An epiphany, and prelude to other thoughts (page 8)

onacruse

Six, so let's dispense with the mumbo-jumbo

What gives you the right to determine for someone else how their life should proceed, or end?

Are you God?

Craig (of the gettin-down in-the-mud class )

SixofNine

I'll tell you what, I'll answer that last post, if you'll tell me, given this:

....... action taken, at personal cost, to save anothers life,....

... that you believe such is an act of pure selfishness?

onacruse

Six, my answer is: Yes!

action taken, at personal cost, to save anothers life

is very much indeed an act of pure selfishness, if (and I emphasize if) it abrogates the expressed self-determination of the individual.

Craig

SixofNine

you seriously want me to believe that you believe that?

C'mon Craig, notice the words... personal cost, saving another's life.

How do you label something done at personal cost to save anothers life as pure selfishness? It doesn't compute.

Notice I'm keeping the word "pure" in there. I'm not saying that within the scope of this life-saving action, there is not room for some personal gain in the form of personal satisfaction. BUT, let's be honest, in the scenarios we're likely discussing, the "satisfaction" factor is going to pale in comparison to the "personal cost" factor. So where is the "pure selfishness"?

onacruse

Six:

you seriously want me to believe that you believe that?

Yes.

C'mon Craig, notice the words... personal cost, saving another's life.

What personal cost? That you might face the consequences of a civil lawsuit, for damages that you virtually asked for, within the ethic of our own society, by reason of your actions? That's pay-my-dime-take-my-chances-maybe-I'll-escape-the-consequences selfishness all the way.

Saving another's life? If all you're talking about is the continuation of physical existence, then why not show such aggressive concern about the life of that ant that you just stepped on? Ohhh, the ant is not a "being," with a will of its own? Then what about that unconscious JW (or Adventist, or atheist, it doesn't matter) who is a "will-ful being" who's expressed his/her own wishes? Can you categorically state that you know that the continuation of their physical existence is the paramount issue, even if they've said otherwise? Can you prove that their ideas about life after death are false, and that your actions taken over their wishes may not in some way be compromising their total life-experience?

Six, I am trying really hard to keep the idea of "pure" in mind here, and I sincerely feel with you the struggle of the heart; you're a good man. But I must say, unless you come back with some really convincing argument, I'd have to consider any such unilateral action to be purely selfish.

Very respectfully,

Craig

onacruse

jgnat, I somehow jumped over your post. Please tell Katie to spank me

Not all that is in a baby's field of vision is treated equally. Young babies show a strong preference for face-objects.

Faces, definitely, rather than objects? That's very interesting. Please expand.

I have been thinking deep thoughts about the balance between Individuality and Community. I think now that these two human needs are not either/or in value, but rather two needs that need to be balanced against each other, like insulin and sugar. We need both, but not too much of either.

I'd say that they are either/or. Individuals are unique, and we are intrinsically valuable because of our existence. Communities are unique, but have value only insofar as they serve the purposes of the individuals. The ethic/moral distinction.

Craig

blackout

Proposition

#1: We individually exist alone and isolated from all beings in this universe.

Purport: We have no other way than to determine all things for ourselves within ourselves.

#2 everything we know is nothing more than someone elses interpretation.

Purport: Everything we know is basically untruth.

Craig, can you please explain again how the above relates to morals. To me it means that morally we can do no moral wrong as long as we are following our self determination and take into consideration the perspective of others. Is this what you mean?

onacruse

blackout, yes. Keep in mind the definition:

moral can often be taken to mean private, codified, rigid and a priori;

A priori is "from cause to effect, deductive;" and so a moral must be based on an instrinsic and demonstrable objective property of the class to which it applies. In our case, being "alone" (#1), and having no objective external source of information (#2), are objectively demonstrable properties of humans as a class. Therefore, we perforce are our own morality.

The "taking into consideration the perspective of others" (if I take you properly and assume this to refer to "community" interaction) is not a moral act, but an ethical one.

The main point being: what we feel inside to be right is right, morality is from within, not without.

Craig

blackout

aaahhhh, that's better. It was the ethical bit that was getting me, the taking into consideration the perspective of others.

So morally we can do no wrong, it is only ethics which stop us from harming others. sorry I was coming at it from a different angle.

Craig, where is the 'blood thread' you were talking about?

onacruse

blackout,

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/51641/1.ashx

btw, I just noticed that I rather overkilled on "objective" in my last post, eh? LOL But that's what really gets to me about this subject: all my life I had what I considered to be an "objective" moral code--the Bible. Now that I've changed my perspective, the question remained: what, if any, moral code is there? And how would I implement it?

Craig

An epiphany, and prelude to other thoughts

Share this