by eyeslice 38 Replies latest watchtower bible
Read Perry's comment above
BTW why so many laws?
wheter to break a law or not, the "answer lies in the eye of the beholder",
ok
but the result if you are taken before a judge is clear.
There are acts considered BAD by most people, sociaty in general, AND there are too many bad acts, intentional acts.
Compare to how many goods acts are performed without waiting for something in return, sooner or later..
Humans need to be reprogrammed
Hello one ; I don't recall that we've ever interacted, and so I'd like to take this opportunity to so do:
There is no need to be cynic nor physophical
What some might perceive as cynical is, in another perspective, simply a matter of being realistic. Realism can produce cynicism, but not necessarily so: a measure of the person.
good and bad can be definedBy what? By whom? By what methodology?
good and bad actions can be filtered from the point of view of any "reasonable" person, which is the cretieria used in court of law.
But whence comes law? "Law" is a communal determination of what will be allowed, or disallowed, in a certain social arrangement, from the Neandertals down through all the supposedly increased refinements of politics in each generation. In that respect, there is no absolute standard of intrinsic good and bad.
Forget about circunstances, the environment etc etc as such variables ARE created by humans themselves. What some are saying (implicit) therefore is that human behaivor is the product of circunstanes created by human.
If there is an implicit standard of human behavior, exterior to conditioned and social "norms," I'd sure be glad to know about it.
Something is wrong with most humans....And what is that?
obviously the best thing to do is shut up.Why? Respectfully, Craig
intrinsically: meaning(?)>
If we take this meaning of Intrinsically I think we can say that man is intrinsically both good and bad. That is taking into account that the meaning of good and bad very from person to person ,,, as well as from spiecies to spiecies. If we take "good" to mean "benefical" and "bad" to mean "not benefical",,and applying it individually,,and take into account how one person's view differ from everyone elses,,, and if we jump the species barrior we must take into account a much wider spectrum of variance. So then,,"I"(MO) think that the essential nature of man as part of the universe is both good and bad which to me is essentially saying man is "neither" because there is no universal standard of these terms that i know of.
Some words from Bobby Dylan:
Good and bad I define these words quite clear,,, no doubt,,, somehow.
"Hello one I don't recall that we've ever interacted, and so I'd like to take this opportunity to so do:"
Don't recall either and thanks
First of all read comment made by Perry.above.
"What some might perceive as cynical is, in another perspective, simply a matter of being realistic. Realism can produce cynicism, but not necessarily so: a measure of the person. "
My worry exactly, semantics
You asked:
" By what? "
"By whom?"
"By what methodology?"
I asnwer::
laws,
by humans,
empirical resultas as implied in my comment
"But whence comes law? "Law" is a communal determination of what will be allowed, or disallowed, in a certain social arrangement,
"from the Neandertals down through all the supposedly increased refinements of politics in each generation."
"In that respect, there is no absolute standard of intrinsic good and bad".
Ask any reasonable person and she will tell you that what the law does not "allow" is BAD... AND basic laws are very similar worldwide, generally speaking.
Don't you think that since the "Neandertals" some progress has been made regarding abuse, law and order?
The standard has always been there, problem was that it has been slowly 'legislated', during the mean time some commit abuse. Do away with the Constitution and see what happens, hell break loose... what THAT real perspective tell you about intrinsic human inclination?
Of course some actions can not be described as bad or good but there is and intrinsic "standard", which humans themselves agree upon, the same way there are GENERALLY AGREED "STANDARD" for measuring anything, including how tall anyone is, no matter what the measured INDIVIDUAL personally think about it.. .
Through history the standards for good and bad have been pretty much "absolute" and consistant, due to "legislation" common abuse or "bad" actions have been reduced.
Legislation for the sake of this discussion means putting in writting and refining the definitions of what is "BAD"
"If there is an implicit standard of human behavior, exterior to conditioned and social "norms," I'd sure be glad to know about it "
exterior to conditioned?
Have you been conditioned NOT to eat your child at the first conditon of no finding food?
"And what is that? "
The conclusion of the observed results... too much damage being caused to fellow humans.
"Why?"
Because that's a better way for no getting hurt (damage) AND the best way to win an argument. For example if a jw does not open his mouth to question a WT teaching he prevents being shunned (BAD action, intrinsic among WT members) by his family.
Rembember no analogy is perfect.
Fisrt of all read comment made by Perry.above.
There is very little "isness" when it comes to human beings. All of us behave in manners which can be classified as "good" or "bad" by certain cultures. Even if a person's behavior is "mostly bad" does not mean that the person is "all bad" since surely they do some things that are "good" (please notice quotation marks).
Categorizing humans as "good" "bad" "intelligent" "dumb" "talented" etc. are all futile attempts to label someone that is a process (for we are all processes in time) as if they were a static thing-in-itself.
Bradley
One:
You asked:
"By what? "
"By whom?"
"By what methodology?"
I asnwer::
laws,
by humans,
empirical resultas as implied in my comment
Empirical? Empirical??? Instrinsic and empirical are totally different concepts.
"But whence comes law? "Law" is a communal determination of what will be allowed, or disallowed, in a certain social arrangement,
"from the Neandertals down through all the supposedly increased refinements of politics in each generation."
"In that respect, there is no absolute standard of intrinsic good and bad".
Ask any reasonable person and she will tell you that what the law does not "allow" is BAD... AND basic laws are very similar worldwide, generally speaking.
A "reasonable" person changes from generation to generation: anthropology.
Don't you think that since the "Neandertals" some progress has been made regarding abuse, law and order?
No.
The standard has always been there
Again: what "standard"?
problem was that it has been slowly 'legislated', during the mean time some commit abuse. Do away with the Constitution and see what happens, hell break loose... what THAT real perspective tell you about intrinsic human inclination?
The US Constitution is just one more very small piece of flotsam and jetsam in the flow of human sociology, worth no more than any other Constitution.
Of course some actions can not be described as bad or good
How so? If there is a universal measure of "bad or good," then why can some, or any, actions, not be clearly definable as "bad or good"?
but there is and intrinsic "standard", which humans themselves agree upon, the same way there are GENERALLY AGREED "STANDARD" for measuring anything, including how tall anyone is, no matter what the measured INDIVIDUAL personally think about it...
Mixed metaphor. Length, height, width, mass...these are all measurable parameters, in terms of our ordinary physical existence. But moral and ethical standards: how do you measure those? Show me the ruler.
Through history the standards for good and bad have been pretty much "absolute" and consistant, due to "legislation" common abuse or "bad" actions have been reduced.
Proof of which I'd be most glad to see.
"If there is an implicit standard of human behavior, exterior to conditioned and social "norms," I'd sure be glad to know about it "
exterior to conditioned?
Again, you questioned whether there is an instrinsic "good or bad" in humans. Thus, "exterior" or "conditioned" is irrelevant.
Rembember no analogy is perfect.
Agreed...and the db environment is a difficult place to exchange thoughts.
Respectfully,
Craig
Eyeslice, I noticed you changed your word 'good' to 'decent.' I deal with people on a daily basis, be it in business, politically, casually and when in competition, and let me tell you, people will indeed surprise you. Maybe in the question should have included the word, 'as a whole' intrinsically good or bad?
My view is, you chosed the right word, 'decent.'
Guest77
Craig,
quoting quotes would complicate or strech the issue much longer than desired; my head is spining at this late hour..
generally speaking humans are not happy with what other humans have been doing for a long time, specially what those with power do. Please dont ask me to define hapiness, i am traying to prevent phylosophical and semantic argumentation.
Simply speaking, if the majority is not happy..
then what has been done is BAD generally speaking. That is what i call empiric results.
So due to the humans intrinsic state of mind, the net result of human activity is not satisfactory, unhapiness.
Based in such reality, no satisfaction unhapiness, is why the WT and other religions have survived.
You state that "and the db environment is a difficult place to exchange thoughts",
i cant think of a better way, at least to clarify without interruption, all deep court cases are resolved in writting, ask the supreme court. Laws have a section to define all terms utilized, preventing individual interpretations. All good judges denife the issues before judgment. .
In this topic defining the issue and the terminology (such as intrinsic) was/is neccesary, it was not done in this case and the majority of the topics.
Lastly i did not see a response to a simple argumet stated by Perry, (in plain english would be best).
