by Terry 60 Replies latest watchtower bible
So you are saying that somewhere there is a higher moral authority which will give us humans an answer of Yes or No as to whether something is moral?
If so, please define Morality and Moral and direct me to how one may communicate with this higher moral authority so that I may no longer make any mistakes regarding morality. Also, please let me know how you were able to determine that this higher moral authority was legitimate.
Terry,
Thank you for the best topic I've read in here in a long time. Reading you, it's almost as though I'm back in college listening to favorite professors, stretching my mind to absorb it all, to evaluate and weigh each phrase, to grasp the meaning behind the words, and then to apply those parts which are valid to my own life and to the world in general. And yes, there are universal laws that we cannot escape, though many try. Morality is one of them.
Delightful! Thank you again,
SusanHere
to try to clarify my earlier point, i think most of the people on this board can appreciate the possibility that we have had limited chances in life because of our upbringing, in the the wtbts told us not to get involved in further education etc. This means to a large extent we haven't had the same chances that many of our peers have had, and even if we try to make amends now we will be behind. to take this point further our knowledge of a beggers life is limited so as to make it impossiblke to judge whether they deserve our sympathy or not.
I must take issue with another one of your statements. You must have missed my mention of this before:
What defines a "successful" life for the individual? What defines "forward progress" for society? You state that a long successful life well-lived "trumps" a shorter life. Your mention of the word "trumps" is a reference to card games, games with rules defined by tradition and pre-existing authority. If that is the case, who defines which "suit" in life is the "trump" value? Who is the pre-existing authority that measures our lives and society's success in order to see if it won or not? And what on earth are we playing for? Is there a pot, or are we just doing this to pass the time?
Since all individuals, regardless of their choices in life, die and presumably fall into oblivion, what makes my life more successful in individual terms than the drunk we were talking about? I work hard, strive to better myself, am seeking to make military enrollment a possibility therefore sacrificing a short period of my life for the good of my country (albeit my interest is not completely altruistic). Why is my life, which will end in the pain and loneliness that awaits all of us in the brief instants before complete cessation of inidividual conciousness, any better than the drunk's? How do you respond to the nihilist's conundrum?
If you deny God, then you have to give me a reason to keep playing by your rules.
CZAR
For elsewhere and villastu:
Forgive me for being so academic.
This subject interests me and I have an inexhaustible enthusiam for these discussions. If you can bear the tone of simplicity coming from me without feeling I am some authority teaching chimps and will indulge me some basics I'll try to go from A to Z.
These are very basic steps I'm going to take. I'll create a chain of reasoning. Bear with me.
VALUE: what we act to gain and/or keep
Question: What VALUES ought a person to choose?
Answer: Values that preserve and enhance life
Can anything have VALUE without life? If we are dead can anything have value?
Answer: no. All values stem from life.
Question: Can Human Life be the standard of ethics?
Answer: Yes. Only a living human can possess ethical values.
Conclusion: The concept of VALUE is dependant on the concept of LIFE.
What is LIFE? Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.
Question: Do we make choices that affect life?
Answer: Yes, those choices are based on the value of life itself
Corollary: If life had no value our choices affecting our life wouldn't matter at all.
EVERYBODY WITH ME SO FAR? (YES, WE ARE WITH YOU!) Okay, next step.
1.Living beings, and only living beings, have values (goals).
2.Man, being volitional, must choose his values.
3.Values--goals--may be a means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. An infinite chain of "means" leading to no final end would be meaningless and impossible.
4.Life is an ultimate end, and, furthermore it is the only possible ultimate end, the only "end in itself."
5.Therefore, the only meaningful or justifiable values a man can choose are those which serve to sustain life.
You might object and say, "Is life really an END in itself?" Logically, yes. All other actions a person takes are a __means__to some end. But, life itself is the only end in itself that is not a means to some other end.
If you are still with me consider this:
A person does nothing, and can do nothing, purposeful unless the purpose is to serve his life which entails his ultimate happiness. Even if he thinks he is doing something for __other__reasons, his real objective is and must be his own life and happiness.
Example: A dad works hard at an exhausting job which takes all his free time so that he can put his child through school. Is this FOR the child and AGAINST the dad's life and happiness? No, the Dad _values_his child to the extent his hard work on her behalf brings him happiness and lends value to his actions. For him it is worth it.
Every action taken to sustain life is simultaneously a means (because it supports life) and an end (because life is by definition simply the collective of such actions).
What we are dealing with, then, is the definition of GOOD. Anything that ends life, curtails it, damages it, limits it can NOT be good. This gives birth to VALUE. To enable life, to preserve it, to improve it, to enhance it is our GOAL. We then VALUE whatever proves to be a means toward that goal.
Consider the following statements:
1.You ought to format a new disk before attempting to write a file to it. 2.You ought not open a chess game with P-KN4 3.You ought to first examine the equation to see if the variables are separable.
These statements are true statements. They contain the word "ought". They are rules too. These statements are normative. If we follow these "rules" our actions (tasks such as writing a file to disk, playing chess or solving first degree equations) can lead to success.
THIS IS WHAT MORALITY DOES! Morality is a means to an end. The end is the good life well lived.
MORALITY is the process of selecting appropriate goals according to the principle of sustaining human life, based on the facts of human nature (Food, shelter, clothing,knowledge needed, etc).
This CANNOT BE A SUBJECTIVE MATTER OF OPINION.
1.Humans need to eat. Humans cannot eat poison and survive. Humans cannot eat non-nutritious foods and maintain health. Actions taken; decisions made which IGNORE this are in themselves IMMORAL. They militate against life and health.
2.Causing others to not eat, to eat poison, to eat non-nutritious food, by extension, is also IMMORAL.
This is the nuts and bolts of objectifying Morality. How could anybody hold a counter opinion?
Imagine you are going to wire your house for electricity. Would it matter how you went about it? Can you do whatever it comes into your mind to do? Do you actually have the freedom to handle the electric wires as it pleases you to do so? NO!
Ask yourself why the answer is "NO"?
Wrong handling will not only put you in violation of building and safety codes (moral codes!) but, will put your very life and well-being in danger of destruction!
Is this a matter of ___opinion? No! It is a law of nature! You are compelled to handle the wires the ___RIGHT WAY___or you'll be electrocuted at worst, or, start a fire at the least.
The nature of our human frailty, the nature of electric charge, the nature of physics does not permit OPINIONS. So too with morality. It is absolute.
So, the goal of life is more than biological survival with added features. The goal of life AS A MAN MUST LIVE would include value+added features which make life WORTH LIVING.
Generic survival will not do! A man does not seek to survive by acting as a dog, a hippopotamus, or a philodendron! Those strategies are not appropriate to man's nature.
Man cannot survive by abandoning all strategies. He cannot evade eating, sleeping, seeking shelter from inclement weather and the ravages of beast and disease. Man must live the life of A MAN by adding "meaning" and fulfillment. That too is the goal of morality. And that aspect is the only subjective part of morality.
Man wants to live so badly that he will accept no substitutes! An awful and miserable life eats away at what is human in man and destroys the "will" to continue. The value of life is in direct proportion to the enjoyment of it. A life of disease and suffering would negate the positive value of continued living. The question about euthanizing someone applies here.
Morality is based on maximizing life. Choosing values contrary or hostile to life is choosing immoral behavior. It is not a matter of opinion. Life in the long term---not the short term.
What about the question raised about CONSENSUS definitions of what is good and bad?
Moral reasoning has been broken down by philosophers into three stages:
1. Level one (preconventional) morality avoids pain and strives for an optimum life based on the value of life itself. It is what we have been discussing and I have been describing.
2.Level two (conventional) morality is based on pleasing others and obeying authority and doing one's duty. This is the morality of a slave and a victim of collective such as the Watchtower
3. Level three (postconventional) morality is based on the mutual consent of a social group and personal tastes. A democracy makes certain rules based on majority vote and society agrees to abide by them. Personal exercise of choice is allowed as long as it doesn't harm others.
My entire discussion revolves around Level One morality.
Very good. Life is, in and of itself, a means to an end. Very well. Now, you must answer a tricky question engendered by your own definitions:
A life of disease and suffering would negate the positive value of continued living.
But all life, Terry, has disease and suffering in it. Everyone suffers sometimes. How can we accurately judge exactly when the amount of suffering has risen to the level that negates continued living? Even the individual could not accurately measure it, for as Voltaire said, "The man who kills himself today would not have done so had he waited a week."
In the end, there is no logical way to determine when euthanasia is viable. It is a "gut decision" based on some knowledge and some emotion and a whole lot of instinctual desire. Thanatos comes into play.
CZAR
Emotion or "gut feeling" is nothing but a visceral reaction to a value we've attached (either consciously or unconsciously by others).
If we value a tall blonde with a mammoth chest, we will feel the emotion of pleasure when we encounter her.
If we think blondes are dumb and only redheads with athletic builds are worth whistling at--we will ignore the blonde and feel pleasure when the redhead enters the room.
The value we attach to something engenders our emotional response.
It is NOT the other way around.
Emotions contain no information. Going with our "gut feeling" is backwards. It is an effect posing as a cause. The fact that people can be unaware of their own programming of values leads them regard emotions as a source of information. It is self-deception.
Now, having said that---
CZAR says:
But all life, Terry, has disease and suffering in it. Everyone suffers sometimes. How can we accurately judge exactly when the amount of suffering has risen to the level that negates continued living? Even the individual could not accurately measure it, for as Voltaire said, "The man who kills himself today would not have done so had he waited a week."
In the end, there is no logical way to determine when euthanasia is viable. It is a "gut decision" based on some knowledge and some emotion and a whole lot of instinctual desire. Thanatos comes into play.
************************************************************************************************************
I reply:
Ask the person if they want to make the life or death decision; it is, after all, their life.
Voltaire speaks in a generality. Voltaire doesn't have access to personal information about every suffering person! There is no way Voltaire can know if the man suffering a painful death by cancer would change his mind by waiting a week. It is a silly generalization on his part.
Notice the root of your statement? The fundamental principle operating your objection is that of the floating standard. You are in effect saying....."there is no absolute certainty and that is the ONLY standard we can use. Since there is no absolute standard we cannot make any decsions at all." This either/or binary thinking is not very productive.
We make our best decision based on the best available information and then we live with it. Or, in the case of euthanasia; we die with it.
What is the alternative? We let the poor bastard suffer because we are unable to pull the plug.
If a person asks for a peaceful death, I assert it is their right to do so. Second guessing is fruitless. There are a great many wealthy people frozen in cryogenic tanks. They hedged their bets. They could afford to. So be it. For the rest of us--we make the best choice we can make.
By not choosing a course we guarantee the alternative will happen.
I concur. But I base my conclusion on emotional intuition - not logic.
CZAR
I, personally, don't believe there is such a thing as INTUITION.
All human knowledge comes from our senses.
We react to sensory signals and end up interpreting them and forming a base of impressions.
We sort those impressions and abstract qualities and categories from them.
We form concepts and add definitions.
We form chains of __inferences_that we link at will to guess what actions will lead to certain consequences.
I think that is as close as we get to "intutition". I'd call it non-verbal and internal calculations based on inferences by DATA GATHERED FROM THE SENSES.
Be that as it may----you may not be disagreeing with me. You may simply not be consciously aware of your value process. You are applying values to situations--but, not willfully.
What you call a "gut feeling" may be this non-verbal and internal application of your own values. This, of course, is mysterious to you. You can't explain it.
I've worked with many artists and musicians who know how to do something. They've learned something--but, they never verbalized it. They cannot explain it verbally. As a consequence of this non-verbal absorption process, they consider what they are doing as mysterious. But, it really isn't.
What we don't know---is there none-the-less.
Decisions made consciously are more stable and reliable than unconscious decisions made on internal inferences. Our mind is IN THE LOOP.
If you'd care to offer a counter-definition and data about intuition; I'd be happy to hear it.
We react to sensory signals and end up interpreting them and forming a base of impressions.We sort those impressions and abstract qualities and categories from them.
We form concepts and add definitions.
We form chains of __inferences_that we link at will to guess what actions will lead to certain consequences.
The only problem is: who are "we"?
"We" might be better off if "we" behaved as self-programmed computers.
But (un)fortunately "we" are no self-programmed computers.
(From Lubitsch's Design for Living: "It was a gentlemans' agreement. Unfortunately I am no gentleman.")
