Golden rule and it's meaning is in direct conflict with your usage of the term above. The Golden Rule of law is designed to give clarity and avoid absurd outcomes. (i.e. When there is a fire, do not use the lifts)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 3:30pm:

No, I'm saying ideals are easily espoused, harder to actualise... And the higher the ideal, the more certain it will be betrayed by the actions of its proponent. I'm sure slavery weighed heavily on Jefferson's heart in the evening, by the fire, whilst quaffing scotch, as he put quill to paper to bring into being the lofty rhetoric of the American Declaration of Independence. Never more heavy I'd bet than at the penultimate scribal moment as the sentiment welled up from his soul that "all men are created equal". But not so heavy as to give up the lucre he earned by his enslavement of newly American people of colour. In the cold light of day, out on the street (or the plantation) the price of his ideals, the price to morally enrich himself and stand like the god of ethics lived, would have been and rightly should have been, his own financial bankruptcy. Unfortunately the evening ended, the fired died and the scotch ran out.

When our world is comfortable, we like to savour our present good fortune.
We tend to reject the idea of change, when it is change which could challenge our comfortable [present] circumstances.

Having high ideals, or having high standards [in any field], will always have some cost to us.
But, imo, that is no reason to abandon high ideals, or abandon having high standards.
In many respects, imo, seeking to have high ideals, and seeking to have high standards, is in large part what sets us apart form beasts.

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

In many respects, imo, seeking to have high ideals, and seeking to have high standards, is in large part what sets us apart from beasts.

Although human beings are capable at times, of some very irrational acts, we [humans] do seem to have a higher capacity for using reasoning and planning [forethought], than seems apparent in many beasts.

Or, were we just a lucky creature, to have been gifted by evolution with an opposing thumb, and a large brain, and an ability to articulate thoughts ???  :)

Well, i'll have to dismiss the evolution theory.    ;)

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

When our world is comfortable, we like to savour our present good fortune. We tend to reject the idea of change, when it is change which could challenge our comfortable [present] circumstances. Having high ideals, or having high standards [in any field], will always have some cost to us. But, imo, that is no reason to abandon high ideals, or abandon having high standards. In many respects, imo, seeking to have high ideals, and seeking to have high standards, is in large part what sets us apart form beasts.

It's hard not to harbour high ideals. They come naturally to us... Like lusting after beauty or pissing in the shower.

And like beasts, almost without fail, we'd gratify our senses before we'd aspire to realise the highest of our most tenacious ideals. And most would abandon them all for a good guilt free bugger.

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 3:30pm: No, I'm saying ideals are easily espoused, harder to actualise... And the higher the ideal, the more certain it will be betrayed by the actions of its proponent. I'm sure slavery weighed heavily on Jefferson's heart in the evening, by the fire, whilst quaffing scotch, as he put quill to paper to bring into being the lofty rhetoric of the American Declaration of Independence. Never more heavy I'd bet than at the penultimate scribal moment as the sentiment welled up from his soul that "all men are created equal". But not so heavy as to give up the lucre he earned by his enslavement of newly American people of colour. In the cold light of day, out on the street (or the plantation) the price of his ideals, the price to morally enrich himself and stand like the god of ethics lived, would have been and rightly should have been, his own financial bankruptcy. Unfortunately the evening ended, the fired died and the scotch ran out. When our world is comfortable, we like to savour our present good fortune. We tend to reject the idea of change, when it is change which could challenge our comfortable [present] circumstances. Having high ideals, or having high standards [in any field], will always have some cost to us. But, imo, that is no reason to abandon high ideals, or abandon having high standards. In many respects, imo, seeking to have high ideals, and seeking to have high standards, is in large part what sets us apart form beasts.

Seeking is an honourable pursuit and the world is all the more hypocritical for that search, which is never realised.

You have given no reason however for the abandonment of 'actual' high ideals. The search for same is not a reason to hold high ideals.

You have given a very valid reason for not holding 'actual' high ideals however... they cost those who would hold them. That cost is often negative because it highlights the hypocrisy of the majority who are merely seeking but rarely realising those same high ideals.

Reference was made to Julian Assange... yet even he loathes to live by the standards he seeks of others as evidenced by his response to the leaked sexual indiscretion statements.

Do as I say and not as I do. That is the human mantra.

Sappho wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:40pm:

Seeking is an honourable pursuit and the world is all the more hypocritical for that search, which is never realised. You have given no reason however for the abandonment of 'actual' high ideals. The search for same is not a reason to hold high ideals. You have given a very valid reason for not holding 'actual' high ideals however... they cost those who would hold them. That cost is often negative because it highlights the hypocrisy of the majority who are merely seeking but rarely realising those same high ideals. Reference was made to Julian Assange... yet even he loathes to live by the standards he seeks of others as evidenced by his response to the leaked sexual indiscretion statements. Do as I say and not as I do. That is the human mantra.

We can seek the land of truth, but must resign ourselves to knowing we cannot arrive there.

We can endeavour to define high ideals, as if a god had created them for humans to discover, like tangible objects in the cosmos, but must reign ourselves to acknowledging the inevitable manifestation of hypocritical irony they will necessarily impose on us.

Should we endeavour to seek them anyway?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:24pm:

It's hard not to harbour high ideals. They come naturally to us... Like lusting after beauty or pissing in the shower.

You negate what you are saying by what you are saying.


Quote:

And like beasts, almost without fail, we'd gratify our senses before we'd aspire to realise the highest of our most tenacious ideals. And most would abandon them all for a good guilt free bugger.

Not everyone is feeling the strains of decades of marriage.

Anyway, you wouldn't - and didn't - teach this to your children. There have been examplary people among us, we hold them up as examples. That we are not all saintly is no argument against having ideals, upholding them as examples, striving for them.
Far better, in fact, than resigning from the get-go to being mere beast.

Soren wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:52am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 4:24pm: It's hard not to harbour high ideals. They come naturally to us... Like lusting after beauty or pissing in the shower. You negate what you are saying by what you are saying.

I meant harbouring aspirations of high ideals... Particularly where we expect others to realise them.


Soren wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:52am:

Quote: And like beasts, almost without fail, we'd gratify our senses before we'd aspire to realise the highest of our most tenacious ideals. And most would abandon them all for a good guilt free bugger. Not everyone is feeling the strains of decades of marriage. Anyway, you wouldn't - and didn't - teach this to your children. There have been examplary people among us, we hold them up as examples. That we are not all saintly is no argument against having ideals, upholding them as examples, striving for them. Far better, in fact, than resigning from the get-go to being mere beast.

Not decades... But long enough!!

No, I didn't and wouldn't... But I often aspire to being a kick-arse existentialist... And expect others to realise my aspiration for me!

Anyway... 'tis fun, but... cynicism... sure it is.

Like the rest of us... I harbour the noblest of ideals and aspire to be a MLK, Gandhi or Mandela... If only every other bastard would get out of my way and make it easy for me to get there...

Oh... and I'm not black, so...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 7:49am:

Should we endeavour to seek them anyway?

I don't believe that values/ ethics are from god, nor the laws/ morality that enact the values/ ethics. Nonetheless, I did until recently believe that the pursuit of values and their enactment was important for personal and social development.

Now however, I am disillusioned. I feel that the world doesn't really care about values in any deep sense. That the world merely use values/ethics and laws/morals as a tool of power and prestige if the circumstances suit.

I have become too wise to the ways of the world. Thou shalt not (whatever) if the chances of getting caught are too high. Thou shalt not (whatever) if there is no quid pro quo attached.

I'm not so sure any more whether the pursuit of values/ethics and their enactment though laws/morals is that important. When those who affect change show no care or concern for values/ethics and laws/morals, why should I care?

PS: The post above mine makes reference to what we teach children. Well, I'm so disillusioned that the outcome may turn out being the encouragement in my children of opportunism as more important that being and doing good; of judging the adverse risks in acting illegally rather than the worth or badness of same; of manipulation as a means of gaining advantage rather than honour and decency.  

Sappho wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 12:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 7:49am: Should we endeavour to seek them anyway? I don't believe that values/ ethics are from god, nor the laws/ morality that enact the values/ ethics. Nonetheless, I did until recently believe that the pursuit of values and their enactment was important for personal and social development. Now however, I am disillusioned. I feel that the world doesn't really care about values in any deep sense. That the world merely use values/ethics and laws/morals as a tool of power and prestige if the circumstances suit. I have become too wise to the ways of the world. Thou shalt not (whatever) if the chances of getting caught are too high. Thou shalt not (whatever) if there is no quid pro quo attached. I'm not so sure any more whether the pursuit of values/ethics and their enactment though laws/morals is that important. When those who affect change show no care or concern for values/ethics and laws/morals, why should I care? PS: The post above mine makes reference to what we teach children. Well, I'm so disillusioned that the outcome may turn out being the encouragement in my children of opportunism as more important that being and doing good; of judging the adverse risks in acting illegally rather than the worth or badness of same; of manipulation as a means of gaining advantage rather than honour and decency.

Yep, we're definitely living in a society in decline.

Sappho wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 12:33pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 7:49am: Should we endeavour to seek them anyway? I don't believe that values/ ethics are from god, nor the laws/ morality that enact the values/ ethics. Nonetheless, I did until recently believe that the pursuit of values and their enactment was important for personal and social development. Now however, I am disillusioned. I feel that the world doesn't really care about values in any deep sense. That the world merely use values/ethics and laws/morals as a tool of power and prestige if the circumstances suit. I have become too wise to the ways of the world. Thou shalt not (whatever) if the chances of getting caught are too high. Thou shalt not (whatever) if there is no quid pro quo attached. I'm not so sure any more whether the pursuit of values/ethics and their enactment though laws/morals is that important. When those who affect change show no care or concern for values/ethics and laws/morals, why should I care? PS: The post above mine makes reference to what we teach children. Well, I'm so disillusioned that the outcome may turn out being the encouragement in my children of opportunism as more important that being and doing good; of judging the adverse risks in acting illegally rather than the worth or badness of same; of manipulation as a means of gaining advantage rather than honour and decency.

Shouldn't living up to your aspirations to high ideals be a personal quest, not just realised in the hopes of getting high fives?

Shouldn't we "strive without hope of success nor fear of failure"?

Who loves a saint?

Unless they're dead, of course, when they don't embarrass us with their piety and humiliate us with our own hypocrisy.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 6:55pm:

Shouldn't living up to your aspirations to high ideals be a personal quest, not just realised in the hopes of getting high fives?

Not completely no. Ethics pertains more to social living than it does personal living. The ethical baggage we carry around with us benefit the group usually through individual sacrifice. It's assumed that we act ethically because individuals are part of groups also and benefit ethically from that group identity.  

So where it is that the leaders forsake the ethical standards, the individual (in this case me) can't help but think, what is the smacking point. My leaders only give lip service to ethical standards and behaviours, except when they are on the rough end of the ethical stick... then they tend to lecture all from hypocritical high moral ground.

Leaders have always been expected to set the standard, so when they set a dog eat dog standard... what is to stop the sheeple from following... more to the point... why should the sheeple bother if their leaders don't?


Quote:

Shouldn't we "strive without hope of success nor fear of failure"?

Why? I don't get that. From my perspective ethics/morality is about the betterment of society. One should hope for success in that endeavour so long as the leaders are leading the moral, social betterment that is, and where it genuinely fails, we should reassess out ethical and moral standing.


Quote:

Who loves a saint?

It's not about being a saint. It's not about lording your moral aptitude over others. It's not about finger pointing when a person slips up morally.

It is about the betterment of society for the sake of society. But again, when those who lead societies, communities, groups and families lack moral fortitude, then the reasons for moral behaviour in those groupings become much less compelling.

Sappho wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

Quote: Shouldn't we "strive without hope of success nor fear of failure"? Why? I don't get that. From my perspective ethics/morality is about the betterment of society. One should hope for success in that endeavour so long as the leaders are leading the moral, social betterment that is, and where it genuinely fails, we should reassess out ethical and moral standing.

I'd say the underlying point is that acting ethically takes courage. It's easy to act where we are guaranteed success, much harder to persevere when it may end in failure. That's not to say we shouldn't reassess when we fail... But to reassess and start again... Takes courage.  If we're not obsessed with guarantees of success nor daunted by the prospect of failure, then our resolve towards right action will be unshaken.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:47pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:37pm: Quote: Shouldn't we "strive without hope of success nor fear of failure"? Why? I don't get that. From my perspective ethics/morality is about the betterment of society. One should hope for success in that endeavour so long as the leaders are leading the moral, social betterment that is, and where it genuinely fails, we should reassess out ethical and moral standing. I'd say the underlying point is that acting ethically takes courage. It's easy to act where we are guaranteed success, much harder to persevere when it may end in failure. That's not to say we shouldn't reassess when we fail... But to reassess and start again... Takes courage.  If we're not obsessed with guarantees of success nor daunted by the prospect of failure, then our resolve towards right action will be unshaken.

Yep. I get that now and again return this to the leaders and say they should and could yet don't.

Sappho wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:05pm:

Quote: I'd say the underlying point is that acting ethically takes courage. It's easy to act where we are guaranteed success, much harder to persevere when it may end in failure. That's not to say we shouldn't reassess when we fail... But to reassess and start again... Takes courage.  If we're not obsessed with guarantees of success nor daunted by the prospect of failure, then our resolve towards right action will be unshaken. Yep. I get that now and again return this to the leaders and say they should and could yet don't.

Courage, leader or not, it don't come easy.

That's what makes courage the most admired of all virtues. We even admire it in people we despise.

Is there anything to which we aspire more than courage?

Yadda wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 12:15pm:

. AND YET, Jesus advice to us was, 'resist not evil'. I am perplexed, ...and i am a flawed individual! +++ I stand before God, and i know that i will be judged [by God] for my choices, and for my [personal] discernment. Personally, i want and seek God's love, and i want to be redeemed [from this world], but when i read Matthew 5:39, i admit that i am challenged by the 'resist not evil' teaching/command that is given. If that [passivity in the face of evil] is truly what God wishes from his children, then i doubt that i would [will!] rate as being worthy [as a child, as his child] in God's eyes. That thought both saddens and frightens me.

Yeah, A lot of people are non-practicing Christians. I really don't think it matters. It's not my place to judge. It's natural to think of yourself as flawed. In fact it's the main teaching of your religion too.

What matters IMHO is to be true to yourself. The thing I admire about true Christians is their humility. It's something that can be found in Buddhism too. Buddhist monks are not always as passive as you might think though. Some can have a terrible temper.

It's useful to compare notes between different systems of ethics.  Speaking frankly, you seem to have an obsession with Muslims. A lot of Christians seem to fall into that trap. A Buddhist would describe it as a craving that has progressed almost to hatred. Such hatred will consume you. It's better to follow the teachings of Jesus, which are remarkably similar to Buddhist teachings when it comes to non aggression.

Nobody is perfect. We are all flawed, myself included.

We all have an intrinsic value though.

muso wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

What matters IMHO is to be true to yourself. The thing I admire about true Christians is their humility.

Except for those Christians who slap those smug bloody stickers on their back window...

"Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:41pm:

muso wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:32pm: What matters IMHO is to be true to yourself. The thing I admire about true Christians is their humility. Except for those who slap those smug bloody stickers on their back window... "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven"

Yes -  Baptists/ Evangelicals etc - Would you like fries with your religion?

That's why I used the 'true' qualifier. Some branches of Protestant Christianity are not very mature yet.

muso wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

. Yeah, A lot of people are non-practicing Christians. I really don't think it matters. It's not my place to judge. It's natural to think of yourself as flawed. In fact it's the main teaching of your religion too. What matters IMHO is to be true to yourself. The thing I admire about true Christians is their humility.

Christians are taught to aspire to be Christ like.

1 John 3:2
Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
3  And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

But we are all destined to fall short.



muso,
And i think that you are correct, that humility is a characteristic which is holy.

But we all fall short.

e.g.
Mostly, the experience of Jesus' disciples, is our experience.

Luke 9:46
Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

Luke 22:24
And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.


muso,
If, in the daily presence of Jesus, his disciples still didn't 'get it' [i.e. humility, is what God requires], what hope is there for any of us?

God's promise is that if we recognise [acknowledge] our error, we will merit his forgiveness.

But is repentance ever found, within the heart of the proud?




+++

Psalms 34:18
The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.

Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Isaiah 66:2
....to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.


+++

Psalms 19:7
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Numbers 16:5
...the LORD will shew who are his, and who is holy; and will cause him to come near unto him: even him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.

muso wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

. Speaking frankly, you seem to have an obsession with Muslims. A lot of Christians seem to fall into that trap.

muso,

You seem to be correct.     ;)

But, imo my interest in ISLAM [in commenting on ISLAM, and the actions of those who claim to be good moslems], has more to do with the nature of ISLAM, and its 'aspirations' towards people like myself, than to do with me, on a personality level.
But your opinion may differ.



Yadda, the obsessive

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:08pm:

Courage, leader or not, it don't come easy. That's what makes courage the most admired of all virtues. We even admire it in people we despise. Is there anything to which we aspire more than courage?

Youthfulness? Consumerism? Power? Prestige? Home ownership? Well paid employment? Good time? Knowledge acquisition?

I think we admire courage more than we aspire to courage.  

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 2:10pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:08pm: Courage, leader or not, it don't come easy. That's what makes courage the most admired of all virtues. We even admire it in people we despise. Is there anything to which we aspire more than courage? Youthfulness? Consumerism? Power? Prestige? Home ownership? Well paid employment? Good time? Knowledge acquisition? I think we admire courage more than we aspire to courage.

Youthfulness, Consumerism, Power, Prestige, Home ownership, well paid employment, Good time, Knowledge acquisition are not virtues (well maybe knowledge acquisition as a form of commitment to expanding one's mind could be considered a virtue, but not as prized as courage, I'd bet).

Unless you mean being 'young at heart', how do you aspire to youthfulness?

Do you really aspire to consumerism or do you just go out and spend?

Have you not imagined yourself doing something courageous, knowing you'd probably never realise it, but like to believe you could? (That's the engine of Hollywood right there).

I can't imagine anyone who has not aspired to executing the courageous act (even if it remained forever in their dreams) to impress themselves, their significant other, their kids or just from the driving need to believe that they have more of a spine than they probably will ever be able to prove.

The movie the Kite Runner explored what happens when one boy is called on to show courage and finds himself lacking and the moral decay (manifested by his subsequent acts) that sets in as a result of his cowardice.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 2:10pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:08pm: Courage, leader or not, it don't come easy. That's what makes courage the most admired of all virtues. We even admire it in people we despise. Is there anything to which we aspire more than courage? Youthfulness? Consumerism? Power? Prestige? Home ownership? Well paid employment? Good time? Knowledge acquisition? I think we admire courage more than we aspire to courage.   Youthfulness, Consumerism, Power, Prestige, Home ownership, well paid employment, Good time, Knowledge acquisition are not virtues (well maybe knowledge acquisition as a form of commitment to expanding one's mind could be considered a virtue, but not as prized as courage, I'd bet). Unless you mean being 'young at heart', how do you aspire to youthfulness? Do you really aspire to consumerism or do you just go out and spend? Have you not imagined yourself doing something courageous, knowing you'd probably never realise it, but like to believe you could? (That's the engine of Hollywood right there). I can't imagine anyone who has not aspired to executing the courageous act (even if it remained forever in their dreams) to impress themselves, their significant other, their kids or just from the driving need to believe that they have more of a spine than they probably will ever be able to prove. The movie the Kite Runner explored what happens when one boy is called on to show courage and finds himself lacking and the moral decay (manifested by his subsequent acts) that sets in as a result of his cowardice.

In the past yes, and I have acted courageously... but not now. I see no point to it. That doesn't mean to say that i won't find myself as the accidental hero having acted courageously to save another from a burning house or from drowning ect... but that's not really what you are talking about.

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 4:11pm:

In the past yes, and I have acted courageously... but not now. I see no point to it. That doesn't mean to say that i won't find myself as the accidental hero having acted courageously to save another from a burning house or from drowning ect... but that's not really what you are talking about.

You sound world-weary.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 4:20pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 4:11pm: In the past yes, and I have acted courageously... but not now. I see no point to it. That doesn't mean to say that i won't find myself as the accidental hero having acted courageously to save another from a burning house or from drowning ect... but that's not really what you are talking about. You sound world-weary.

Must be all the travel of late. Heading off for some more after the new year. But no... not world weary... just disillusioned... seriously disillusioned and a little angry at myself for being so naive.

It's already changed my attitude to work. When I return, rather than do the hard yards which has served me and my staff extremely well... I'm going to play the show pony, more so than ever before and delegate the hard yards to others, which serves me even better. And if it's a half job that's done... who cares (who cares about the welfare customers or the tax payers that cop the bill)... heaps of leaders get praised and raised for their half jobs.

Disturbingly, I am actually looking forward to it. All gloss and floss without the hard work and a juicy pay packet as a reward. I worked too hard before I went on long service leave and leave without pay and cared too much. It'll be nice to have more fun for a change.

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 5:05pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 4:20pm: Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 4:11pm: In the past yes, and I have acted courageously... but not now. I see no point to it. That doesn't mean to say that i won't find myself as the accidental hero having acted courageously to save another from a burning house or from drowning ect... but that's not really what you are talking about. You sound world-weary. Must be all the travel of late. Heading off for some more after the new year. But no... not world weary... just disillusioned... seriously disillusioned and a little angry at myself for being so naive. It's already changed my attitude to work. When I return, rather than do the hard yards which has served me and my staff extremely well... I'm going to play the show pony, more so than ever before and delegate the hard yards to others, which serves me even better. And if it's a half job that's done... who cares (who cares about the welfare customers or the tax payers that cop the bill)... heaps of leaders get praised and raised for their half jobs. Disturbingly, I am actually looking forward to it. All gloss and floss without the hard work and a juicy pay packet as a reward. I worked too hard before I went on long service leave and leave without pay and cared too much. It'll be nice to have more fun for a change.

Yeah, know the feeling.

How does it go? "I'm tired of virtue and truth... Now I'm seeking self-gratification and comfortable lies" !!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:37pm:

Yeah, know the feeling. How does it go? "I'm tired of virtue and truth... Now I'm seeking self-gratification and comfortable lies" !!

So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens.

People stop caring.  

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:37pm: Yeah, know the feeling. How does it go? "I'm tired of virtue and truth... Now I'm seeking self-gratification and comfortable lies" !! So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens. People stop caring.

Yeah but take a look at Martin Luther King... The world would have been a worse place had he never existed, yet he was no paragon of fidelity.


Quote:

Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Walt Whitman

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:54pm:

Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:48pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:37pm: Yeah, know the feeling. How does it go? "I'm tired of virtue and truth... Now I'm seeking self-gratification and comfortable lies" !! So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens. People stop caring.   Yeah but take a look at Martin Luther King... The world would have been a worse place had he never existed, yet he was no paragon of fidelity.

Meh... The lowest form of existence for a human in this world is to be female and black. That was true then and that is still true now.

I also note that the bulk of the American gaol population is black.

I also not that apartheid is still operating in America even tho it is illegal.

The only thing MLK improved was the opportunities for high yella blacks. The rest have to work twice as hard than whites to achieve the same... in the main.  

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 7:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:54pm: Sappho wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:48pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 6:37pm: Yeah, know the feeling. How does it go? "I'm tired of virtue and truth... Now I'm seeking self-gratification and comfortable lies" !! So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens. People stop caring.   Yeah but take a look at Martin Luther King... The world would have been a worse place had he never existed, yet he was no paragon of fidelity. Meh... The lowest form of existence for a human in this world is to be female and black. That was true then and that is still true now. I also note that the bulk of the American gaol population is black. I also not that apartheid is still operating in America even tho it is illegal. The only thing MLK improved was the opportunities for high yella blacks. The rest have to work twice as hard than whites to achieve the same... in the main.

But they can crap in an integrated shitter.

Joe Bageant's account of underclass white America reveals alot about the spiteful society America can be without regard to colour.

Yadda wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 10:51am:

muso wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:32pm: Speaking frankly, you seem to have an obsession with Muslims. A lot of Christians seem to fall into that trap. muso, You seem to be correct.     ;) But, imo my interest in ISLAM [in commenting on ISLAM, and the actions of those who claim to be good moslems], has more to do with the nature of ISLAM, and its 'aspirations' towards people like myself, than to do with me, on a personality level. But your opinion may differ. Yadda, the obsessive

Well I have lived and worked in countries where Islam is the main religion, so I have a different opinion.  

What annoys me, although not as much as violence and intolerance,  is hypocrisy, which amounts to not practicing what one preaches, and we see a lot of that in some Muslims and Christians alike. The fundamentalists of both are generally the worst in that respect.

I congratulate you in your humility though. You can see your own faults, so you're not a bad bloke.

Sappho wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 6:48pm:

So, in summary then, ethics depends on intention, consequence but most importantly on the pursuit of same. If those who make history do not pursue ethics and are found to merely give lip service to intention and consequence, then ethical imperatives implode fatally wounding the civilization in which that happens.

That's good Sappho.
I think you nailed it!

Goodness is its own reward.
...and vice versa.



And the corollary;

"Be good, for goodness sake." <--- once a very common saying in the English speaking world.

"Be good, for goodness sake." <--- once a very common saying in the English speaking world.


It still is .. because the phrase is entrenched in some famous song lyrics.

Does this song ring a (Christmas) bell or two ?


You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town

He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town

He see you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 1^st, 2011 at 8:18am:

"Be good, for goodness sake." <--- once a very common saying in the English speaking world. It still is .. because the phrase is entrenched in some famous song lyrics. Does this song ring a (Christmas) bell or two ? You better watch out You better not cry You better not pout I'm telling you why Santa Claus is coming to town He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out who's naughty and nice Santa Claus is coming to town He see you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake He knows if you've been bad or good So be good for goodness sake!

Quote:

. "Be good, for goodness sake."

Yes, of course.

But do men give the sentiment expressed in those words any weight, or credence, today?
Does the sentiment expressed in those words have any value for us?
Does the sentiment expressed, have the same gravitas for us [adults] who [imagine that we] 'comprehend' this world, as does the importance of the character of Santa Claus, to little children?

Or have we [mankind] all become too jaded and cynical [to be able to see what is real] ?

Today we would count ourselves as adults.
Once, when we first entered this world, we were innocent children.
It was a time, when we were still able to believe in many things, that we were unable to see with our eyes.
Today, many of us still cannot see [what is real], but we have also stopped believing [in what is real].



Luke 18:16
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 3:53pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 1:51pm: Soren wrote on Dec 22nd, 2010 at 11:09am: the position on the courage-cowardice scale may be taken into consideration when ranking behaviour but in itself it is not sufficient. The ranking of ethics is always done - whether one knows it or not - according to the power of its redemptive force. This is not exclusive to religious ethics, by any means, even if 'redemption' has a strong association with some religions. The concept of redeeming is the foundation concept of any coherent ethics. 'WHat is redemptive?' is, of course, the start of any ethical discussion.  Is courage or cowardice? In themselves - neither. I am not sure why redemption should be the first principle of ethics. Perhaps you could expand? To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts. To what end? So that all humanity can live in peace. Peace on earth - redemption. Hope accompanies ethics. Hope is always for redemption, for peace, for fulfilled equilibrium.

Universal peace may be a noble goal, but it's not realistic.
Also, there seems to be emphasis on consequences here to a great extent. That being so, the act is determined from without, not from within. If consequences become the main determinate, then the act in question is imposed on someone, thus robbing him of his individual potential. On the other hand, ethics based on intentions of strength and courage cultivate the individual's character whereby he doesn't become a slave to someone else's morals.

muso wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2010 at 7:39pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 5:58pm: High ranking ethical behaviour is solely aligned with motivations and symptoms of courage, strength, determination, and independence. The consequences of such behaviour is irrelevant, only the intent matters. Independence is not exclusively aligned with an ethical behaviour. In fact independence can be seen as going against the flow or the order of things, and in some cases it can disrupt the status quo. You mention the word lazy. It's a vague concept. In some cases it is better to do nothing than do something, because doing nothing results in the lowest achievable risk.  (can ethics be defined in terms of risk?) I prefer to think in terms of risk to society and to oneself.  In some cases it's clear cut, but in other cases, doing what you intent to be good can end up doing a considerable amount of harm to others.  For that reason, no action can be defined as more ethical than another. It depends on the observer.   This is where Western philosophy is totally at odds with Eastern philosophy. Taoists propose that the universe works harmoniously according to its own ways. When someone exerts their will against the world, they disrupt that harmony. Taoism does not identify one's will or independence as the root problem. Instead, it asserts that one must place ones will in harmony with the natural universe. If you think about all examples of grossly unethical behaviour, it usually comes down to a misguided individual who thinks he is doing something beneficial for humanity by sticking to his rigid principles of courage, strength, determination, and independence. In most cases, he is severely disrupting the natural order of things - rocking the boat if you will.  Of course, if the boat is already rocking, rocking it in the opposite direction may help. Intent is irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So I'm going to disagree with you  ;) Allow me to substitute - the optimum application of accurate contextual knowledge. Let's throw out independence and go for a broadly consultative approach that minimises harm to all involved. The key is knowledge - and mutual understanding/ agreement. Quote: To act ethically in any given human encounter is to act under a universal principle that one takes to be applicable to the kind of situation in which one acts. I agree. We need to adapt to the circumstances. To go with the natural flow of things rather than continually being disruptive.

I am not sure about the whole "universal harmony" thing. I don't think it can be proven empirically in any way, and seems to be a Weltanschauung for those who want to "feelgood" about the world despite its flaws.


Also, you're placing a lot of emphasis on consequences. As I stated above, if consequences become the focal point of ethics then morality is imposed from without. And the question arises, who created the morality that everyone should abide by and why? Blanket moralities stun individual potential; making them a mere carbon copy of the maker of the morality imposed on them. Ethics based on individual intentions of strength, courage etc. cultivates the individual's talent. Take highly competitive individuals in sport or music, for example. They cultivate their own talents because they want to master themselves. There's no "care for the other" here. In actual fact, there's a desire to dominate other sportsmen or musicians.

Yadda wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 5:58pm: In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration. Surely the basis for 'Ranking Ethics' must be based in the 'real world'. And be based on, effectively, some form of real world 'feed back loop', which would enable an 'observer', to measure the [actual] consequences of [human] actions?And which also have a bearing on the motives for particular human actions, choices ? [religious aspect deleted] I know that i have introduced a 'religious' aspect to this discussion. And if some of you see that as a diversion, i'm sorry. But i am interested in meditating upon what we would term, human motives, and human ethics.

Okay, but what measuring stick would you use for consequences?

Yadda wrote on Dec 25^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

muso wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 3:48pm: Thanks Yadda, That's an excellent example of corrupted ethical values.  It takes the view that people are either wheat or tares - good or evil.  It's a nice simplistic primitive view of the world that in no way reflects the state of things.  Absolutely no room for tolerance or understanding. That's exactly the kind of thinking that starts wars. That is your opinion. +++ IMO, there is probably nothing more unethical in the world today, than the 'humanist' worldview, and those who promote so called liberal 'ethics'. IMO, this generation of mankind has lost the ability to discern between good and evil. The Judeao-Christian standards and morality, that guided our present culture in its formative period, has been almost entirely abandoned. Why is that? Just take a moment, and look at the total moral mess the Western world is in today. IMO, this is the consequence largely, of the influence of 'academics' and godless social 'theorists'! IMO, almost all of the 'humanist', and social engineering type areas of academia, are clearly, divorced from reality. They are living in a la-la-land, and are unethically ignoring the consequences of their own mistaken social experiments. They are engrossed in a politically correct idiocy, which is a denial of the real world consequences of their own moral 'inadequacy'. i.e. These people who promote 'humanist values' are totally, morally corrupt, and they seem to exhibit a hatred for truth. And why? Because the truth confronts and exposes the error of their claptrap [<--- that's a technical term] social theories. Humanist, and liberal ethics seem embrace an idea, and want to teach us, that man is naturally good. Today, our children are taught that it is wrong to try to 'discriminate' between good and evil, and to reject what is evil. Today, they and we, are taught that, essentially, good and evil do not exist. And we are taught that all people are equally like us. Today, those who abandon standards, and moral discernment are said to be 'tolerant'. And we are taught that to differentiate the merits of different cultures, is wrong, and 'racist'. IMO, refusing to condemn the wicked, so as to 'avoid conflict', and so as to promote 'social harmony', is not an ethical position. It is idiocy. IMO, 'humanism', teaches mankind, to abandon all spiritual discernment. IMO, such a position, teaches mankind, to embrace an empty, worldly, 'humanist' 'value' system, a 'religion', a political system, which uses the authority of a false 'righteousness', to rule over a 'blind', worldly directed mankind, imo. 'Humanism' spiritually guts us, imo. We are taught, to abandon all spiritual discernment, and instead, embrace an 'empty', worldly 'value' system. And 'humanism' often seeks to puff up our self pride, but leaves us without any discernment, and without a moral compass and without any spiritual hope. We are spiritually, dumbed down by 'humanist' values. And it is intentional 'end game', imo. +++ "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." Karl Popper "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Thomas Mann +++ Above i said; "And we are taught that all people are equally like us." That is not a 'racist' statement. It is simply a determination, that i have come to, that some people make very poor choices in life. And some people make much better 'ethical' choices in life. That is all.

Ethics and morals are all subjective and only become "objective" when people feel that "they are in the right".

Viewing ethics and morality as subjective is merely pure honesty. The metaphysical foundations of ethics and morality have been swept away; this is a consequence of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment wants us to seek truth, and the truth is ethics and morality is subjective; merely a projection of the individual onto the world of what he believes to be right.
To paraphrase the brilliant thinker Nietzsche, how was the faith in morality undermined? By morality! Under the Christian ethic it is moral to seek truth, is it not? Then isn't it moral to accept ethics and morality is subjective?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

. Also, you're placing a lot of emphasis on consequences. As I stated above, if consequences become the focal point of ethics then morality is imposed from without. And the question arises, who created the morality that everyone should abide by and why?

In my mind, you appear to be intentionally, trying to confuse, the ['instrument'] 'consequences', with something esle, externally imposed moral constraints.
IMO, two entirely different things.

e.g.
If a child touches a hot wood stove, the child will likely burn its fingers!
And those, are 'consequences'!!

And the child, in future [if it has any sense!], will know, to abate its 'care-less' conduct when in the proximity of a hot wood stove.

As the child, in future [if it has any sense], will  'perceive' the potential consequences, of touching a hot wood stove!



I believe that perceiving the real and potential consequences of our actions, must always be a good guide to our moral behaviour.







Quote:

. Blanket moralities stun individual potential; making them a mere carbon copy of the maker of the morality imposed on them. Ethics based on individual intentions of strength, courage etc. cultivates the individual's talent. Take highly competitive individuals in sport or music, for example. They cultivate their own talents because they want to master themselves. There's no "care for the other" here. In actual fact, there's a desire to dominate other sportsmen or musicians.

That is a false argument, imo.

i.e.
I would have thought that in this age, that highly competitive individuals, e.g. in sport or music, 'cultivate their talents' because they are seeking rewards [i.e. 'consequences', and $$$$$$$$$] ???

And that the true motivation, which is driving these individuals to excel above others, is not, because they want to 'master themselves', but rather to demonstrate to all others, that they ARE 'masters' [in their own field of expertise].

That, is a 'moral 'ethic' based on self-interest [i.e. base selfishness].

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 10:39am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:57pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 5:58pm: In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration. Surely the basis for 'Ranking Ethics' must be based in the 'real world'. And be based on, effectively, some form of real world 'feed back loop', which would enable an 'observer', to measure the [actual] consequences of [human] actions?And which also have a bearing on the motives for particular human actions, choices ? [religious aspect deleted] I know that i have introduced a 'religious' aspect to this discussion. And if some of you see that as a diversion, i'm sorry. But i am interested in meditating upon what we would term, human motives, and human ethics. Okay, but what measuring stick would you use for consequences?

RESPONSE;

If the consequences of our choices/actions would be harmful to others, we should not choose that path,
...even if the consequence would be beneficial to ourselves.

And if all 'strangers', also acted towards me and mine, in the same manner, ALL PARTIES WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIONS OF MEN, OR AT LEAST, NOT SUFFER HARM FROM THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS.

Quote:

yadda rote In my mind, you appear to be intentionally, trying to confuse, the ['instrument'] 'consequences', with something esle, externally imposed moral constraints. IMO, two entirely different things. e.g. If a child touches a hot wood stove, the child will likely burn its fingers! And those, are 'consequences'!! And the child, in future [if it has any sense!], will know, to abate its 'care-less' conduct when in the proximity of a hot wood stove. As the child, in future [if it has any sense], will  'perceive' the potential consequences, of touching a hot wood stove!

It's a given that we learn to recoil from extreme heat. I am not sure how this is linked to my position?


Quote:

yadda wrote I would have thought that in this age, that highly competitive individuals, e.g. in sport or music, 'cultivate their talents' because they are seeking rewards [i.e. 'consequences', and $$$$$$$$$] ??? And that the true motivation, which is driving these individuals to excel above others, is not, because they want to 'master themselves', but rather to demonstrate to all others, that they ARE 'masters' [in their own field of expertise]. That, is a 'moral 'ethic' based on self-interest [i.e. base selfishness].

I am not sure of anyone who initially decides to take up learning a musical instrument or a sport solely for money. That usually doesn't occur until one becomes professional. Even then it's questionable whether they do it for money. There are easier ways to make money than all the effort it takes to become professional.
Anyway, this is kind of why I promoted intentions and not consequences in the opening post; intentions to build strength and courage, not intention to make money. Making money as the primary reason makes one a slave to market forces, hence one's internal ethic is not one's own.

i'll respond to your other post later, i have to have dinner.

Yadda wrote on Jan 24^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 24th, 2011 at 10:39am: Yadda wrote on Dec 24th, 2010 at 12:57pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 21st, 2010 at 5:58pm: In an age that has no solid point of departure for ethics or morals, but cries out for some foundation or criteria on which to judge behaviour, I deem this an experiment worthy of consideration. Surely the basis for 'Ranking Ethics' must be based in the 'real world'. And be based on, effectively, some form of real world 'feed back loop', which would enable an 'observer', to measure the [actual] consequences of [human] actions?And which also have a bearing on the motives for particular human actions, choices ? [religious aspect deleted] I know that i have introduced a 'religious' aspect to this discussion. And if some of you see that as a diversion, i'm sorry. But i am interested in meditating upon what we would term, human motives, and human ethics. Okay, but what measuring stick would you use for consequences? RESPONSE; If the consequences of our choices/actions would be harmful to others, we should not choose that path, ...even if the consequence would be beneficial to ourselves. And if all 'strangers', also acted towards me and mine, in the same manner, ALL PARTIES WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIONS OF MEN, OR AT LEAST, NOT SUFFER HARM FROM THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS.

The problem with this argument, though, is it's hard to make a stringent list of what's considered "harm". What harms one person could be neutral or even beneficial to another.
Also, I don't think it's possible to eliminate harm. For example, the drudgery of the working day, week after week, year after year, can be detrimental to the psyche. Yet it's required that we work to keep alive. Harm seems to be part of everyday life. Life involves conflict. I can't see us escaping it.

muso wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 9:55am:

The epitome of "unethical behaviour" is insisting on the indiscriminate application of "golden rules" without even bothering to consult those affected, or think through the consequences. Ethics could be regarded in terms of reducing real and perceived risk to a level as low as practically achievable.

i took both my daughters abseiling and rock climbing when they were in their teens. definitely risky.
unethical??

Totally depends on how significant the risk was and how much 'agency' they had in deciding to participate.

Perhaps it's moot. I presume they would have trusted you not to take them into an unsafe situation and you wouldn't have taken them there if you thought there was a serious risk of harm.

Getting back to the general topic, though, can we really talk about ethics as if they are objective? What exactly are we trying to say here?