I asked once or perhaps twice or even thrice what is it about human
life that many see as sacrosanct, I don't see life that way at all and
so it confussed me why again the majority of us would view the takeing
of a human life by another human as immoral.
I guess I'm just in a strange place at the mo, beliving in a creator
God without beliving that life is somehow sacred.
I can see both sides though, I think most would thank their parents
for the 'gift' of life, but I can certianly understand why some would
not.
Myself I'm a little differant. I had no choice about my birth and so
I neither thank nor revile my parents for their choice in makeing me.
I mean I, Lee, the human and the soul and the mind that makes up the
indivudual we call Lee, had nowt to do with my birth.
It was my parents choice, and their desire to have kids, I know this
desire, I think most of us humans do at some point or other in our
lives.
Now of course I have two teenage boys, I don't ask them for their
thanks, not for mine and my wifes desires, our choice. We did not
gift them with life, we simply followed our own wills.
No I'm more intersted in arming them for their own lifes, so that they
can make their own choices independant of me and their mum. They are
not really my kids but humans that own their own lifes.
On Aug 31, 11:53 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "…Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may
> not
> see their life as agift at all. " – Lee
>
> Conversely, those born into affluence or under the rule of an
> enlightened and benevolent leader may not see their life as a gift
> either.
>
> On Aug 31, 3:50 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Indeed that is the way I see it, but of course others may not.
>
> > Those born into abject poverty or under the rule of a despot may not
> > see their life as agift at all.
>
> > On Aug 31, 5:29 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes- but there are so many ironies and surprises and turn-abouts in
> > > life that it offers possibilities, as well. It still is a chance
> > > given.
>
> > > On Aug 30, 9:47 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Heh and of course there is an argument to be made that life is no gift
> > > > at all!
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes- a lively topic! The whole matter rests upon the spirit in which
> > > > > the gift is given or received and it can get tangled up in some pretty
> > > > > strange emotions!
>
> > > > > We can never repay parents for the gift of life.
>
> > > > > I have sometimes given a gift to get rid of a person! And it
> > > > > works! :-)
>
> > > > > "The moon belongs to everyone, the best things in life are
> > > > > free" (song)
>
> > > > > On Aug 30, 4:46 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hey Neil,
>
> > > > > > The word debt is a good one to bring to the convo. It is ridden with
> > > > > > subjective morality. I think it true to say that nobody likes to be
> > > > > > indebted to anybody, and that payment of debt whether that be fiscal
> > > > > > or favours owed, is paramont for the individual to feel free from debt
> > > > > > agian.
>
> > > > > > Of course the corraspanding thought is that the individual can also
> > > > > > feel empowerd by the depts owed to that person. It is like a slavery
> > > > > > light. If a man buys you a beer you remember it and do not rest untll
> > > > > > you have returned the favour. If a freind helps you to move it is
> > > > > > perfectly exceptable to ask of him the same favour when you in turn
> > > > > > move.
>
> > > > > > I think it goes deep, I mean real deeply deep in the human physche.
>
> > > > > > When one welches on a bet, or refuses to repay a favour then that
> > > > > > person is not thought highly of.
>
> > > > > > It ties in nice and neatly with my thoughts on individual freedom, and
> > > > > > the fettering of choice.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality
> > > > > > > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take
> > > > > > > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon
> > > > > > > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical
> > > > > > > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and
> > > > > > > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and
> > > > > > > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally
> > > > > > > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a
> > > > > > > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what
> > > > > > > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right'
> > > > > > > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned
> > > > > > > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is
> > > > > > > help with her distress.
>
> > > > > > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free
> > > > > > > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved
> > > > > > > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one
> > > > > > > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to
> > > > > > > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an
> > > > > > > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer
> > > > > > > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace
> > > > > > > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some
> > > > > > > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the
> > > > > > > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be
> > > > > > > in this sense.
>
> > > > > > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review
> > > > > > > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would
> > > > > > > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view
> > > > > > > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what
> > > > > > > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that
> > > > > > > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even
> > > > > > > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and
> > > > > > > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the
> > > > > > > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt
> > > > > > > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We
> > > > > > > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt
> > > > > > > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history.
> > > > > > > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in
> > > > > > > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could
> > > > > > > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better
> > > > > > > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' -
> > > > > > > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through -
> > > > > > > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in
> > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes
> > > > > > > > a change huh!
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in
> > > > > > > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think
> > > > > > > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the
> > > > > > > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion,
> > > > > > > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations
> > > > > > > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the
> > > > > > > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-)
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks
> > > > > > > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight.
>
> > > > > > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the
> > > > > > > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may
> > > > > > > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does,
> > > > > > > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline
> > > > > > > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems
> > > > > > > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the
> > > > > > > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality,
> > > > > > > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness
> > > > > > > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows
> > > > > > > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect
> > > > > > > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some
> > > > > > > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many
> > > > > > > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds
> > > > > > > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We might
> > > > > > > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with
> > > > > > > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <eadohe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; you're
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing labels
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or action is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by ordination,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks "deconstructs"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
