gropus experience a probolamo?
:)
On Aug 1, 12:04 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I take it you don't entirely agree. :}
>
> Hey Tony,
>
> Haha well yes and no, I disagree with this:
>
> 'One cannot allow individuals to cause unhappiness for everyone else,
> or no one will be happy.'
>
> The truth is that each individual acts as they will, if an individual
> acts to cause unhappiness to others then what is there tha we can
> actualy do to stop them?
It is called the law. In this country, we are said to have the
"inalienable rights" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,
*in that order*. So, if one's right to pursue happiness impinges on
another's, we have a conflict that needs to be resolved, and that may
be hazy (civil court). If one's pursuit of happiness involves robbing
another of their Liberty or Life, it is not hazy, unless their need
for Happiness is due to violation of their Liberty or serious threats
to their Life (criminal court, unless slavery is legal). So, the legal
system must adjudicate when problems cannot be resolved, and proper
action taken by society to correct the behavior of the individual.
>
> I would say unless you are physcaly stronger and have the will to
> physicaly stop them, then the answer is nothing at all. However as I
> have said we must each bear the consqences of each of our acts or
> words.
And that may involve being ganged up upon by the world around you
which you have so offended.
>
> > We cannot prevent anyone from causing unhappiness. But would you have
> > someone cause you unhappiness? I'm not sure which Golden Rule you
> > mean, if so.
>
> I have no power over the things others choose to do, but no I would
> not like someone to cause me unhappiness, yet it still happens huh.
It does if you let it. If someone tries to mug me, I resist will full
force, for if I do not, and I make it easy for them to steal and
abuse, then they will continue and make my world a worse place to
live. It is my responsibility as a sentient being on this planet to
enforce, on an individual if not collective basis, the imposition of
justice upon those without their own morals. It's never too late for
them to learn, and morals are learned, by some more naturally than
others, but never without being taught.
>
> > Unhappiness happens. You can't make everyone happy. Everyone has the
> > right to pursue happiness, as long as it doesn't rob osther of their
> > happiness. So, we come down to a matter of relative pursuits, and to
> > law, the purpose of which is to arbitrate between different parties'
> > pursuits, when they can't compromise and maintain peace. In the
> > Declaration O' Interdependence, we rate them in order: Life, Liberty,
> > Pursuit of Happiness. So, murder rates above slavery as a crime, and
> > slavery above general abuse and neglect. We are not to abuse each
> > other, and so, when conflicts arise, someone has to decide between
> > parties. That's how "good"and "evil" play out in society. But, those
> > things are not ultimate good and evil, as they are determined by
> > humans interpreting laws made by humans.
>
> Indeed as you say all highly subjective, so let the ancient writers of
> this declaration have their say. I would ask again though for you to
> consider why it is that murder is generaly consideed evil?
Because one has taken the most dear thing from another: Life.
>
> Is it due to death? I can't see it, death being part of life, we kill
> to live nd w are not alone in doing so, so I do not belive that death
> itself is inherently evil. what is it then, is it untimely death? Is
> the accidental death of a child considered that same as the murder of
> a child, why, why not?
That is where homicide and murder are distinguished. If there is
negligence involved one may be considered guilty of homicide. If there
is intent to kill for selfish purposes not involving one's own
survival, it's murder.
>
> Or put it upwards a bit, the natrual death of an old man is considered
> normal but his murder evil, why?
Intent.
>
> > You are not disagreeing with me. We have the right to cause ourselves
> > to have our right to pursuit of happiness revoked, should we cause
> > greater harm to the pursuit of others. When we are imprisoned, not
> > only that right is revoked, but the right to freedom. And, in some
> > places, if you curtail another's right to life, or freedom in some
> > cases, then you may lose your right to life. Hey! Whatever makes you
> > happy. You want to lose your rights, go ahead and do whatever you
> > want.
>
> Indeed this is what I mean by taking the consequences of your words or
> actions.
>
> > Oh. Perhaps you are not taking war for profit as a type of murder,
> > premeditated killing of thousands or millions of people, in order to
> > gain more of the power that has already corrupted your soul?
>
> Perhaps I did not, see my post to Rigsy for an answer to that. But
> still all the wars of all the times have not yet killed anywhere near
> the number of people that the humble mossy has.
I rather disagree. War and its aftermath have killed many, including
those dying of cancer still near old nuclear research sites, in Japan,
in southern Iraq, in the minefields....
War is never really fought for ideals, religion, race, langage,
culture, or any of those lame excuses. Those are simply mind-control
devices used to motivate the hoi polloi into action, while the real
motivation at the top is simply power and money.
>
> > As if you have any individual choice to begin with... You think you
> > have freedom of choice? Wherein lies this freedom? You are a slave to
> > circumstance.
>
> I would argue that point until we are both fed up with each other,
> given the chance, but for now let me just say that choice although
> limited by numerous things still exists.
>
> When you reply to this post as I'm sure you will, (or maybe you'll
> choose not to!)
>
> How will you reply, in what mannor, using what words? Are you saying
> that you'll have no choice over this that something compels your
> reply, and the words you'll use in it?
Sure. Given my innate inclinations and the experiences I have enjoyed/
endured, this is the kind of person I am: one that will respond after
thinking a bit. While none of us knows really what we will do in any
circumstance, given our makeup and history and the circumstances at
hand, we will do what we are *bound* to do. This does not remove any
mystery, since we cannot calculate all of those variables, but it is
good to keep in mind that you are bound to your genes and memes. This
does not excuse anyone's actions, once they understand the import of
those actions.
>
> > What about simply making life miserable for others? Isn't there
> > something wrong with that? You seem to agree with the prison system.
> > Much to your surprise, I don't.
>
> Again I think this touches upon what Allen says about 'Do no harm' It
> is impossible you know to live a life which does no harm at all, I
> applaud the trying though, and indeed is how I attempt to live my own
> life.
As animals we must kill to survive. Intentional causing of pain is
another matter, and meat can be eaten with reverence and apology, and
be pure. Apology is a great gift.
>
> We all know arse-ish people who seem to delight in the misery of
> others, and how do we mostly deal with these people? Yep we seperate
> ourselves from then, ohhh there is that individual choice again. If
> it is not possible to seperate our selves from these destructive
> people, rightly so, we have laws to help us make that choice a
> reality.
If you are strong enough, be close to your friends, but even closer to
your enemies. They may become friends after all.
>
> Prison, is a strange one for me. I have actualy spent some time
> thinking about the conecpt of prison over the years and what I can
> say, is that at least in the UK we still work on the old Victorian
> prison concept, that is that prision is meant to rehabilitate. I'm
> unsure as to how the rest of the worlds prision system are supposed to
> work, or what their concept is. I can also say that I belive the UK
> general populous would like to see this old concept scrapped and see
> the prision as a punishment conecept put in it's place.
Ack!!! They are wrong. The penal system punishes those that have
already been neglected and abused too much, and need help.
Rehabilitation is much more humane, efficient, and logical. They need
to learn how to be productive. They've never been taught that (for the
most part) and greatly appreciate it and make the most of it given the
chance.
>
> My view is that it is clear that prison as rehabilitation has not
> worked, so perhaps I must agree with the vast majority of my country
> men and woman and say yes prision should be about punishment.
The science of rehabilitation is but a primitive art. Guards do not
love you.
>
> What exaclty is it about prison you don't agree with?
>
The punishment, as I think I've made clear. Pastors do the most good
in prison. Guards are scurvy and spread mental disease, generally.
Peace,
Tony
>
>
> > > On Jul 14, 1:49 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 12, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey Tony,
>
> > > > > Indeed and I would go further and say that good and evil are wholey
> > > > > subjective.
>
> > > > > Ben declares that murder is normaly counted as evil, but sometimes it
> > > > > serves the greater good. I would ask you all to consider why exaclty
> > > > > is it that the majority agree with this.
>
> > > > > In short why is murder evil?
>
> > > > Because we desire stability in society, and murder causes pain and
> > > > discord, making societal progress hard for us all. Is the murderer
> > > > evil? No, I think the murderer is sick, but society must hold the
> > > > individual accountable for their actions in some sense, or it will
> > > > collapse into chaos. One cannot allow individuals to cause unhappiness
> > > > for everyone else, or no one will be happy.
>
> > > > Peace,
>
> > > > Tony
>
> > > > > On Jul 11, 6:31 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi Ben -
>
> > > > > > A good question, and not one that I haven't spent much time
> > > > > > considering. Here are my thoughts.
>
> > > > > > One many levels, good and evil are subjective. When a cheetah kills a
> > > > > > gazelle, that is good in the cheetah's eye and evil in the gazelle's.
> > > > > > Indeed, our sense of what is good or bad rests first in personal
> > > > > > pleasure and pain, and as we mature, is extended by association to
> > > > > > include that which helps or hurts an object of attachment. For the
> > > > > > rich, the current financial situation is good, and for the many poor
> > > > > > it is evil. One's personal judgment is generally dependent on their
> > > > > > perspective.
>
> > > > > > One the other hand, if we assume some greater good, then actions which
> > > > > > encourage it are good, and those that set it back or hurt it are bad
> > > > > > or even evil. For instance, for those that believe in evolution and
> > > > > > would rather be a trillion human cells able to think on our level
> > > > > > rather than a pool of algae, evolution may be viewed as a universally
> > > > > > good thing. Actions that encourage it are good and those that impede
> > > > > > it are bad. Since evolution happens on all levels, from stars to
> > > > > > physical organism to minds and memes, one may view this as a universal
> > > > > > good. Of course, this depends on whether one personally believes in
> > > > > > evolution, so again, even this objective good is subjectively
> > > > > > estimated by the individual.
>
> > > > > > Hope that was a valuable contribution. Have a nice day
>
> > > > > > Tony
>
> > > > > > On Jul 8, 11:16 pm, Ben <artistta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I do not believe that we can define good and evil without entering
> > > > > > > into a philosophical conversation.
>
> > > > > > > Good and evil are not absolute rules nor can there be a universal good
> > > > > > > or a universal evil.
> > > > > > > The concept of what is good and what is evil must be taught to us as a
> > > > > > > child, because we are not born inherently good or evil.
>
> > > > > > > To murder is bad. However the statement does not speak of a universal
> > > > > > > good. Murder in so many cases has been used in good ways.
> > > > > > > Euthanization has been used to end a suffering patients life. Abortion
> > > > > > > has been used to prevent a child from being born when childbirth could
> > > > > > > end a mothers life. To murder is bad in many cases but not all. The
> > > > > > > extreme case of the word murder means to kill another human being
> > > > > > > under conditions specifically covered in law. We can not define murder
> > > > > > > without discussing the implications. There are many instances where
> > > > > > > murder must be re-defined as a good not a bad.
>
> > > > > > > A child is not born inherently good or evil. Human beings are unique
> > > > > > > in the power of our brain. We are able to quickly associate good and
> > > > > > > bad. These associations are learned from society, our elders and
> > > > > > > peers. A child that is born with no contact from these influences will
> > > > > > > associate good and evil with pain and suffering. A child with contact
> > > > > > > from these influences will be able to conceptualize good and evil and
> > > > > > > apply it to many different aspects of everyday life.
>
> > > > > > > Finally, no universal good or evil
>
> ...
>
> read more »
0 comments:
Post a Comment