Photo quiz
John Hatpin
Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
photos:
www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
Bonus questions: only one of them used their real name in their
profession. Which one, and what alterations did the other two make?
--
John Hatpin
Email (ROT-13): wsubcxva NG tznvy.pbz
Boron Elgar
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>photos:
>
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
Phil Silvers
His last name was Silver something....man, stein, something
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
Paul Newman
Used his real name
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
I haven't the foggiest.
John Hatpin
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin
><no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>>
>>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>>photos:
>>
>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>
>Phil Silvers
Yep.
>His last name was Silver something....man, stein, something
Just plain "Silver". The S was added when he went pro.
>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>
>Paul Newman
Nope, not him.
Les Albert
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>photos:
>
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
>
>Bonus questions: only one of them used their real name in their
>profession. Which one, and what alterations did the other two make?
#1 ?
#2 James Woods
#3 Hugh Grant
Why are you bored?
Les
Lesmond
No kidding. I thought it was Paul Newman, too.
--
Even now in Heaven there are angels carrying savage weapons.
John Hatpin
Boron got that one - Phil Silvers, born "Phil Silver".
>#2 James Woods
Nope.
>#3 Hugh Grant
Nope.
>Why are you bored?
Why not?
Les Albert
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Les Albert wrote:
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>>I'm bored with life,
>>Why are you bored?
>Why not?
I was reading The Hindu, India's national newspaper, for some horse
racing results, and I found an interesting article with random
thoughts about boredom:
www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2005/02/19/stories/2005021900860400.htm
It says some nice things about bored people, and some not-so-nice but
thought provoking things. It also talks about boredom vs
restlessness.
Les
Dover Beach
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:38:27 +0000, John Hatpin
> <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>Les Albert wrote:
>
>
>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>
>
>>>>I'm bored with life,
>
>
>>>Why are you bored?
>
>
>>Why not?
>
>
>
> I was reading The Hindu, India's national newspaper, for some horse
> racing results,
O-kay.
and I found an interesting article with random
> thoughts about boredom:
>
> www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2005/02/19/stories/2005021900860400.htm
>
> It says some nice things about bored people, and some not-so-nice but
> thought provoking things. It also talks about boredom vs
> restlessness.
>
> Les
>
Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.
After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,
we ourselves flash and yearn,
and moreover my mother told me as a boy
(repeatedly) 'Ever to confess you're bored
means you have no
Inner Resources.' I conclude now I have no
inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
Peoples bore me,
literature bores me, especially great literature,
Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes
as bad as Achilles,
Who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.
And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag
and somehow a dog
has taken itself & its tail considerably away
into mountains or sea or sky, leaving
behind: me, wag.
--
Dover
Bob Ward
wrote:
Sleeping on the couch leaves you with a lot of time on your hands,
apparently.
M C Hamster
news:q2epo1l5mj6hhgt35...@4ax.com...
> Les Albert wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin
>><no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>>>
>>>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>>>photos:
>>>
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
>>>
>>>Bonus questions: only one of them used their real name in their
>>>profession. Which one, and what alterations did the other two make?
>>
>>#1 ?
>
> Boron got that one - Phil Silvers, born "Phil Silver".
>
>>#2 James Woods
>
> Nope.
>
>>#3 Hugh Grant
>
> Nope.
>
You're mistaken. #2 is Paul Newman, and #3 is Hugh Grant. Or Cary Grant.
Or Ulysses S. Grant.
Why won't you admit it? You're just stringing us all along with your sick
little mind games, and we're not going to put up with it.
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Les Albert
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:24:50 -0800, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin
>><no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>>>
>>>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>>>photos:
>>>
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
>>>
>>>Bonus questions: only one of them used their real name in their
>>>profession. Which one, and what alterations did the other two make?
>>#1 ?
>>#2 James Woods
>>#3 Hugh Grant
>>Why are you bored?
>Sleeping on the couch leaves you with a lot of time on your hands,
>apparently.
Sleeping on the couch leaves you with you in your hands.
Les
Les Albert
<moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Les Albert wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:38:27 +0000, John Hatpin
>> <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Les Albert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>I'm bored with life,
>>
>>
>>>>Why are you bored?
>>
>>
>>>Why not?
>>
>>
>>
>> I was reading The Hindu, India's national newspaper, for some horse
>> racing results,
>O-kay.
>and I found an interesting article with random
>> thoughts about boredom:
>> www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2005/02/19/stories/2005021900860400.htm
>> It says some nice things about bored people, and some not-so-nice but
>> thought provoking things. It also talks about boredom vs
>> restlessness.
>Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.
>After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,
>we ourselves flash and yearn,
>and moreover my mother told me as a boy
>(repeatedly) 'Ever to confess you're bored
>means you have no
>Inner Resources.' I conclude now I have no
>inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
>Peoples bore me,
>literature bores me, especially great literature,
>Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes
>as bad as Achilles,
>Who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.
>And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag
>and somehow a dog
>has taken itself & its tail considerably away
>into mountains or sea or sky, leaving
>behind: me, wag.
That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie actor
George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
Les
Les
Wally Sevits
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin
><no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>>
>>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>>photos:
>>
>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>
>Phil Silvers
>
>His last name was Silver something....man, stein, something
>
Damn, I looked at this photo and knew instantly who it was, I heard
the Bilko voice in my head. Unfortunately it's hours too late.
--
TAZ
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
> Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
> photos:
>
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
I got that one but way too late.
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
Bogart? His real name IIRC (I'm not going to look it up).
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
>
No idea there.
--Justin
Sanford Manley
> I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
> Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
> photos:
>
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
--
Sanford M. Manley
"The urge to save humanity is almost
always a false front for the
urge to rule." - H.L. Mencken
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ansaman/
John Hatpin
>
>"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>news:5vvoo11ln58d36ce1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>
>Bogart? His real name IIRC (I'm not going to look it up).
We have a winner! And Humphrey Bogart was his real name.
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin said:
>> I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>>
>> Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>> photos:
>>
>> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>George Burns - Nathan Birnbaum
Nope - Boron got there very quickly with the right answer. Click the
link again, and you're looking at a young Sergeant Bilko, back before
all that alopecia.
Dover Beach
It's by John Berryman. I notice the version I posted here has
"(repeatedly)", but in other versions I've seen it "(repeatingly)".
Google brings up about equal number of hits for both, but I'm betting
it's really "(repeatingly)".
As an undergraduate I had to write a 15 page paper on boredom, and yes,
it was boring.
It made me think of the movie actor
> George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
> had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
> said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
>
> Les
>
Yeah, I've read that. I always figured he really meant depressed. When
you're depressed nothing seems interesting.
--
Dover
John Hatpin
"Ayyyy-YA!"
FWIW, there's no way I could have got any of those three photos if
anyone else had posted them. My face recognition talents are
appallingly bad.
Boron Elgar
<no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>Wally Sevits wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:41:29 -0500, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin
>>><no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>>>
>>>Phil Silvers
>>>
>>>His last name was Silver something....man, stein, something
>>
>>Damn, I looked at this photo and knew instantly who it was, I heard
>>the Bilko voice in my head. Unfortunately it's hours too late.
>
>"Ayyyy-YA!"
>
>FWIW, there's no way I could have got any of those three photos if
>anyone else had posted them. My face recognition talents are
>appallingly bad.
Um...I went looking and Silvers' real name was Silversmith.
http://www.celebrityalmanac.com/real.shtml
http://pages.prodigy.net/pizzabagel/Trivia_RealNames.htm
John Hatpin
[Phil Silvers]
>Um...I went looking and Silvers' real name was Silversmith.
>http://www.celebrityalmanac.com/real.shtml
>http://pages.prodigy.net/pizzabagel/Trivia_RealNames.htm
I got my data from a BBC radio documentary, narrated by Michael Palin,
which states:
"Before he pluralised his name, Silvers was Philip Silver. He was
born on New York's Lower East Side. His father, Saul Silver, was an
iron-worker, a Russian Jewish immigrant ...".
That's the only reference I can find to his original name being
"Silver"; all websites that mention his given name go with
"Silversmith". I'm inclined to think that the BBC was wrong, and
hence so was I. Apologies on behalf of us both.
John Dean
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:26:30 -0700, Dover Beach
> <moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Les Albert wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:38:27 +0000, John Hatpin
>>> <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Les Albert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:31:27 +0000, John Hatpin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> I'm bored with life,
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why are you bored?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was reading The Hindu, India's national newspaper, for some horse
>>> racing results,
>
>> O-kay.
>
>
>> and I found an interesting article with random
>>> thoughts about boredom:
>>> www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2005/02/19/stories/2005021900860400.htm
>>> It says some nice things about bored people, and some not-so-nice
>>> but thought provoking things. It also talks about boredom vs
>>> restlessness.
>
>
>> Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.
>
> George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
> had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
> said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
>
Well, there are several versions. The most common seem to be:
"Dear World: I am leaving because I am bored. I am leaving you with your
worries in this sweet cesspool."
"Dear World, I am leaving you because I am bored. I am leaving you with
your worries. Good luck."
--
John Dean
Oxford
M C Hamster
news:dmk7in$5mn$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Well, there are several versions. The most common seem to be:
>
> "Dear World: I am leaving because I am bored. I am leaving you with your
> worries in this sweet cesspool."
> "Dear World, I am leaving you because I am bored. I am leaving you with
> your worries. Good luck."
>
>
A professional to the end, not satisfied with just one take.
art...@yahoo.com
John Hatpin wrote:
> I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
> Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
> photos:
>
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
> www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
Justin
"John Hatpin" <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>
> FWIW, there's no way I could have got any of those three photos if
> anyone else had posted them. My face recognition talents are
> appallingly bad.
I have to admit I didn't recognize Bogey from the photo. Being something of
a naval history buff I could tell it was a First rather than Second World
War uniform, and I knew a little about Bogart's war service so I put it
together that way. I can just tell that it's him, but I would never have
got it by the face alone.
My wife can always spot character actors in movies when they are much
younger or older than you are used to seeing them; I rarely beat her to it.
If I do get lucky, it's usually by their voices rather than their faces.
--Justin
John Hatpin
>I'm bored with life, so I spent a little time doing something trivial.
>
>Just for the hell of it, identify these three famous actors from early
>photos:
>
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/001.jpg
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/002.jpg
>www.brookview.karoo.net/PhotoQuiz/003.jpg
>
>Bonus questions: only one of them used their real name in their
>profession. Which one, and what alterations did the other two make?
OK, since no-one has got the third one, here's a little clue to help
you along:
It's Sean Connery.
Hank Gillette
John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> OK, since no-one has got the third one, here's a little clue to help
> you along:
>
> It's Sean Connery.
Good clue. I think I got it. Is it:
Frna Pbaarel?
--
Hank Gillette
"Next time I tell you someone from Texas should not be president of the United
States, please pay attention." -- Molly Ivins
John Hatpin
>In article <a3iuo19jjqirjbfhp...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> OK, since no-one has got the third one, here's a little clue to help
>> you along:
>>
>> It's Sean Connery.
>
>Good clue. I think I got it. Is it:
>
>Frna Pbaarel?
When I first read that post, I thought you'd typed 'Wbna Onrm'.
Opus the Penguin
>>
>>>Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so.
>>>After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns,
>>>we ourselves flash and yearn,
>>>and moreover my mother told me as a boy
>>>(repeatedly) 'Ever to confess you're bored
>>>means you have no
>>>Inner Resources.' I conclude now I have no
>>>inner resources, because I am heavy bored.
>>>Peoples bore me,
>>>literature bores me, especially great literature,
>>>Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes
>>>as bad as Achilles,
>>>Who loves people and valiant art, which bores me.
>>>And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag
>>>and somehow a dog
>>>has taken itself & its tail considerably away
>>>into mountains or sea or sky, leaving
>>>behind: me, wag.
>>
>>
>> That's effen profound, but sad.
>
> It's by John Berryman. I notice the version I posted here has
> "(repeatedly)", but in other versions I've seen it
> "(repeatingly)". Google brings up about equal number of hits for
> both, but I'm betting it's really "(repeatingly)".
Lectio difficilior ("the more difficult reading") is an established
principle of text criticism. I suspect that's what you're applying
here, perhaps on a gut instinct level. It is easier to explain how
"repeatingly," the more difficult reading, was frequently corrected
to "repeatedly" than vice versa.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> Hank Gillette wrote:
>> John Hatpin <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, since no-one has got the third one, here's a little clue to
>>> help you along:
>>>
>>> It's Sean Connery.
>>
>>Good clue. I think I got it. Is it:
>>
>>Frna Pbaarel?
>
> When I first read that post, I thought you'd typed 'Wbna Onrm'.
Did anybody not read that as 'Wbua Onrm'?
Opus the Penguin
> That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie actor
> George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
> had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
> said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
If this life is all there is, his decision makes a lot of sense.
Kevin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Les Albert (lalb...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie actor
>> George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
>> had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
>> said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
>
>If this life is all there is, his decision makes a lot of sense.
You know, you can get pretty snippy when someone like me presumes to
know what someone like you thinks, even to the point of re-defining
what common words like "faith" mean. Why do you think it's ok for you
to hold forth on what the world must be like from a there-is-no-god
point of view?
--
Kevin
art...@yahoo.com
Les Albert wrote:
> That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie actor
> George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
> had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
> said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
The song Celluloid Heroes by the Kinks has the line (more or less)
"If you covered him in garbage, George Saunders would still have style"
I never liked that line very much in an otherwise great song. But I
guess all that style couldn't keep him interested. I really knew
nothing about him though. Perhaps, like Iggy Pop, he was the Chairman
of the Bored
Dover Beach
<nitpick>It's George Sanders, not Saunders</nitpick>. He played Addison
DeWitt in _All About Eve_. He was married to Zsa Zsa Gabor who said
(years later) that he was her one great love. He was also married to
Zsa Zsa's sister Magda. And indeed, if you covered him in garbage he
WOULD still have style. He was great.
--
Dover
Opus the Penguin
Where did that come from? Wow. I'm sorry if I've come off as snippy.
M C Hamster
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97218ADE4BC2Cop...@127.0.0.1...
Well, does the comment about suicide making sense if one doesn't believe in
an afterlife mean that we nonbelievers really ought to just commit suicide,
since I guess life cannot hold meaning if one is a believer or some such?
Or did I misundersand the initial comment?
Opus the Penguin
> "Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kevin (K_S_O...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>>Les Albert (lalb...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie
>>>>> actor George Saunders. He was a successful film star with
>>>>> plenty of money, had no illnesses, but he committed suicide.
>>>>> The note that he left said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I
>>>>> am bored.".
>>>>
>>>>If this life is all there is, his decision makes a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> You know, you can get pretty snippy when someone like me
>>> presumes to know what someone like you thinks, even to the point
>>> of re-defining what common words like "faith" mean. Why do you
>>> think it's ok for you to hold forth on what the world must be
>>> like from a there-is-no-god point of view?
>>
>> Where did that come from? Wow. I'm sorry if I've come off as
>> snippy.
>
> Well, does the comment about suicide making sense if one doesn't
> believe in an afterlife mean that we nonbelievers really ought to
> just commit suicide,
Of course not. I don't agree with the premise, so I don't think you
should act on it.
> since I guess life cannot hold meaning if one
> is a believer or some such? Or did I misundersand the initial
> comment?
>
I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
afterwards, what's the objection to suicide? When non-existence
becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had enough
of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have difficulty
with that second decision, but I don't believe that difficulty can
logically arise from the premise that this life is all there is.
In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not presuming
to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't agree with the
idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a healthy person.
But I really don't know.
We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that my
arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree, but I
understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
Alistair Gale
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Belief in an afterlife is also used to justify suicide and murder, so
what is you point?
Why make a crack about atheists, who "logically" would tend to value
*this* life?
(BTW, there are several religions where an afterlife plays no part, so
you are just not making a dig at atheists.)
--
alistair
Opus the Penguin
> On 3 Dec 2005 23:00:11 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide? When non-existence
>>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
>>
>>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
>>hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had
>>enough of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have
>>difficulty with that second decision, but I don't believe that
>>difficulty can logically arise from the premise that this life is
>>all there is.
>>
>>In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not
>>presuming to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't
>>agree with the idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a
>>healthy person. But I really don't know.
>>
>>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that
>>my arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree,
>>but I understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
>
>
> Belief in an afterlife is also used to justify suicide and murder,
> so what is you point?
I believe I made it above.
> Why make a crack about atheists, who "logically" would tend to
> value *this* life?
If this life is a drag, why stick around?
> (BTW, there are several religions where an afterlife plays no
> part, so you are just not making a dig at atheists.)
>
I wasn't trying to make a dig at anyone.
Dover Beach
> On 3 Dec 2005 23:00:11 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide? When non-existence
>>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
Assuming you've ruled out all the other-regarding reasons like "my kids
would starve and be deprived of a parent" or "People who are depending
on me or who love me would suffer". Rule those out, and you're good to go.
>>
>>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
>>hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had enough
>>of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have difficulty
>>with that second decision,
Psychological difficulty? Or moral difficulty? Most people have
psychological difficulty with it. For most of her life my mother said
she was like Old Man River, tired of living but scared of dying. Mom's
a real laff riot.
>>but I don't believe that difficulty can
>>logically arise from the premise that this life is all there is.
>>
I'm actually surprised people are objecting to this conclusion. And I
speak as someone who desperately wants to have faith but just ain't got
it. Secular humanist to the core, despite my best efforts.
>>In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not presuming
>>to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't agree with the
>>idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a healthy person.
>>But I really don't know.
>>
I don't mean to criticize Kevin's interpretation, but I have to say I
didn't read your original comment the way he did. You seemed to me to
be speculating about the logical consequences of a humanistic POV. You
didn't say anything about how people actually feel, nor did you suggest
that they SHOULD commit suicide. You just said they *could*, it
wouldn't be morally wrong.
>>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that my
>>arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree, but I
>>understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
>
>
>
> Belief in an afterlife is also used to justify suicide and murder, so
> what is you point?
>
> Why make a crack about atheists, who "logically" would tend to value
> *this* life?
>
> (BTW, there are several religions where an afterlife plays no part, so
> you are just not making a dig at atheists.)
>
>
Again, I really didn't read it as a dig, but Kevin and Alistair did, so
there you go, three data points.
--
Dover
Charles Bishop
<moon.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Psychological difficulty? Or moral difficulty? Most people have
>psychological difficulty with it. For most of her life my mother said
>she was like Old Man River, tired of living but scared of dying. Mom's
>a real laff riot.
. <-------- see that? It's a nit and I'm here to take care of it.
I suppose I should take this up with your mom, and I gather that it might
be too late for this, but it's not Old Man River that's tired of livin'
and scared of dyin', it's the singer of the song. OMR doesn't worry about
this, because he just keeps rollin' along.
--
charles, body all achin' and wracked with pain
Dover Beach
Yeah, you know, I spotted that after I posted (famous last words.) I
don't know if Mom realizes it's the narrator, and not OMR; I bet she
does, she's really smart. Gloomy, but smart.
--
Dover
Opus the Penguin
>>
>>>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>>>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide? When non-existence
>>>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
>
> Assuming you've ruled out all the other-regarding reasons like "my
> kids would starve and be deprived of a parent" or "People who are
> depending on me or who love me would suffer". Rule those out, and
> you're good to go.
Why do I need to rule those out? Is this just an appeal to a moral
axiom, or is there a basis for it?
>>>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on
>>>and hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had
>>>enough of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have
>>>difficulty with that second decision,
>
> Psychological difficulty? Or moral difficulty? Most people have
> psychological difficulty with it. For most of her life my mother
> said she was like Old Man River, tired of living but scared of
> dying. Mom's a real laff riot.
I don't think most people distinguish between their psychological and
moral difficulty at this point. However, I think they actually have
both. They know on a gut level it's wrong in general (let's not worry
about broad areas of exception) to take one's own life, but they're
not sure why. That makes it easy for the debunkers to come along and
say, see? You "really" just believe that because you have a
psychological difficulty.
>>>but I don't believe that difficulty can
>>>logically arise from the premise that this life is all there is.
>>>
>
> I'm actually surprised people are objecting to this conclusion.
I'm not surprised anyone would object to the conclusion. I think it's
hard-wired into us to object. It was the vehemence of Kevin's
objection that startled me. He's ordinarily quite easy-going. And I
value his contributions, so I'm willing to accept my comment was more
irksome than the throwaway thought from Opusland that I meant it to
be.
Or maybe it just hit him at the wrong time or in the wrong way. That
happens to me sometimes, and I'm glad that people let me get over my
snits and rejoin the club.
Or maybe there's some life situation that makes the whole thing more
personal; in which case I feel like a jerk for being somewhat flip.
> And I speak as someone who desperately wants to have faith but
> just ain't got it. Secular humanist to the core, despite my best
> efforts.
That's the right question to ask, anyway. (In Opusland, I mean, just
to clarify.) What do you do when your best efforts aren't sufficient?
>>>In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not
>>>presuming to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't
>>>agree with the idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a
>>>healthy person. But I really don't know.
>>>
>
> I don't mean to criticize Kevin's interpretation, but I have to
> say I didn't read your original comment the way he did. You
> seemed to me to be speculating about the logical consequences of a
> humanistic POV. You didn't say anything about how people actually
> feel, nor did you suggest that they SHOULD commit suicide. You
> just said they *could*, it wouldn't be morally wrong.
>
>>>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that
>>>my arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree,
>>>but I understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
>>
>> Belief in an afterlife is also used to justify suicide and
>> murder, so what is you point?
>>
>> Why make a crack about atheists, who "logically" would tend to
>> value *this* life?
This comment interested me on re-read. It depends on how one means
the word "logically." If one wants to say it is logical *for*
atheists to value this life, I disagree. I don't think a rational
atheistic argument can be made that being ought to be preferred to
non-being. That most atheists express this preference does not mean
the preference is based on logic.
However, if one wants to say it is logical *that* atheists value this
life, I'll agree. We all have irrational attachments. And if you
believe this life is all there is, then this is where your irrational
attachments will be.
>> (BTW, there are several religions where an afterlife plays no
>> part, so you are just not making a dig at atheists.)
>
> Again, I really didn't read it as a dig, but Kevin and Alistair
> did, so there you go, three data points.
>
I'll cop to it being a semi-dig. You know, maybe on the level of
someone in the froup saying, hey, Terry Schiavo's parents figured she
was going to a better place so why get so worked up?
Anyway, I don't think there's any serious breech between Alistair and
me. Just a little push and shove in the discussion. With Kevin, I
suspect he's said what he wanted to and there won't be lingering bad
blood between us.
Kevin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>M C Hamster (davo...@speakeasy.hairnet) wrote:
>> "Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Kevin (K_S_O...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>>>Les Albert (lalb...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie
>>>>>> actor George Saunders. He was a successful film star with
>>>>>> plenty of money, had no illnesses, but he committed suicide.
>>>>>> The note that he left said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I
>>>>>> am bored.".
>>>>>
>>>>>If this life is all there is, his decision makes a lot of sense.
>>>>
>>>> You know, you can get pretty snippy when someone like me
>>>> presumes to know what someone like you thinks, even to the point
>>>> of re-defining what common words like "faith" mean. Why do you
>>>> think it's ok for you to hold forth on what the world must be
>>>> like from a there-is-no-god point of view?
>>>
>>> Where did that come from? Wow. I'm sorry if I've come off as
>>> snippy.
Eh, I'm no doubt overly sensitive. At any rate, I'm sorry I snapped
at you, and please read the rest of my comments as though I were
smiling nicely and handing you beers, I don't mean to be
confrontational, I just want to answer your points if I can.
>> Well, does the comment about suicide making sense if one doesn't
>> believe in an afterlife mean that we nonbelievers really ought to
>> just commit suicide,
>
>Of course not. I don't agree with the premise, so I don't think you
>should act on it.
What if the premise was right? Just for the sake of argument, you
understand.
>> since I guess life cannot hold meaning if one
>> is a believer or some such? Or did I misundersand the initial
>> comment?
>>
>
>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide?
You know, death is the end and nothing comes after. This is it. I
certainly don't want to quit early.
>When non-existence
>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
Permanent solution to temporary problem, blah blah blah. Also, there
are things I'm supposed to be doing here, there are tasks I've taken
on. I've used up a lot of training, I should now return some of that
social capital. I'm a good math teacher, I owe society a certain
numbe of years of teach people math or doing something reasonably
useful. I'm a perfectly mediocre fencer, but I can teach people to
fence and they give every indication that the experience enriches them
in ways they find important.
>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
>hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had enough
>of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have difficulty
>with that second decision, but I don't believe that difficulty can
>logically arise from the premise that this life is all there is.
I think this is because you don't really feel that secular ethics are
real, but of course I wouldn't presume to say I know what you think.
But secular ethics, you know, in some ways that's what guides all of
us. JC didn't say a word about slavery being bad, did he? And yet
most of his current day followers would say it's wrong, and would work
around some sort of JC based reason it's wrong. It's not JC based,
though, it's a secular ethic. Those of us who are not JC based, we
have secular ethics, too. In fact, ours are unfiltered, they're
arguably stronger.
>In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not presuming
>to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't agree with the
>idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a healthy person.
>But I really don't know.
You know, I dunno, anyone that depressed is marginal in the "healthy
person" catagory, for me. But it would make a lot of sense if a
Buddist or Muslim or Jew or Christian did it, too, I don't see it as a
particular characteristic of a secular person. It's the implication
that those of us without invisible friends are somehow lost and
wandering and without any sort of sense of what we should do that's
offensive to me.
>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that my
>arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree, but I
>understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
I have trouble seeing how that argument would go, can you point me to
the thread?
--
Kevin
Les Albert
>On 3 Dec 2005 23:00:11 GMT, Opus the Penguin
><opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Where did that come from? Wow. I'm sorry if I've come off as
>>>> snippy.
>Eh, I'm no doubt overly sensitive. At any rate, I'm sorry I snapped
>at you, ....
It's a comedy team: Snippy and Snappy - soon to be appearing in a
major movie, "Snippy and Snappy Snipe at Snoopy".
Les
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>M C Hamster (davo...@speakeasy.hairnet) wrote:
>
>>> Well, does the comment about suicide making sense if one doesn't
>>> believe in an afterlife mean that we nonbelievers really ought
>>> to just commit suicide,
>>
>>Of course not. I don't agree with the premise, so I don't think
>>you should act on it.
>
> What if the premise was right? Just for the sake of argument, you
> understand.
If the premise was right and there is no resurrection, it doesn't
really matter. Your life will end in death regardless of what you do.
So will everyone else's. And then the universe will run down.
If it helped make me happier, I might throw myself into the
philosophy that says I can make a difference and leave the world a
better place, blah blah blah. But logically there's no reason to do
that. My conscience is a by-product of chemical processes in my
brain. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and I gotta appease the
little god in my belly if I have one.
>>> since I guess life cannot hold meaning if one
>>> is a believer or some such? Or did I misundersand the initial
>>> comment?
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide?
>
> You know, death is the end and nothing comes after. This is it.
> I certainly don't want to quit early.
Many people feel the same. The man that committed suicide felt
differently. His decision was logical given that he didn't care for
what this life had to offer any longer.
>>When non-existence
>>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
>
> Permanent solution to temporary problem, blah blah blah. Also,
> there are things I'm supposed to be doing here, there are tasks
> I've taken on.
"Supposed" is an interesting word. Who or what obligates you? Are
other people similarly obligated? If not, maybe we've located a
miscommunication.
I'm not saying that suicide is the *only* logical response to the
belief that this life is all there is. Your way is equally logical,
as I detailed above. You're starting with different subjective
feelings about life.
> I've used up a lot of training, I should now
> return some of that social capital.
There's that concept again. "Should."
> I'm a good math teacher, I
> owe society a certain numbe of years of teach people math or doing
> something reasonably useful. I'm a perfectly mediocre fencer, but
> I can teach people to fence and they give every indication that
> the experience enriches them in ways they find important.
No doubt those things are true, but you and they will die. In
essence, you derive meaning for life from distracting others from
that thought so their journey to the grave is more enjoyable. If I
believed as you do, I would probably seek that sort of evanescent
"meaning" too. Why not? But then again, as our suicide friend might
point out, why?
The other thing that interests me about your statements is that
meaning and purpose appear to come from ability. The bad math teacher
who can't fence or do anything else to compensate has a meaningless
life. He teaches math because it pays the bills and it's better for
him than being a checker at Wal*Mart.
>>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
>>hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had
>>enough of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have
>>difficulty with that second decision, but I don't believe that
>>difficulty can logically arise from the premise that this life is
>>all there is.
>
> I think this is because you don't really feel that secular ethics
> are real, but of course I wouldn't presume to say I know what you
> think.
It depends on what you mean by "real." I think they exist. And I
think they live on borrowed capital. We are all made in the image of
God. We all have consciences. And this is where we get our knowledge
of morality. Secular ethics denies the source and tries to keep the
morality (or some of it). But secular ethics cannot offer a reason
for the "ought". If my "ought" is different from yours, there is no
argument you can offer to change it.
> But secular ethics, you know, in some ways that's what
> guides all of us. JC didn't say a word about slavery being bad,
> did he?
Before we start down that path, let's note that we're switching
topics a little. We've moved from the question of morality's source
(either God or a set of axioms you stipulate or billions of
individual consciences). Now we're looking at the question of how
that morality is expressed in certain records and how complete that
expression is.
In other words, we're agreeing that slavery is bad. And we're
addressing the question of whether Christian or secular ethics is
more likely to produce that conclusion. In a sense, of course,
secular ethics wins. There are as many versions of secular ethics out
there as there are secular ethicists. Like monkeys with typewriters
they'll produce every possible moral conclusion, given time.
But then we're back to the question of how we know that this
particular moral conclusion is "correct." In secular ethics, I think
that question is semi-meaningless. "Correct" as measured by what or
whom? I suppose you could say "correct" as measure by their logically
arising from certain basic moral principles. But I trust you can see
how that just puts the question off for a moment without answering
it.
Now, did Jesus say that slavery was bad? Not in the sense you mean.
During his life on earth, that is one of the many questions he did
not address. Is it logical to reason from the teachings of Jesus to
the conclusion that slavery is bad? Of course. He said, "Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you." In fact--here's the fun
part--that would be more or less the premise from which secular
ethicists reached the same conclusion. But how did they know that the
Golden Rule was a human obligation? What obligated them?
> And yet most of his current day followers would say it's
> wrong, and would work around some sort of JC based reason it's
> wrong. It's not JC based, though, it's a secular ethic.
You state this as a fact and I'm not at all sure how you get there.
In any event, you may recall that the most widely known Christian
hymn was written by a former slave trader who repented. "Amazing
grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."
> Those of
> us who are not JC based, we have secular ethics, too. In fact,
> ours are unfiltered, they're arguably stronger.
What do you mean "unfiltered"? Do mean that you check with no
authority other than yourself to decide whether they're right or
wrong? The wisdom of that depends entirely on whether that higher
authority exists. You can't really claim the "unfiltered" approach is
superior without begging the question.
>>In any event, Kevin's objection makes sense to me. I'm not
>>presuming to know what he thinks. If I did, I'd bet he doesn't
>>agree with the idea that suicide is a viable (ha ha) option for a
>>healthy person. But I really don't know.
>
> You know, I dunno, anyone that depressed is marginal in the
> "healthy person" catagory, for me.
Interesting. I was ruling out ill people because I didn't want to get
into the messy question of assisted suicide.
> But it would make a lot of
> sense if a Buddist or Muslim or Jew or Christian did it, too,
A Christian will tell you, I am not my own. I am bought with a price.
It is not my decision whether I live or die. Nor could I assault
myself, a creature in the image of God, without sin. Nevertheless, it
is true that to depart and be with Christ is far better.
> I don't see it as a particular characteristic of a secular person.
> It's the implication that those of us without invisible friends
> are somehow lost and wandering and without any sort of sense of
> what we should do that's offensive to me.
Actually, I think you do have a sense of what you should do. You also
are in the image of God and you have a conscience that testifies to
you of his holiness. Take offense, rather, that I think you
inconsistent. I do not believe you can logically derive an objective
morality from your first principles. Yet you reason as though there
is an objective morality, one that stands above us, compelling you
and me and all alike equally.
>>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that
>>my arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree,
>>but I understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
>
> I have trouble seeing how that argument would go, can you point me
> to the thread?
>
Perhaps I should have said that my belief in God has been described
as no more reasonable than belief in the FSM. Googling on the "flying
spaghetti monster" (or for that matter, the "pink unicorn") should
provide the references. Or if you look up just a few lines, you'll
see a comment about "invisible friends." If I understand the comment
it is a similar but milder ridicule of the idea of belief in God.
Anyway, I try not to take offense. I know you make the same attempt
on your side in response to my irksome comments. Occasionally
something will bug one or the other of us and we'll make a peevish
response.
Dover Beach
>
> It depends on what you mean by "real." I think they exist. And I
> think they live on borrowed capital. We are all made in the image of
> God. We all have consciences. And this is where we get our knowledge
> of morality. Secular ethics denies the source and tries to keep the
> morality (or some of it). But secular ethics cannot offer a reason
> for the "ought". If my "ought" is different from yours, there is no
> argument you can offer to change it.
>
Oh that is just not true.
> In other words, we're agreeing that slavery is bad. And we're
> addressing the question of whether Christian or secular ethics is
> more likely to produce that conclusion. In a sense, of course,
> secular ethics wins. There are as many versions of secular ethics out
> there as there are secular ethicists. Like monkeys with typewriters
> they'll produce every possible moral conclusion, given time.
>
Hey! I represent that remark. And just FYI, there are as many dumbass
confused Christian ethicists as there are secular ones. Maybe more.
--
Dover (where's my typewriter?)
Kevin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin (K_S_O...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>M C Hamster (davo...@speakeasy.hairnet) wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, does the comment about suicide making sense if one doesn't
>>>> believe in an afterlife mean that we nonbelievers really ought
>>>> to just commit suicide,
>>>
>>>Of course not. I don't agree with the premise, so I don't think
>>>you should act on it.
>>
>> What if the premise was right? Just for the sake of argument, you
>> understand.
>
>If the premise was right and there is no resurrection, it doesn't
>really matter. Your life will end in death regardless of what you do.
>So will everyone else's. And then the universe will run down.
>
>If it helped make me happier, I might throw myself into the
>philosophy that says I can make a difference and leave the world a
>better place, blah blah blah. But logically there's no reason to do
>that. My conscience is a by-product of chemical processes in my
>brain. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and I gotta appease the
>little god in my belly if I have one.
The axioms, though hard to list, are in two groups: one set comes
from the monkey-brain, evolved in. The other comes from consensus;
slavery is bad, hurting people is bad, killing is bad, which are sort
of social expansions of the first set. Which is which, which rule
comes from what? I don't know, it's an interesting question, but
that's where our ethics come from.
>>>> since I guess life cannot hold meaning if one
>>>> is a believer or some such? Or did I misundersand the initial
>>>> comment?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure. If death is really the end, and nothing comes
>>>afterwards, what's the objection to suicide?
>>
>> You know, death is the end and nothing comes after. This is it.
>> I certainly don't want to quit early.
>
>Many people feel the same. The man that committed suicide felt
>differently. His decision was logical given that he didn't care for
>what this life had to offer any longer.
Again, I can't see into his head, I don't know what he was feeling.
He may have been ill, whatever, I don't know. The implication I
object to is that this makes sense for non religious people, but does
not for religious people.
>>>When non-existence
>>>becomes preferable to existance, why not act on that preference?
>>
>> Permanent solution to temporary problem, blah blah blah. Also,
>> there are things I'm supposed to be doing here, there are tasks
>> I've taken on.
>
>"Supposed" is an interesting word. Who or what obligates you?
My conception of secular ethics.
>Are other people similarly obligated?
Well. That's a good question. Uh, it depends; there are people to
whom I would say, "No, you can't quit now, you have stuff to do." And
there are people to whom I would say, "If you have to go, you have to
go." But I don't really think about what other people are obligated
to do or not, much, I may change my mind if I give this more thought.
>If not, maybe we've located a miscommunication.
>
>I'm not saying that suicide is the *only* logical response to the
>belief that this life is all there is. Your way is equally logical,
>as I detailed above. You're starting with different subjective
>feelings about life.
>
>> I've used up a lot of training, I should now
>> return some of that social capital.
>
>There's that concept again. "Should."
It's odd to me that you find that odd. There are obligations in life
without any reference to god, are there not? Do you only pay your
water bill because god wants you to? Do you only not cheat at games
because god wants you not to?
>> I'm a good math teacher, I
>> owe society a certain numbe of years of teach people math or doing
>> something reasonably useful. I'm a perfectly mediocre fencer, but
>> I can teach people to fence and they give every indication that
>> the experience enriches them in ways they find important.
>
>No doubt those things are true, but you and they will die.
Yes.
>In essence, you derive meaning for life from distracting others from
>that thought so their journey to the grave is more enjoyable.
You're wasted in the clergy. Think of what a nihilist you would have
made!
But no, I'm not just distracting people and myself from the end of
life. Life is the point. What you do is what you get.
>If I believed as you do, I would probably seek that sort of evanescent
>"meaning" too. Why not? But then again, as our suicide friend might
>point out, why?
Life is the point.
>The other thing that interests me about your statements is that
>meaning and purpose appear to come from ability. The bad math teacher
>who can't fence or do anything else to compensate has a meaningless
>life. He teaches math because it pays the bills and it's better for
>him than being a checker at Wal*Mart.
I'm afraid I reflexively try to make myself look good; I'm bad at lots
of stuff, too, some of them much more important than math or fencing,
but I still try. Everyone can try, to be honest, to be fair, to be a
reasonable person, to create beauty.
>>>If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
>>>hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had
>>>enough of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have
>>>difficulty with that second decision, but I don't believe that
>>>difficulty can logically arise from the premise that this life is
>>>all there is.
>>
>> I think this is because you don't really feel that secular ethics
>> are real, but of course I wouldn't presume to say I know what you
>> think.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "real." I think they exist. And I
>think they live on borrowed capital. We are all made in the image of
>God. We all have consciences. And this is where we get our knowledge
>of morality. Secular ethics denies the source and tries to keep the
>morality (or some of it). But secular ethics cannot offer a reason
>for the "ought".
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. As I said recently,
I think what we think of as right and wrong can be devolved to
empathy, cooperation, all that stuff that made a good protohuman to be
around the fire with.
>If my "ought" is different from yours, there is no argument you can offer to change it.
Sure I can. You may not listen, though. I would say, for example,
that mainstream Christianity's attitude towards gay people is well
behind what the secular world thinks. We should be fair to gay
couples, and we're not, and lots of that 'not' is fueled by
Christians. Now, I'm sure that as society more and more feels that
unfairness towards gay couples is a bad thing the attitudes of
Christians will change, and as a group you will discover that Christ
did indeed want you to treat gay people decently, it's just one of the
things he never got around to talking about directly. So there,
there's an argument, take it or leave it, but you can't say it can't
be made.
I would say it's being made, and that Christians will accept it fairly
soon. On the other hand, I know a perfectly nice threesome who've
been together for years, and who have to lie about whom they're with
and what they're doing like they were a gay couple in the 20s; society
is not moving towards accepting that. I don't know why. From my
point of view what they're doing is fine, it's not unfair to anyone or
cheating anyone or anything, but I'm out of step on that, I guess, or
I'm wrong and it is unfair or a bad dynamic in some way I don't see,
or perhaps I'm way ahead of the curve. Time will tell.
>> But secular ethics, you know, in some ways that's what
>> guides all of us. JC didn't say a word about slavery being bad,
>> did he?
>
>Before we start down that path, let's note that we're switching
>topics a little. We've moved from the question of morality's source
>(either God or a set of axioms you stipulate or billions of
>individual consciences).
Or a combination of the last two, sure.
>Now we're looking at the question of how
>that morality is expressed in certain records and how complete that
>expression is.
Sure, and I don't mean to make this an attack on Christianity, it's
just an example of how I think Christianity follows secular ethics,
rather than the other way around.
>In other words, we're agreeing that slavery is bad. And we're
>addressing the question of whether Christian or secular ethics is
>more likely to produce that conclusion.
I was rather thinking of what came first, but perhaps could have
expressed it better.
>In a sense, of course,
>secular ethics wins. There are as many versions of secular ethics out
>there as there are secular ethicists. Like monkeys with typewriters
>they'll produce every possible moral conclusion, given time.
That's a cop-out, the overwhelming opinion in the western world is
that slavery is a bad thing.
>But then we're back to the question of how we know that this
>particular moral conclusion is "correct." In secular ethics, I think
>that question is semi-meaningless. "Correct" as measured by what or
>whom? I suppose you could say "correct" as measure by their logically
>arising from certain basic moral principles. But I trust you can see
>how that just puts the question off for a moment without answering
>it.
We've come to the conclusion, as a society. We've advanced, some, in
how we apply innate empathy to people, I would say.
>Now, did Jesus say that slavery was bad? Not in the sense you mean.
>During his life on earth, that is one of the many questions he did
>not address. Is it logical to reason from the teachings of Jesus to
>the conclusion that slavery is bad? Of course. He said, "Do unto
>others as you would have them do unto you." In fact--here's the fun
>part--that would be more or less the premise from which secular
>ethicists reached the same conclusion. But how did they know that the
>Golden Rule was a human obligation? What obligated them?
Evolution. Non empathetic protohumans didn't survive, or didn't get
laid.
And I don't think the Golden Rule is exactly right, unless you twist
it all out of its original meaning. What I wanted in school is not
what I give all my students. What I want in a relationship is not
what I give to everyone all the time, since sometimes that would make
people unhappy, and so on. It's more like "Do unto others as they
need and want you to do unto them, if you can".
>> And yet most of his current day followers would say it's
>> wrong, and would work around some sort of JC based reason it's
>> wrong. It's not JC based, though, it's a secular ethic.
>
>You state this as a fact and I'm not at all sure how you get there.
He talked a lot, slavery existed and was fairly widespread during his
life, and yet he didn't mention it. You have to fall back on
catch-alls like "Do unto others...", which will be useful as
Christianity picks up other secular ethics.
>In any event, you may recall that the most widely known Christian
>hymn was written by a former slave trader who repented. "Amazing
>grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."
I love that song, I can do a perfect 'Tom Waits in church' impression.
>> Those of
>> us who are not JC based, we have secular ethics, too. In fact,
>> ours are unfiltered, they're arguably stronger.
>
>What do you mean "unfiltered"?
We don't have to come up with biblical or talmudic or koran(ic? ish?)
reasons for stuff, we decide slavery is bad, and we've decided. We
decide that gay people should not be discriminated against in lots of
places in federal law, and we don't have to delve into the book to try
to back it up with the sayings of people who would, frankly, likely
have been horrified at the thought of accepting gay people into
society.
<snip>
>
>> I don't see it as a particular characteristic of a secular person.
>> It's the implication that those of us without invisible friends
>> are somehow lost and wandering and without any sort of sense of
>> what we should do that's offensive to me.
>
>Actually, I think you do have a sense of what you should do. You also
>are in the image of God and you have a conscience that testifies to
>you of his holiness. Take offense, rather, that I think you
>inconsistent. I do not believe you can logically derive an objective
>morality from your first principles. Yet you reason as though there
>is an objective morality, one that stands above us, compelling you
>and me and all alike equally.
Sure. Good and bad exist; living an honest life, doing something
worthwhile, all that, that's good. It feels good, it is good. It
feels good because I've been programmed to think of it as good, and
because it's aligned with evolved empathies and cooperative instincts
I have. Killing people is bad, you know, the whole list, bad is bad,
for the same reasons.
>>>We're talking about following the logic here. I've been told that
>>>my arguments logically lead to believing in the FSM. I disagree,
>>>but I understand the point and I think I'm able to discuss it.
>>
>> I have trouble seeing how that argument would go, can you point me
>> to the thread?
>>
>
>Perhaps I should have said that my belief in God has been described
>as no more reasonable than belief in the FSM.
Oh, sure, I'd agree with that.
>Googling on the "flying
>spaghetti monster" (or for that matter, the "pink unicorn") should
>provide the references. Or if you look up just a few lines, you'll
>see a comment about "invisible friends." If I understand the comment
>it is a similar but milder ridicule of the idea of belief in God.
No, the FSM / IPU thing is not ridicule, or at least it's not intended
that way when I use it. It's an argument, that's all. I have no
feeling on the existance of god. I notice that people in this place
and at this time seem to think of god in one way, and in that place
and at that time seem to think of god in another, entirely different
way. I will venture to say that you would think of god very
differently if you'd been born in Saudia Arabia, or France in 900 AD,
or in China in 200 BC. But if god is real and the differences are
real and important then it's odd, is all, that he/she/it is revealed
in such culturally different ways, and that you would all regard each
other as wrong. So the FSM / invisible pink unicorn thing is to point
out that there's a great variety of what people think, and here's a
particularly stupid one, and yet you can't really attack it in any way
that Christianity or Judism or any other major religion can't also be
attacked, too. So, you can't know there's a god unless you know, the
winning argument is direct revalation, and it only happens one at a
time. If someone tells me god came down and sat on the bed and told
her to go be a nun in South America, who am I to argue? Maybe he did.
But he didn't tell me anything, so I'm doing what I'm doing. The only
way god can be revealed, as far as I can see, is by something like
that. Telling me about god, which evangelicals spend so much time
doing they're named after it, seems in particular to be pointless to
me, either god comes down and sits on the bed or he don't, someone
telling me that he did for them years ago doesn't help me any.
Me using the phrase "invisible friends" is just intended to group all
the ideas of god into one clump, I didn't intend it as a logical
attack. It's on the same order as a religious person telling me that
I think hydrogen is a colorless, oderless gas that will eventually
write Handel's Messiah. It's funny, it's on the edge of reasonable,
but sure, it's more or less what I think. I had expected you to say
that calling god your invisible friend is simplistic and on the edge
of reasonable, but he is after all invisible and your friend, so it's
more or less what he is.
>Anyway, I try not to take offense. I know you make the same attempt
>on your side in response to my irksome comments. Occasionally
>something will bug one or the other of us and we'll make a peevish
>response.
Sure, of course. I try to imagine all your comments as being
accompanied by smiles and beers. Sometimes I actually provide the
beers, that helps.
--
Kevin
Opus the Penguin
> It's odd to me that you find that odd. There are obligations in
> life without any reference to god, are there not?
Not really.
> Do you only pay
> your water bill because god wants you to? Do you only not cheat
> at games because god wants you not to?
Without an objective moral standard, we can of course create or
define "obligations" in any way we please. If you want to believe I'm
obligated not to cheat, go ahead and believe that. No one's stopping
you. If you want to believe I'm obligated to worship the invisible
pink unicorn, you're free to believe that as well.
You haven't given me any compelling reasons for the "should". You've
offered evolution and consensus. But perhaps I should challenge the
consensus. On what basis? As to evolution giving rise to morality,
that's not really a "should," it's just a description of how humans
behave.
It sounds as though, in essence, morality is whatever the majority
decide. The majority of whom? In another part of your post, you
privilege the western world in this regard. But that's just a
prejudice on your part. You think we are more moral than others, but
you aren't at all clear about what standard you're using to make
that judgment. It can't be the same standard that is in dispute or
you're just making a circular argument.
The world once thought slavery was right. How do you know they were
wrong? How do you know that the evangelical Christian, William
Wilberforce, who helped put an end to slavery was right? Don't just
reply by stating a general principle from which you derive that
particular conclusion. I'm asking how you know that general principle
is "true" and why you believe it obligates even people who reject it.
Some people want to kill infants with Down syndrome or multiple
sclerosis. Would they be wrong to do so? What are you basing your
judgment on? If the consensus was that society is a better place
without such children, then of course it would be "moral" to kill
them. I reject and abhor that and say that it is not "morality" at
all.
Greg Goss
Saunders had already said that he had covered everything that THIS
life had to offer. Life held no further meaning IF YOU ARE SAUNDERS
and this is all that there is.
To me as an athiest, Opus's comment made perfect sense.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Kevin
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin (K_S_O...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> It's odd to me that you find that odd. There are obligations in
>> life without any reference to god, are there not?
>
>Not really.
Huh. Ok. To me there are.
And thanks for snipping, I think we're largely done here.
>> Do you only pay
>> your water bill because god wants you to? Do you only not cheat
>> at games because god wants you not to?
>
>Without an objective moral standard, we can of course create or
>define "obligations" in any way we please. If you want to believe I'm
>obligated not to cheat, go ahead and believe that. No one's stopping
>you. If you want to believe I'm obligated to worship the invisible
>pink unicorn, you're free to believe that as well.
>
>You haven't given me any compelling reasons for the "should".
I've given you 'reasons', they're ethics. You don't find them
compelling because they're secular ethics, they're based on evolved
ideas of fair play and empathy, run as axioms on biological computers
for thousands of generations into complex sets of rules for how we
should interact. You may not find it compelling but that's all there
is, I can't come up with more.
>You've offered evolution and consensus. But perhaps I should challenge the
>consensus.
Sure, it's a good idea to do so. That's how the consensus changes.
>On what basis?
You know, what feels right. We have evolved aversions to some things,
and inclinations to others, and we're kind of smart and we get taught
some stuff is good and some is not, and we all sort of mull stuff over
and we decide what's good and what's not for us, which is likely to be
close to but not exactly what we were taught.
>As to evolution giving rise to morality,
>that's not really a "should," it's just a description of how humans
>behave.
Sure, it wasn't intended to be an argument to authority. There is no
authority. It was a note as to where these things came from, you
asked where ethics come from if there's no god.
>It sounds as though, in essence, morality is whatever the majority
>decide.
No, for me it's what I decide. What other people think figures into
it, I give that some weight and of course I've been fairly well
programmed by my culture, but in the end I decide what's right and
wrong for me to do.
>The majority of whom? In another part of your post, you
>privilege the western world in this regard.
Do I? It was intended as a qualifier; I think it was talking about
slavery, I just don't know that the rest of the world has really
decided about that, from what I can tell. I could be wrong, I was
trying not to overstate my case.
>But that's just a prejudice on your part. You think we are more moral than others,
I certainly do not. Did I say that, somewhere?
>but you aren't at all clear about what standard you're using to make
>that judgment. It can't be the same standard that is in dispute or
>you're just making a circular argument.
Ignoring the part about me saying we're more moral than other people,
which I don't think I said, it's a somewhat circular process. We have
evolved behaviors, I think. Then we take those things, like empathy,
and expand them, and the next generation adopts them, they think about
them, they expand them or not, and on and on. For each individual
ethics come from within and from what they're taught, including, of
course, what they're taught in church or mosque or whatever. It
doesn't strike me as particularly western in nature, all societies do
it.
It also doesn't strike me as being as big a jump as you're making it.
If I'm not right, why don't we think the same things we thought two
thousand years ago, or even two hundred? If truth is absolute, why
does it keep changing?
>The world once thought slavery was right. How do you know they were
>wrong? How do you know that the evangelical Christian, William
>Wilberforce, who helped put an end to slavery was right?
How do you? Christians thought slavery was right, Christians thought
it was wrong.
>Don't just
>reply by stating a general principle from which you derive that
>particular conclusion. I'm asking how you know that general principle
>is "true"
It seems to me that it's true, because it seems to me that slavery is
bad. To be more specific than that, I've been taught to see people as
people, regardless of skin color or whatever, and I empathize with
them, so it's bad. In order to not think it was bad, I think I would
have to see slaves as not-people. Despite attempts to define them
that way, they were eventually seen as people, and that, more or less,
is what made slavery clearly wrong, I think. I'm not sure what you
want here.
>and why you believe it obligates even people who reject it.
Do I? I mean, in this case I would say that laws against slavery are
good. But I'm leery in the extreme of saying that anyone's morals
should be exported very much by any means but persuation.
>Some people want to kill infants with Down syndrome or multiple
>sclerosis. Would they be wrong to do so?
I think so, in our society, yes.
>What are you basing your judgment on?
They're people, killing people is wrong, for the most part. Certainly
needless killing is wrong.
>If the consensus was that society is a better place
>without such children, then of course it would be "moral" to kill
>them.
No... I would at least examine it more carefully than I might now; my
society might have evolved that ethic for a reason.
I will not say that every culture that every practiced infanticide was
immoral. For some of them, it was not needless killing, they couldn't
afford to carry helpless people. From what I know about it, they
developed the idea that an infant is not yet a person, and that
allowed them to 'dispose' of such infants. They had to. We don't.
For us, if the kids are not in endless pain, we can afford it, killing
them is wrong.
>I reject and abhor that and say that it is not "morality" at all.
I think that's a pretty easy thing to say if you're not the one faced
with getting a severely disabled Downs Syndrome kid through a several
thousand mile migration every couple of years, where someone paying
attention to him is thus not paying attention to a few hundred cattle
or sheep, and where the loss of those sheep could mean ten or fifty
lives, someday bye and bye (can you tell I saw "Grass" on TCM the
other night?)
At any rate, good discussion, thanks for the courtesy and thought you
put into it. I'll be happy to answer if you want to make further
points, but I've said what I needed to.
--
Kevin
groo
> If a man is bored, he can do one of two things. He can hang on and
> hope things will get more enjoyable. Or he can say, I've had enough
> of this ride; it's time to call it a day. Most people have difficulty
> with that second decision, but I don't believe that difficulty can
> logically arise from the premise that this life is all there is.
>
There's another alternative. As my dear, saintly mother use to say:
"Go play outside and quit pestering me."
--
I was rooting for the bologna.
M C Hamster
news:3vhklbF...@individual.net...
>
> To me as an athiest, Opus's comment made perfect sense.
>
I'm not sure about that. I think I might be athier than you are.
Opus the Penguin
>>were wrong? How do you know that the evangelical Christian,
>>William Wilberforce, who helped put an end to slavery was right?
>
> How do you? Christians thought slavery was right, Christians
> thought it was wrong.
Well if "Christians" constituted my moral authority I'd be in as much
of a mess as someone who relied on a combination of consensus and
evolutionary determinism.
My own personal theory is that we always knew it was wrong but wanted
to give the secularists a chance to point it out.
Hey, but seriously folks. I'm not trying to claim the moral high
ground for the heterogeneous mass of beliefs, cultures, and people
that get lumped together as "Christians." I'm just pointing out it's
not really possible for secularists to claim that ground.
I know slavery is wrong for lots of reasons. I've mentioned the
Golden Rule, which covers the territory just fine. I've mentioned
that we're made in the image of God, which has implications for how
we treat other creatures made in that same image. We could go on from
there, I suppose.
Opus the Penguin
> They're people, killing people is wrong, for the most part.
> Certainly needless killing is wrong.
I guess you're right we're done. The "certainly" intrigued me, though.
You have such strong moral opinions but by your own description your
morality seems little more than a personal preference you'd like others
to share. I guess you'd really strongly like them to share it.
bill van
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Some people want to kill infants with Down syndrome or multiple
> sclerosis. Would they be wrong to do so?
A tiny data point which does not speak to the core of this discussion:
Multiple sclerosis is virtually unheard of in infants. Typical age of
onset is in the 20s and 30s, and there's another cluster in the 50s and
60s.
More to the point:
I approach the question of suicide from a non-religious point of view
(the only one I have these days). I know people get depressed to the
point of contemplating and attempting suicide. I view those impulses as
not rational. I support assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness
where all quality of life is gone, only extended pain and suffering
remain, *and* the person in question is lucid and rational and clearly
expresses the wish to end it.
It's hard, perhaps impossible, to prevent depressed people from
attempting suicide. But I think those around them have to try to prevent
or avert their suicides if they are able, because that impulse may well
be temporary.
I speak from experience. I came home from work one day a few years ago
to find my wife on the kitchen floor, unconscious, her breathing rasping
and laboured, and I could not wake her. There was a note saying, among
other things, "It is my time." I was pretty sure she had taken an
overdose -- she is subject to severe depression, a common symptom of MS
-- and for a few seconds I considered whether I should respect her
apparent wish, go away and "arrive home" a few hours later. I decided
very quickly that I could not be certain this was her immutable wish,
since we had not talked about it, and called 911. Help arrived swiftly,
she recovered and when we eventually sorted things out, it turned out
she had acted in a state of overwhelming depression brought on, at least
in part, by a severe -- and temporary -- hormonal imbalance. I know
that's vague, but it's the best I can do.
Life has not been a bed of roses since then, but she now sees the
attempt as something she would not have made if she had been rational.
Despite her health problems, she enjoys life. I'm so glad I did not make
the wrong decision.
It seems to me that whether we believe in an afterlife or not, the life
we have is the only thing we have some control over. By preserving it
when we can, we preserve choice.
bill
Peter Boulding
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in
<Xns9722D004BCC9Cop...@127.0.0.1>:
>You have such strong moral opinions but by your own description your
>morality seems little more than a personal preference you'd like others
>to share. I guess you'd really strongly like them to share it.
At the end of this discussion I get the feeling that your moral opinions are
in a whole other league because they depend not on personal preference, but
on divine revelation. Forgive me if I beg leave to doubt that you can find
any area of morality in which your personal preferences differ from your
revealed truths.
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
mike...@unverbesserlich.org
> On 4 Dec 2005 18:24:36 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Kevin (K_S_O...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >> Opus the Penguin wrote:
> >>>M C Hamster (davo...@speakeasy.hairnet) wrote:
> The axioms, though hard to list, are in two groups: one set comes
> from the monkey-brain, evolved in. The other comes from consensus;
> slavery is bad, hurting people is bad, killing is bad, which are sort
> of social expansions of the first set. Which is which, which rule
> comes from what? I don't know, it's an interesting question, but
> that's where our ethics come from.
I beg to differ. I think our predisposition on the issues of slavery,
hurting people and killing people is, in part, instinctive. We behave
as herd animals. (whether we were created this way or evolved is
irrelevant to this point). Generally, people have always held that
enslaving, hurting, or killing people in one's own group is bad.
However, we have maintained a separate set of rules for those outside
of our self-identified group.
This is why chattel slavery has normally involved slave-owners holding
slaves from another ethnic group. It also makes war, hate crimes, and
other atrocities much easier. It's difficult to kill anyone from one's
own group, less so when the target is identified as a member of a rival
or "inferior" group. This is why militaries will permit (or encourage)
their soldiers to dehumanize the enemy. It's easier to justify killing
"the Hun" than it is the "head of the family."
This is where true Christianity overcomes the animal nature. If we
believe that we are all brothers, equally worthy of love, it becomes
impossible to rationalize unkindness, much less hate or killing. This
is actually where a good ethical base and Christianity are similar -
they both hold that all people are equally worthy of proper
consideration.
> >There's that concept again. "Should."
> It's odd to me that you find that odd. There are obligations in life
> without any reference to god, are there not?
Are there? Speaking only for myself, there aren't. Others have a more
liberal view of their faith.
> Do you only pay your
> water bill because god wants you to? Do you only not cheat at games
> because god wants you not to?
Not because God has a personal preference on these things, but because
I am obligated to treat others honorably.
> Life is the point.
I think the point of disagreement is where life ends - which
significantly affects how we see life's meaning.
> Sure I can. You may not listen, though. I would say, for example,
> that mainstream Christianity's attitude towards gay people is well
> behind what the secular world thinks. We should be fair to gay
> couples, and we're not, and lots of that 'not' is fueled by
> Christians.
It's fueled by people who have missed out on the "Hate the sin, love
the sinner." I have problems with a number of folks who self-profess
as Christians, but don't seem to have gotten the message. A lot of
people take the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual acts as an
excuse for their own actions. The prejudice they exhibit is something
they learned at home more often than in a church. For some folks,
people with other sexual preferences are "different," they aren't part
of the self-identified group. They are the other, so it's okay to hate
them. These folks missed out on the "love thy brother as thyself"
message.
> Now, I'm sure that as society more and more feels that
> unfairness towards gay couples is a bad thing the attitudes of
> Christians will change, and as a group you will discover that Christ
> did indeed want you to treat gay people decently, it's just one of the
> things he never got around to talking about directly.
Well, He didn't qualify the golden rule to exclude people of alternate
sexualities. So, he did speak of if directly. It's still "do unto
others..."
> So there,
> there's an argument, take it or leave it, but you can't say it can't
> be made.
In my experience, the folks who use religion as an excuse to impose
their standards upon others are usually doing exactly that: using
religion as an excuse. "God wants you to..." is a marvelous argument
which is difficult to refute - even when the person shouting it is
seven kinds of wrong.
> That's a cop-out, the overwhelming opinion in the western world is
> that slavery is a bad thing.
> We've come to the conclusion, as a society. We've advanced, some, in
> how we apply innate empathy to people, I would say.
Have we? Or have we just learned to conceal our feelings and play by
the rules? Why is the holiday season when we have to be nice to
people? Why can't we be that way the year-round?
> Evolution. Non empathetic protohumans didn't survive, or didn't get
> laid.
I would argue against that. Empathetic protohumans would be at a
decided disadvantage in the competition for food and shelter. In a
brutish environment, more ruthless behavior toward those not of one's
group (herd/pack) would be a positive survival trait for the group.
> And I don't think the Golden Rule is exactly right, unless you twist
> it all out of its original meaning. What I wanted in school is not
> what I give all my students. What I want in a relationship is not
> what I give to everyone all the time, since sometimes that would make
> people unhappy, and so on. It's more like "Do unto others as they
> need and want you to do unto them, if you can".
How about, "Accept all people as the individuals they are, and treat
them at least as well as they wish to be treated - just as you would
have them do for you."
> He talked a lot, slavery existed and was fairly widespread during his
> life, and yet he didn't mention it. You have to fall back on
> catch-alls like "Do unto others...", which will be useful as
> Christianity picks up other secular ethics.
Or, perhaps, as "Christians" pick up on their own religion's rules.
Too many people pick up their faith as they walk up the church steps on
Sunday and lay them back down as they leave to go home. In my eyes,
such people are self-professed Christians, but are not truly Christian.
Faith is not something you have, it is a part of what you are. If
your faith does not influence your daily actions, it is not truly
faith.
> >In any event, you may recall that the most widely known Christian
> >hymn was written by a former slave trader who repented. "Amazing
> >grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me."
> I love that song, I can do a perfect 'Tom Waits in church' impression.
That song has long been a favorite.
For a long time, I never made the connection between "Amazing Grace"
and the road to Damascus. It hit me this weekend as I was reading Acts
9.
> >> Those of
> >> us who are not JC based, we have secular ethics, too. In fact,
> >> ours are unfiltered, they're arguably stronger.
> >What do you mean "unfiltered"?
> We don't have to come up with biblical or talmudic or koran(ic? ish?)
> reasons for stuff, we decide slavery is bad, and we've decided. We
> decide that gay people should not be discriminated against in lots of
> places in federal law, and we don't have to delve into the book to try
> to back it up with the sayings of people who would, frankly, likely
> have been horrified at the thought of accepting gay people into
> society.
Federal law is a rotten place to look to justify behavior. Slavery
was, for all too long, not against federal law.
I think, besides the golden rule, "Judge not lest ye be judged" goes a
long way toward prohibiting discrimination against gays. I may decide
that your actions are, to me, offensive, but I am not able to judge
you. Absent such a judgement, I have not accept *you*, if not your
behavior. I
Inasmuch as there is also that "Render unto Caesar" quotation, I have
to obey the law insofar as it does not interfere with the practice of
my faith.
> Sure. Good and bad exist; living an honest life, doing something
> worthwhile, all that, that's good. It feels good, it is good. It
> feels good because I've been programmed to think of it as good, and
> because it's aligned with evolved empathies and cooperative instincts
> I have. Killing people is bad, you know, the whole list, bad is bad,
> for the same reasons.
And, yet, there are those who feel that killing people is good.
> I will venture to say that you would think of god very
> differently if you'd been born in Saudia Arabia, or France in 900 AD,
> or in China in 200 BC. But if god is real and the differences are
> real and important then it's odd, is all, that he/she/it is revealed
> in such culturally different ways, and that you would all regard each
> other as wrong.
> Telling me about god, which evangelicals spend so much time
> doing they're named after it, seems in particular to be pointless to
> me, either god comes down and sits on the bed or he don't, someone
> telling me that he did for them years ago doesn't help me any.
IMHO, telling someone about God is a bit like telling a blind man about
colors.
I believe that God is in all of us and that we need only reach out
spiritually to experience God. If I tell you how I experience God,
it's meaningless to you. I can tell you about God all I wish. Unless
you *want* to make that connection, my words are wasted. God reveals
Himself to those who seek Him ("Seek and you shall find. Knock and it
shall be opened.") The best I can accomplish is to persuade you that
you want to experience that. That can sometimes be like selling color
TVs to blind men.
Personally, I feel that whether a person chooses to believe or not is
up to them. Faith is a matter of personal choice and we don't have the
right to impose it upon others. On the other hand, we don't have the
right to deny it to others either. I will regard you with the same
respect, based on you actions/posts, as I would someone who I regard as
a "true believer." To do anything less would not be true to my faith.
And, nothing I have written should be construed to suggest we should
teach religion (beyond history of religion or comparative religion) in
public schools. I don't think the state has any business teaching
religious mores in the schools, even if they are mine.
Mike
Going to church and shouting out that "I am a Christian" no more makes
me a Christian than going to a car lot and shouting "I am a Chrysler"
would make me a minivan.
groo
>
> At the end of this discussion I get the feeling that your moral
> opinions are in a whole other league because they depend not on
> personal preference, but on divine revelation. Forgive me if I beg
> leave to doubt that you can find any area of morality in which your
> personal preferences differ from your revealed truths.
It doesn't matter if he can. Belief in divine revelation is his personal
preference, so he's just added a layer of indirection.
I'd rather have my morality a la carte, but to each his own.
groo
> "Greg Goss" <go...@gossg.org> wrote in message
> news:3vhklbF...@individual.net...
>
>>
>> To me as an athiest, Opus's comment made perfect sense.
>>
>
> I'm not sure about that. I think I might be athier than you are.
>
I have faith that my atheism is stronger than yours.
mike...@unverbesserlich.org
Peter Boulding wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2005 04:59:17 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> Forgive me if I beg leave to doubt that you can find
> any area of morality in which your personal preferences differ from your
> revealed truths.
If they did, he would not be true to his faith.
Mike
Opus the Penguin
> It's fueled by people who have missed out on the "Hate the sin,
> love the sinner." I have problems with a number of folks who
> self-profess as Christians, but don't seem to have gotten the
> message. A lot of people take the Biblical prohibitions against
> homosexual acts as an excuse for their own actions. The prejudice
> they exhibit is something they learned at home more often than in
> a church. For some folks, people with other sexual preferences
> are "different," they aren't part of the self-identified group.
> They are the other, so it's okay to hate them. These folks missed
> out on the "love thy brother as thyself" message.
Leroy that. And nostra culpa to the Church. We should have been
protecting gays from persecution long before it was fashionable to do
so. We should have taken the AIDS crisis as a personal mission and
cared for the dying and clamored for a cure.
Opus the Penguin
>>your morality seems little more than a personal preference you'd
>>like others to share. I guess you'd really strongly like them to
>>share it.
>
> At the end of this discussion I get the feeling that your moral
> opinions are in a whole other league because they depend not on
> personal preference, but on divine revelation.
No, not exactly. Your moral opinions depend on divine revelation too.
You don't believe murder to be wrong because that's the consensus and
you're biologically programmed. I believe you *know* murder to be
wrong because, like most people, you have not lost the image of God
sufficiently to deny that basic truth.
> Forgive me if I beg
> leave to doubt that you can find any area of morality in which
> your personal preferences differ from your revealed truths.
>
You are forgiven. The issue of divorce would be one obvious example.
If I did not have the Biblical teaching that forbids divorce except
in cases of sexual immorality, I would definitely pursue a more
permissive standard.
But in any event, I think I may not have made my point entirely
clear. The question is one of the source of morality. If morality
stems from personal preferences, there is no reason that yours should
be the same as mine and there is nothing universal, outside of us,
that we can appeal to. In practice, when we make moral arguments,
this is not how we behave.
Opus the Penguin
You're talking about a different point in the process, I think. You're
talking about what my "personal" preferences become after I have
consulted and understood Scripture. In that case, my preference becomes
to follow what Scripture says.
But as I think you'll agree, this reorientation does not always come
without struggle. We all have times and issues where we find the Divine
will difficult to fathom. And if the issue had been left to us, we
would have decided differently.
plausible prose man
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Les Albert (lalb...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > That's effen profound, but sad. It made me think of the movie actor
> > George Saunders. He was a successful film star with plenty of money,
> > had no illnesses, but he committed suicide. The note that he left
> > said, "Goodbye. I am leaving because I am bored.".
>
I agree with that, sure. If you find one day the good days are all
behind you, and the memories just don't cut it, well, I won't be mad at
you if you decide its time to go.
On the other hand, why is it illegal to kill the devoutly religious?
You aren't afraid you'll die and go to heaven, are you?
plausible prose man
You can see where natural selection would tend to favor creatures that
were attached to their lives, and in a social animal like homo sapiens
sapiens you'd have a similar attachment to the lives of your family.
> That makes it easy for the debunkers to come along and
> say, see? You "really" just believe that because you have a
> psychological difficulty.
I'm generally happier when you don't support your arguments by
appealing to unfalsifiable entities, especially when they just happen
to take your side. You know, "T'aint cricket," as they say.
> I'm not surprised anyone would object to the conclusion. I think it's
> hard-wired into us to object.
Huh, me too. Now see if you can find anything natural selection is
insufficient to explain, and keep in mind your knowledge of organic
chemistry when framing your answer.
plausible prose man
Dover Beach wrote:
> <nitpick>It's George Sanders, not Saunders</nitpick>. He played Addison
> DeWitt in _All About Eve_.
Most importantly, he was the voice of Shere Khan.
groo
> On the other hand, why is it illegal to kill the devoutly religious?
> You aren't afraid you'll die and go to heaven, are you?
Some of them could have pies in the oven.
--
That's not a euphemism, I'm talking real pies here. Preferably cherry pies,
but apple or pecan are OK too.
Peter Boulding
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in
<Xns97238468AD919op...@127.0.0.1>:
>Peter Boulding (p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk) wrote:
>> At the end of this discussion I get the feeling that your moral
>> opinions are in a whole other league because they depend not on
>> personal preference, but on divine revelation.
>
>No, not exactly. Your moral opinions depend on divine revelation too.
>You don't believe murder to be wrong because that's the consensus and
>you're biologically programmed. I believe you *know* murder to be
>wrong because, like most people, you have not lost the image of God
>sufficiently to deny that basic truth.
You couldn't be more wrong.
If you check back to our argument a few weeks ago concerning the death
penalty, you will find that my "image of God", as you choose to call it, has
led me to reject the whole concept of murder - in the sense of separating it
from other forms of killing fellow humans, such as war and judicial
execution. Further, that I believe that killing another human being is
sometimes necessary, but it must be your personal decision, and never one
made for you by the state.
As a confirmed Don't Know - one who believes that every person's
understanding of "God" is personal and unique - I don't really have a
problem with your idea that we are all, at core, aware of God and His
requirements. I do however consider it to be totally irrelevant as an
argument for accepting or rejecting the tenets of any given established
religion: that's just going along with the herd, a practice that both of us
at least claim to find offensive.
>> Forgive me if I beg
>> leave to doubt that you can find any area of morality in which
>> your personal preferences differ from your revealed truths.
>You are forgiven. The issue of divorce would be one obvious example.
>If I did not have the Biblical teaching that forbids divorce except
>in cases of sexual immorality, I would definitely pursue a more
>permissive standard.
At which point we diverge quite fundamentally. There's no bridging that gap:
I am quite certain in my own mind that your conscience (which, I assume,
would for example permit divorce in the face of relentless cruelty) has got
it right and your Scripture-with-a-capital-S, which relates back to a time
when women were chattels, has got it wrong.
It is your need for absolutes - the fear of having no external authority to
turn to when the going gets tough - and not your "awareness of the image of
God", that has led you to your position on divorce.
>But in any event, I think I may not have made my point entirely
>clear. The question is one of the source of morality. If morality
>stems from personal preferences, there is no reason that yours should
>be the same as mine and there is nothing universal, outside of us,
>that we can appeal to.
That's right. I believe that you must follow your conscience and I mine.
>In practice, when we make moral arguments, this is not how we behave.
Oh yes it is. It may be very difficult for any of us to diverge more than
fractionally from the mores of the culture into which we were born, but we
all do it to one small degree or another. Christ, you will recall, did it in
a big way.
If we didn't endlessly reinterpret, and diverge from, received wisdom we'd
still be stoning adulterers (but only female adulterers, for some reason) to
death.
I'm sorry to put it so harshly, but like many of us Godless Liberals, I have
nothing but utter contempt for your easy dismissal of our consciences, or
morality, or whatever you want to call it, as "personal preference." You
have neither right nor reason to suggest that I am not reaching as best I
can for that "image of God" that you believe we all hold within us.
Maybe my suspicion that your dependence on, and ultimate deference to,
"Scripture" and established interpretations thereof is little more than
crude authoritarianism - a desperate determination never to embrace
adulthood - is over the top, but it would seem to have been the crucial
factor that led to the election and re-election of - not to mince words - a
bunch of mass murderers and torturers.
Bob Ward
>"plausible prose man" <George...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, why is it illegal to kill the devoutly religious?
>> You aren't afraid you'll die and go to heaven, are you?
>
>
>Some of them could have pies in the oven.
In case of rapture, can I have your car?
Opus the Penguin
> I'm sorry to put it so harshly, but like many of us Godless
> Liberals, I have nothing but utter contempt for your easy
> dismissal of our consciences, or morality, or whatever you want to
> call it, as "personal preference." You have neither right nor
> reason to suggest that I am not reaching as best I can for that
> "image of God" that you believe we all hold within us.
That's quite a lot of moral outrage. Why is my position immoral in any
absolute or objective sense? Or are you merely confiding in me that
this is the way the biological processes in your brain work and these
are the feelings that get produced? In that case, duly noted, I guess.
> Maybe my suspicion that your dependence on, and ultimate deference
> to, "Scripture" and established interpretations thereof is little
> more than crude authoritarianism - a desperate determination never
> to embrace adulthood - is over the top, but it would seem to have
> been the crucial factor that led to the election and re-election
> of - not to mince words - a bunch of mass murderers and torturers.
More moral outrage. What's wrong with being a mass murderer or a
torturer? That's a subjective judgment on your part, right? It's a
personal preference. If others disagree, oh well. That doesn't make
them bad people in any objective sense. They're just people with a
different subjective set of morals. If they end up happy until the
day they die, I guess it worked out well for them.
Opus the Penguin
> That's right. I believe that you must follow your conscience and I
> mine.
Why shouldn't I follow yours and you mine? Where do you get this should
or "must" from? Or is the "must" simply a statement about what we are
compelled to do by biological necessity?
Opus the Penguin
> At which point we diverge quite fundamentally. There's no bridging
> that gap: I am quite certain in my own mind that your conscience
> (which, I assume, would for example permit divorce in the face of
> relentless cruelty) has got it right and your
> Scripture-with-a-capital-S, which relates back to a time when
> women were chattels, has got it wrong.
>
> It is your need for absolutes - the fear of having no external
> authority to turn to when the going gets tough - and not your
> "awareness of the image of God", that has led you to your position
> on divorce.
Those two paragraphs make an interesting pair. You've got a lot of
certainty that one moral position is right and the other wrong. Yet
there are no absolutes.
I also disagree with your amateur psychologist reasoning for why I am
a Christian. It doesn't correspond to anything that I know about my
own mental and emotional workings. It's just a facile way of
dismissing my thoughts.
Dover Beach
Well, you can be a tad facile about dismissing any secular grounding for
moral principles. Act in such a way that you can at the same time will
that the maxim of your action can become a universal law. Why? 'Cause
we're bound by our own rationality. How can you cavalierly throw out
the very best in secular ethics? I don't do that to you. I don't
attribute the totally retarded bullshit principles that are espoused by
other "Christian ethicists" to you. I think you should try to be fair.
--
Dover (my husband, who's been gone for five days, just came back from
walking the dog. I said, "Just let me finish excoriating Opus' theories
and I'll be right with you." So tell me if I'm being a dick.)
Opus the Penguin
> Well, you can be a tad facile about dismissing any secular
> grounding for moral principles.
Perhaps. I was mostly meaning to dismiss the groundings with which
I've been presented here.
> Act in such a way that you can at
> the same time will that the maxim of your action can become a
> universal law.
You make that up yourself? Seriously, I read a critique of that
somewhere recently, but I can't recall the details.
> Why? 'Cause we're bound by our own rationality.
I dunno. I'm tempted to say the categorical imperative turns life
into a complicated Prisoner's Dilemma. Those who act morally become
more or less chumps. I'm not sure choosing to go that route is a
rational action. But I believe it's right.
I also think the Ring of Gyges presents an excellent thought
experiment here. We'd all like to think we're good enough people that
we wouldn't abuse power even if we knew we could get away with it.
There's something more than rationality at work here.
> How can you cavalierly throw out the very best in secular ethics?
I'm not really throwing out the very best. I'm throwing out the
arguments I've seen here.
I do suspect that even the very best in secular ethics is trying to
retrofit a logical argument to match a foregone conclusion.
> I don't do that to you.
Ouch. I didn't think I was doing it to you. I was interacting with
some arguments that I felt to be sloppy. Some of the stuff I say is
for the sake of argument to see if it helps clarify what they're
really saying. Consensus and evolution don't really make a compelling
case for the imperative. I wanted to see if I could get behind that
somehow.
> I don't attribute the totally retarded
> bullshit principles that are espoused by other "Christian
> ethicists" to you. I think you should try to be fair.
Aw c'mon Mom. I'm just having a little fun.
Dover Beach
> Dover Beach (moon.b...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>Act in such a way that you can at
>>the same time will that the maxim of your action can become a
>>universal law.
>
>
> You make that up yourself? Seriously, I read a critique of that
> somewhere recently, but I can't recall the details.
>
>
One of my very favorite Woody Allen lines (my faves are all from his
essays rather than his movies) is "The Categorical Imperative and six
ways to make it work for YOU."
>
> Aw c'mon Mom. I'm just having a little fun.
>
No having fun til you've finished your fondue. Seriously, Velveeta and
Rotel? That's one of those "ewwww, can I have some?" dishes. Tradeja
some Pillsbury refrigerated cookie dough for it.
--
Dover
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> Dover Beach (moon.b...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>>>Act in such a way that you can at
>>>the same time will that the maxim of your action can become a
>>>universal law.
>>
>>
>> You make that up yourself? Seriously, I read a critique of that
>> somewhere recently, but I can't recall the details.
>
> One of my very favorite Woody Allen lines (my faves are all from
> his essays rather than his movies) is "The Categorical Imperative
> and six ways to make it work for YOU."
I think of the same thing every time I read "categorical imperative."
>> Aw c'mon Mom. I'm just having a little fun.
>
> No having fun til you've finished your fondue. Seriously,
> Velveeta and Rotel? That's one of those "ewwww, can I have some?"
> dishes. Tradeja some Pillsbury refrigerated cookie dough for it.
>
Mmmmmmmm. Cookie dough.
Alistair Gale
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dover Beach (moon.b...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Well, you can be a tad facile about dismissing any secular
>> grounding for moral principles.
>
>Perhaps. I was mostly meaning to dismiss the groundings with which
>I've been presented here.
>
>> Act in such a way that you can at
>> the same time will that the maxim of your action can become a
>> universal law.
>
>You make that up yourself? Seriously, I read a critique of that
>somewhere recently, but I can't recall the details.
>
>> Why? 'Cause we're bound by our own rationality.
>
>I dunno. I'm tempted to say the categorical imperative turns life
>into a complicated Prisoner's Dilemma. Those who act morally become
>more or less chumps. I'm not sure choosing to go that route is a
>rational action. But I believe it's right.
You are a chump if you "defect" in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Computer simulations show that even simple tit-for-tat is a reasonable
strategy for interacting with others, if you are going to run into
them again. The winning (fitter!) algorithms have the properties
NICE, RETALIATING, FORGIVING, NON-ENVIOUS. (see below)
It isn't much of a stretch to imagine that similar values/morals
evolved in primate societies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"in The Evolution of Cooperation (1984), Robert Axelrod explored an
extension to the classical PD scenario, which he called the iterated
prisoner's dilemma (IPD). In this, participants have to choose their
mutual strategy again and again, and have memory of their previous
encounters. Axelrod invited academic colleagues all over the world to
devise computer strategies to compete in an IPD tournament. The
programs that were entered varied widely in algorithmic complexity;
initial hostility; capacity for forgiveness; and so forth."
"By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several
conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.
Nice
The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice",
that is, it will not defect before its opponent does. Almost all of
the top-scoring strategies were nice. Therefore a purely selfish
strategy for purely selfish reasons will never hit its opponent first.
Retaliating
However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a
blind optimist. It must always retaliate. An example of a
non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad
choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies.
Forgiving
Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be
forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back
to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play defects. This
stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximising points.
Non-envious
The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to
score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e.,
a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent). "
--
alistair
Opus the Penguin
> On 6 Dec 2005 02:39:29 GMT, Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>>I dunno. I'm tempted to say the categorical imperative turns life
>>into a complicated Prisoner's Dilemma. Those who act morally become
>>more or less chumps. I'm not sure choosing to go that route is a
>>rational action. But I believe it's right.
>
> You are a chump if you "defect" in the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Not if I know that you're bound by a code that keeps you from doing so.
Then, as Woody Allen says, I can make the categorical imperative work
for me.
There are always going to be moments when acting immorally will further
my security or comfort more than acting morally. It is not rational to
act morally in those instances unless morality is something more than
actions which are most likely to further my security and comfort. Or,
to put it another way, it would be moral to act "immorally" in those
situations.
Alistair Gale
If you are sure that you will never see me again, you are free to
defect and "win". However the argument is that the next time I
encounter you, you will be punished (and therefor you will "lose" in
the long term). Since we are talking about society and morals, we
*are* talking about subsequent interactions.
Nicey Nicey works, but woe betide the first penguin to defect for
short term gain.
--
alistair
Opus the Penguin
So, uh, you're telling me that all those rich people out there got
that way by being nice? Or would they be even richer if they'd always
been nice? So morality is just a matter of always pursuing my own
self-interest. There is never a moment when it would call me to do
anything other than that which will ultimately, in this life, promote
my own comfort and security.
I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say. (If it is, tell me
more about this world you come from.) But you're responding to my
denial of those assertions as though the research proves me wrong.
Alistair Gale
I'm talking about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma computer simulations
that I mentioned upthread. These show that over time the majority of
the population of surviving programs tend to be NICE. There are still
a few rogues, but reproductively speaking they are losers overall.
(the nice guys thrive, bad guys are punished). Douglas Hofstadter had
a series of columns on this in the '80s in SciAm. Some of his readers,
like you, could not accept that being nice, and having a memory is a
better (in an evolutionary sense) than any twisted scheme that they
(the readers) could devise. Remember: Populations evolve, not
individuals, and this is about the big picture.
Speaking for myself, I can see that a similar evolutionary process
would lead to the group behaviours and the sense of "fairness" that we
observe in the higher mammals. So I don't have a problem with altruism
being an emergent property. We are wired to feel good about doing the
right thing. Evolution made it so.
--
alistair
Opus the Penguin
> I'm talking about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma computer
> simulations that I mentioned upthread.
We drifted from that into the assertion that "nice" works better in
the real world. Part of my response to that was already made. I was
speaking of a Prisoner's Dilemma in which the deck is stacked. Some
of the players have announced their intention to play "morally"
regardless of the consequences.
> These show that over time
> the majority of the population of surviving programs tend to be
> NICE. There are still a few rogues, but reproductively speaking
> they are losers overall. (the nice guys thrive, bad guys are
> punished). Douglas Hofstadter had a series of columns on this in
> the '80s in SciAm. Some of his readers, like you, could not
> accept that being nice, and having a memory is a better (in an
> evolutionary sense) than any twisted scheme that they (the
> readers) could devise. Remember: Populations evolve, not
> individuals, and this is about the big picture.
That was going to be part of my response, actually. The individual
can gain a lot by being immoral, even if it theoretically hurts the
population in the long run. Unless you can prove that the individual
has a moral obligation to posterity, there's not logical reason for
him to prefer the good of the species to his own good. If he has an
impulse to prefer the good of the species, it is irrational and can
be overcome by logic.
Another difficulty with the Prisoner's Dilemma experiment is that it
doesn't really deal with those who are weak and have nothing to
contribute. It only deals with tit for tat. Yet many people (I among
them) would say that helping those who cannot repay is part of the
soft chewy center of morality.
Alistair Gale
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alistair Gale (Alista...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> I'm talking about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma computer
>> simulations that I mentioned upthread.
>
>We drifted from that into the assertion that "nice" works better in
>the real world. Part of my response to that was already made. I was
>speaking of a Prisoner's Dilemma in which the deck is stacked. Some
>of the players have announced their intention to play "morally"
>regardless of the consequences.
Does morality include some form of retaliation in your book? It does
in mine, such as a refusal to do business with someone who burnt you
before. This negates your "stacked" model above. If we only do
business with people who cooperate, then the defectors will have a
hard time.
>> These show that over time
>> the majority of the population of surviving programs tend to be
>> NICE. There are still a few rogues, but reproductively speaking
>> they are losers overall. (the nice guys thrive, bad guys are
>> punished). Douglas Hofstadter had a series of columns on this in
>> the '80s in SciAm. Some of his readers, like you, could not
>> accept that being nice, and having a memory is a better (in an
>> evolutionary sense) than any twisted scheme that they (the
>> readers) could devise. Remember: Populations evolve, not
>> individuals, and this is about the big picture.
>
>That was going to be part of my response, actually. The individual
>can gain a lot by being immoral, even if it theoretically hurts the
>population in the long run. Unless you can prove that the individual
>has a moral obligation to posterity, there's not logical reason for
>him to prefer the good of the species to his own good. If he has an
>impulse to prefer the good of the species, it is irrational and can
>be overcome by logic.
Simple: THIS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. Defectors tend to die out. The
average individual, as I said, is wired by evolution to do the "right"
thing for the population. Defectors with loose wiring are punished
and are less reproductively fit. They will have fewer descendants.
The system is self correcting in the long run.
We know instinctively what feels right because of this evolutionary
process, and we have constructed a pile of rationalizations to justify
these rules of behaviour.
There will always be parasites who can exploit the norm and twist the
logic, but their numbers are limited in a stable system.
>Another difficulty with the Prisoner's Dilemma experiment is that it
>doesn't really deal with those who are weak and have nothing to
>contribute. It only deals with tit for tat. Yet many people (I among
>them) would say that helping those who cannot repay is part of the
>soft chewy center of morality.
Allow me to repeat myself, since you snipped it:
Opus the Penguin
> On 6 Dec 2005 21:16:39 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alistair Gale (Alista...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> I'm talking about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma computer
>>> simulations that I mentioned upthread.
>>
>>We drifted from that into the assertion that "nice" works better
>>in the real world. Part of my response to that was already made. I
>>was speaking of a Prisoner's Dilemma in which the deck is stacked.
>>Some of the players have announced their intention to play
>>"morally" regardless of the consequences.
>
> Does morality include some form of retaliation in your book?
Probably not in the same way it does in yours. "Love your enemy" is
part of my morality.
> It
> does in mine, such as a refusal to do business with someone who
> burnt you before. This negates your "stacked" model above. If we
> only do business with people who cooperate, then the defectors
> will have a hard time.
In reality, we do business with who we have to do business with. The
experiment you cite does not appear to accurately model real life.
>>> These show that over time
>>> the majority of the population of surviving programs tend to be
>>> NICE. There are still a few rogues, but reproductively speaking
>>> they are losers overall. (the nice guys thrive, bad guys are
>>> punished). Douglas Hofstadter had a series of columns on this
>>> in the '80s in SciAm. Some of his readers, like you, could not
>>> accept that being nice, and having a memory is a better (in an
>>> evolutionary sense) than any twisted scheme that they (the
>>> readers) could devise. Remember: Populations evolve, not
>>> individuals, and this is about the big picture.
>>
>>That was going to be part of my response, actually. The individual
>>can gain a lot by being immoral, even if it theoretically hurts
>>the population in the long run. Unless you can prove that the
>>individual has a moral obligation to posterity, there's not
>>logical reason for him to prefer the good of the species to his
>>own good. If he has an impulse to prefer the good of the species,
>>it is irrational and can be overcome by logic.
>
> Simple: THIS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS.
Right. I said that. There is no logical reason for an INDIVIDUAL to
behave morally.
> Defectors tend to die out.
> The average individual, as I said, is wired by evolution to do the
> "right" thing for the population. Defectors with loose wiring
> are punished and are less reproductively fit. They will have
> fewer descendants. The system is self correcting in the long run.
And a bang up job it's doing.
> We know instinctively what feels right because of this
> evolutionary process, and we have constructed a pile of
> rationalizations to justify these rules of behaviour.
>
> There will always be parasites who can exploit the norm and twist
> the logic, but their numbers are limited in a stable system.
They're not twisting the logic, they're following the logic. They
have no obligation to their posterity. If they can get a short term
gain for themselves by shortchanging their descendants, there is no
reason from self-interest not to do so.
>>Another difficulty with the Prisoner's Dilemma experiment is that
>>it doesn't really deal with those who are weak and have nothing to
>>contribute. It only deals with tit for tat. Yet many people (I
>>among them) would say that helping those who cannot repay is part
>>of the soft chewy center of morality.
>
> Allow me to repeat myself, since you snipped it:
Sorry, I did read that part, and the above attempted to take it into
account.
> Speaking for myself, I can see that a similar evolutionary
> process would lead to the group behaviours and the sense of
> "fairness" that we observe in the higher mammals. So I don't have
> a problem with altruism being an emergent property. We are wired
> to feel good about doing the right thing. Evolution made it so.
>
Would it be fair to say that for you, morality and biological
determinism are more or less synonymous?
groo
> Alistair Gale (alis...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
>
>> Defectors tend to die out.
>> The average individual, as I said, is wired by evolution to do the
>> "right" thing for the population. Defectors with loose wiring
>> are punished and are less reproductively fit. They will have
>> fewer descendants. The system is self correcting in the long run.
>
> And a bang up job it's doing.
>
I thought your version of the system is that God maka da rules, and
people are supposed to follow them. If things aren't working out that
well, it isn't because evolution ain't pulling its weight.
Or are you arguing in favor of social evolution?
--
I was rooting for the bologna.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alistair Gale (alis...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
>>
>>> Defectors tend to die out.
>>> The average individual, as I said, is wired by evolution to do
>>> the "right" thing for the population. Defectors with loose
>>> wiring are punished and are less reproductively fit. They will
>>> have fewer descendants. The system is self correcting in the
>>> long run.
>>
>> And a bang up job it's doing.
>
> I thought your version of the system is that God maka da rules,
> and people are supposed to follow them.
Sure. I was talking about Alistair's version of the system.
> If things aren't working
> out that well, it isn't because evolution ain't pulling its
> weight.
Ok, I agree with that. I'm a little befuddled as to why you're
pointing it out, so I can't say I totally understand your point.
> Or are you arguing in favor of social evolution?
>
You mean like Social Darwinism, the idea that the weak and poor die
and in the long run that's healthy? No. I think that's one example of
the trouble you run into when you try to make evolution into the
source of morality. Eugenics would be another example.
To be clear, that conclusion has nothing to do with my crazy delusion
that evolution may not have occurred on nearly the scale that is
claimed. I think a theistic evolutionist would agree with my concern
not to make evolution the source of morality. Heck, my *A*theistic
evolution prof told me evolution wasn't the source of his morality.
(I was never clear on what was.)
Alistair Gale
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Alistair Gale (alis...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
>> Speaking for myself, I can see that a similar evolutionary
>> process would lead to the group behaviours and the sense of
>> "fairness" that we observe in the higher mammals. So I don't have
>> a problem with altruism being an emergent property. We are wired
>> to feel good about doing the right thing. Evolution made it so.
>>
>
>Would it be fair to say that for you, morality and biological
>determinism are more or less synonymous?
Let's define terms: (from Wiki)
Biological determinism is the hypothesis that biological factors such
as an organism's individual genes (as opposed to social or
environmental factors) completely determine how a system behaves or
changes over time.
Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is
innately regarded as right or wrong. The term is often used to refer
to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious,
and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans subjectively
determine whether given actions are right or wrong.
OK, with that out of the way, I would say that there is no direct
mapping between the two concepts.
Obviously we have evolved a big brain and can override our instinctive
behaviour, even if it is unpleasant to us. So nobody would say that
our behaviour is 100% or even 50% under the control of our genes.
As for morality, my belief is that it has emerged from humans bumping
against each other and evolving rules of behaviour. Some of this may
have a genetic component, as our primate relatives also have rules for
living, however the bulk of it has been reasoned out and codified
over the millennia. Genes + Memes?
--
alistair
Dover Beach
Veering off sideways slightly, and I'm going to get this wrong because I
haven't read it for a long time, but it was popular for awhile to
interpret Hobbes in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The fun thing about
Hobbes is that he rightly noted that we human beans have amongst us
"glory seekers", who screw the whole PD up. Examples of glory seekers
might include Osama bin Laden or other Big Evil Guys who are willing to
risk having entire nations trying to kill them in order to, you know,
seek glory. Though Alistair might well be right about computer
simulations of IPDs, humans aren't *all* rational enough to make
external government control unnecessary; in addition to Opus's little
venal PD rats, the glory seekers fuck up everyone else's attempts to
live cooperatively.
--
Dover
Opus the Penguin
> Veering off sideways slightly, and I'm going to get this wrong
> because I haven't read it for a long time, but it was popular for
> awhile to interpret Hobbes in terms of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The
> fun thing about Hobbes is that he rightly noted that we human
> beans have amongst us "glory seekers", who screw the whole PD up.
> Examples of glory seekers might include Osama bin Laden or other
> Big Evil Guys who are willing to risk having entire nations trying
> to kill them in order to, you know, seek glory. Though Alistair
> might well be right about computer simulations of IPDs, humans
> aren't *all* rational enough to make external government control
> unnecessary; in addition to Opus's little venal PD rats, the glory
> seekers fuck up everyone else's attempts to live cooperatively.
If I understand Alistair, he's saying evolution will weed out the glory
seekers over time. I suspect, as far as natural selection goes, that
there's a counter-balancing fitness to glory seeking that will keep it
in the gene pool alongside opposing behaviors.
Opus the Penguin
> Obviously we have evolved a big brain and can override our
> instinctive behaviour, even if it is unpleasant to us. So nobody
> would say that our behaviour is 100% or even 50% under the control
> of our genes.
>
> As for morality, my belief is that it has emerged from humans
> bumping against each other and evolving rules of behaviour. Some
> of this may have a genetic component, as our primate relatives
> also have rules for living, however the bulk of it has been
> reasoned out and codified over the millennia. Genes + Memes?
Ok, next step. When *should* we override the behavior that evolution
has programmed into us? That's the moral standard I'm after. It's
obviously a higher standard than our evolutionary programming. I want
to know where it comes from and why we should heed it.
Dover Beach
Yeah, that's just wrong, though. Those glory seekers tend to have tons
of kids.
--
Dover
Justin
"Opus the Penguin" <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9724A578FEFFop...@127.0.0.1...
> Alistair Gale (alis...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
> >
> > As for morality, my belief is that it has emerged from humans
> > bumping against each other and evolving rules of behaviour. Some
> > of this may have a genetic component, as our primate relatives
> > also have rules for living, however the bulk of it has been
> > reasoned out and codified over the millennia. Genes + Memes?
>
> Ok, next step. When *should* we override the behavior that evolution
> has programmed into us? That's the moral standard I'm after. It's
> obviously a higher standard than our evolutionary programming. I want
> to know where it comes from and why we should heed it.
I don't think there is a higher standard than the evolutionary programming.
Humans evolved as pack hunters, and like all pack/herd animals there are
instinctive behaviors that keep the social groups functioning. Unlike other
animals, humans have intellects that can see the possible upside of an
individual ignoring the needs of the group. This requirement, that
intelligent individuals must live in social groups to survive, gives rise to
codes of morality. Anything that has a negative effect on the social group
is held to be "morally" wrong by the group. The main goal of what we might
call "communicated morality" -- religion, myth, folklore, fairy tales,
whatever -- is to strengthen the moment of the moral code as opposed to
self-interest.
Acting selfishly to the detriment of the group would be an example of
overriding the programming. The instinct for self-preservation is strong,
but the instinct for group preservation is even stronger. Across cultures,
for instance, one of the most venerated acts is to sacrifice oneself for the
benefit of others.
--Justin
plausible prose man
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Alistair Gale (alis...@invalid.invalid) wrote:
>
> > On 6 Dec 2005 21:16:39 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> > <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Alistair Gale (Alista...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm talking about the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma computer
> >>> simulations that I mentioned upthread.
> >>
> >>We drifted from that into the assertion that "nice" works better
> >>in the real world. Part of my response to that was already made. I
> >>was speaking of a Prisoner's Dilemma in which the deck is stacked.
> >>Some of the players have announced their intention to play
> >>"morally" regardless of the consequences.
> >
> > Does morality include some form of retaliation in your book?
>
> Probably not in the same way it does in yours. "Love your enemy" is
> part of my morality.
Memo to self: take advantage of Opus some time.
> > It
> > does in mine, such as a refusal to do business with someone who
> > burnt you before. This negates your "stacked" model above. If we
> > only do business with people who cooperate, then the defectors
> > will have a hard time.
>
> In reality, we do business with who we have to do business with.
Right, which is why there's only that one store you can shop in.
> The
> experiment you cite does not appear to accurately model real life.
You're being dishonest, again.
> >>> These show that over time
> >>> the majority of the population of surviving programs tend to be
> >>> NICE. There are still a few rogues, but reproductively speaking
> >>> they are losers overall. (the nice guys thrive, bad guys are
> >>> punished). Douglas Hofstadter had a series of columns on this
> >>> in the '80s in SciAm. Some of his readers, like you, could not
> >>> accept that being nice, and having a memory is a better (in an
> >>> evolutionary sense) than any twisted scheme that they (the
> >>> readers) could devise. Remember: Populations evolve, not
> >>> individuals, and this is about the big picture.
> >>
> >>That was going to be part of my response, actually. The individual
> >>can gain a lot by being immoral, even if it theoretically hurts
> >>the population in the long run. Unless you can prove that the
> >>individual has a moral obligation to posterity, there's not
> >>logical reason for him to prefer the good of the species to his
> >>own good.
I guess there are people who do that kind of thing, but they tend to be
selected out of the population. I wonder if you're prepared to assign
some sort of soul to certain animals, some of which are fairly simple
organisms, as the seem to possess at least a rudimentary moral sense.
You'll notice cats take care of their kittens, and dogs certainly feel
guilt.
>If he has an impulse to prefer the good of the species,
> >>it is irrational and can be overcome by logic.
Yeah, um...pat that tummy if yours you've got growing, down there, and
tell me again how good you are at overcoming millions of years of
evolution with a moment's exercise in logic.
> > Simple: THIS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUALS.
>
> Right. I said that. There is no logical reason for an INDIVIDUAL to
> behave morally.
You know, unless he found it rewarding, or something,
> > Defectors tend to die out.
> > The average individual, as I said, is wired by evolution to do the
> > "right" thing for the population.
Probably only for a group about the size of an extended human family.
Apparently appeal to familial obligations, apparently hardwired, is
sufficient to keep the peace in tribal society. It's only when you get
the levels of population that come with agriculture, and people not
related so closely to each other around each other these kind of things
break down, and the flying spaghetti monster must be invoked with his
attendent commandments and you see shunning and that kind of thing.
Even then you notice one set of laws for, you know, Jews and Gentiles,
so it's easily enough explained as group selection.
> Defectors with loose wiring
> > are punished and are less reproductively fit. They will have
> > fewer descendants. The system is self correcting in the long run.
>
> And a bang up job it's doing.
More abortions, less crime.
> > We know instinctively what feels right because of this
> > evolutionary process, and we have constructed a pile of
> > rationalizations to justify these rules of behaviour.
> >
> > There will always be parasites who can exploit the norm and twist
> > the logic, but their numbers are limited in a stable system.
>
> They're not twisting the logic, they're following the logic.
Well, sometimes, sure. often, they seem to be responding to biological
imperatives.
> They
> have no obligation to their posterity. If they can get a short term
> gain for themselves by shortchanging their descendants, there is no
> reason from self-interest not to do so.
You know, unless it kind of gives you an oogy feeling. Seemingly even
people like Hitler and Martin Luther have out-groupers murdered out of
a desire to do the right thing.
> >>Another difficulty with the Prisoner's Dilemma experiment is that
> >>it doesn't really deal with those who are weak and have nothing to
> >>contribute. It only deals with tit for tat. Yet many people (I
> >>among them) would say that helping those who cannot repay is part
> >>of the soft chewy center of morality.
> >
> > Allow me to repeat myself, since you snipped it:
>
> Sorry, I did read that part, and the above attempted to take it into
> account.
>
> > Speaking for myself, I can see that a similar evolutionary
> > process would lead to the group behaviours and the sense of
> > "fairness" that we observe in the higher mammals. So I don't have
> > a problem with altruism being an emergent property. We are wired
> > to feel good about doing the right thing. Evolution made it so.
> >
>
> Would it be fair to say that for you, morality and biological
> determinism are more or less synonymous?
I find the most persuasive moral arguments to be the sort that involve
deconstructing the difference between the out group and the in group.
Meanwhile, since you mention Gyges, I will remind you Socrates does a
pretty good job of pointing out Right and Good transcend God, or "The
Gods," I think he says, but it changes little to leave the 's' off.
So, once again, just like with design, and logic, we see God is the
least necessary being; you don't have to say "we should always do
right, because God will know will be doing wrong," you can omit the
superflous step. Always do the right thing because its the right thing
to do.
Opus the Penguin
> Meanwhile, since you mention Gyges, I will remind you Socrates does a
> pretty good job of pointing out Right and Good transcend God, or "The
> Gods," I think he says, but it changes little to leave the 's' off.
Actually it changes everything. Socrates rejected the Greek concept of
the gods as too weak. He was on his way to understanding that the
source of morality must be better than they.
groo
> Ok, I agree with that. I'm a little befuddled as to why you're
> pointing it out, so I can't say I totally understand your point.
>
No worries. I was just a bit bored and felt like interjecting. Wobble on.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > As for morality, my belief is that it has emerged from humans
> > bumping against each other and evolving rules of behaviour. Some
> > of this may have a genetic component, as our primate relatives
> > also have rules for living, however the bulk of it has been
> > reasoned out and codified over the millennia. Genes + Memes?
> Ok, next step. When *should* we override the behavior that evolution
> has programmed into us? That's the moral standard I'm after. It's
> obviously a higher standard than our evolutionary programming. I want
> to know where it comes from and why we should heed it.
When it's no longer providing us benefit. i.e. we should never consider
the system "done". Evolution doesn't stop for anything short of
extinction.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Mean People Suck - It takes two deviations to get cool.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
M C Hamster
news:Xns97254362C4FF5op...@127.0.0.1...
> plausible prose man (George...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, since you mention Gyges, I will remind you Socrates does a
>> pretty good job of pointing out Right and Good transcend God, or "The
>> Gods," I think he says, but it changes little to leave the 's' off.
>
> Actually it changes everything. Socrates rejected the Greek concept of
> the gods as too weak. He was on his way to understanding that the
> source of morality must be better than they.
>
AFAICT, from this discussion I'm gathering that God is a way to provide a
moral compass that carries more authority than, say, Miss Manners, or other
secular ethicists. This whole discussion has helped me understand more
clearly why it was important that we create the concept of God. But since
I'm rather wary of unthinking acquiescence to centralized authority, it also
limns my problems with organized religion. If I really thought God, as
opposed to humans claiming to be interpreting God, were informing us of the
correct moral path, I would certainly embrace the whole thing.
If God decided to send us another true messiah... do we think he (or she)
could ever build belief in that fact? I'll hypothesize that, in this day of
media coverage, talking heads, etc. that that would be impossible, short of
some pretty amazing miracles. (In this day of David Copperfield, they'd
have to go way beyond what JC did.) I don't know if Reverend Moon claimed
to be a messiah, but he certainly has been raked over the coals, and
impugned mightily -- as one example of what I think would happen if this new
messiah were to come. (This might make a nice little story or movie or
something, as a commentary on This Age We Live In.)
So until God reveals himself more directly (and I just don't know why he's
not doing it, if only to smite nonbelievers like myself right 'longside the
haid), I'm afraid I'm still a wandering, desperate soul.
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> > As for morality, my belief is that it has emerged from humans
>> > bumping against each other and evolving rules of behaviour.
>> > Some of this may have a genetic component, as our primate
>> > relatives also have rules for living, however the bulk of it
>> > has been reasoned out and codified over the millennia. Genes +
>> > Memes?
>
>> Ok, next step. When *should* we override the behavior that
>> evolution has programmed into us? That's the moral standard I'm
>> after. It's obviously a higher standard than our evolutionary
>> programming. I want to know where it comes from and why we should
>> heed it.
>
> When it's no longer providing us benefit. i.e. we should never
> consider the system "done". Evolution doesn't stop for anything
> short of extinction.
>
So for you, morality is simply the evolutionary programming by which
you seek what is best for yourself? Or for the human race? Is either
of those a fair statement?
Opus the Penguin
> AFAICT, from this discussion I'm gathering that God is a way to
> provide a moral compass that carries more authority than, say,
> Miss Manners, or other secular ethicists.
My point has been rather the reverse. The fact of morality--the fact
that we know there is right and wrong and that these are not simply
biological impulses--points us to the existence and nature of God.
God isn't the means by which we shore up our morality. Our morality
is one way we understand who and what and that God is.
> This whole discussion
> has helped me understand more clearly why it was important that we
> create the concept of God.
Again, of course, I feel you have it backwards. But it's an
interesting point. You acknowledge morality to be important. And you
see "creat[ing] the concept of God" as a way to drive that point
home. But that leaves as an open question why we shouldn't rather
face the fact that morality *isn't* important.
> But since I'm rather wary of
> unthinking acquiescence to centralized authority, it also limns my
> problems with organized religion.
You may disagree with me, but I hope my acquiescence does not appear
to be "unthinking."
> If I really thought God, as
> opposed to humans claiming to be interpreting God, were informing
> us of the correct moral path, I would certainly embrace the whole
> thing.
This is another premise where we disagree. I believe we are all
fallen in Adam. Our wills are corrupted along with the rest of our
nature. We do not have it in us to choose the good. The renewal of
the will must come from outside of us and not depend on any ability
of our own.
> If God decided to send us another true messiah... do we think he
> (or she) could ever build belief in that fact?
The first one is all that was necessary. And, yes, I am certain that
God is capable of effectually calling people to himself.
> I'll hypothesize
> that, in this day of media coverage, talking heads, etc. that that
> would be impossible, short of some pretty amazing miracles. (In
> this day of David Copperfield, they'd have to go way beyond what
> JC did.) I don't know if Reverend Moon claimed to be a messiah,
> but he certainly has been raked over the coals, and impugned
> mightily -- as one example of what I think would happen if this
> new messiah were to come. (This might make a nice little story or
> movie or something, as a commentary on This Age We Live In.)
>
> So until God reveals himself more directly (and I just don't know
> why he's not doing it, if only to smite nonbelievers like myself
> right 'longside the haid), I'm afraid I'm still a wandering,
> desperate soul.
Everyone who seeks finds, everyone who asks is answered, and to
everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. But the answer is
outside yourself and it sounds as though you're still seeking within.