The Philosophy of Everyday Ethics
John Gohde
---
-
You have been reached out to by: John Gohde of Richmond, Va.
Diet, Exercise, Vitamins, Attitude, and Meditation.
you have to work for it. Remember: Patience is the key to
all Lifestyle Changes.
-
---
------
John Gohde
John Armstong
>
> The question that I am proposing is:
>
> What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are
> rude to people?
>
> I am interested in Ethics that can be actually applied in Everyday
> Life.
>
> I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
> passions, emotions, and desires.
>
> The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground.
> Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
> virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
> is a vice.
>
John, you have an excellent point and I'm not sure that I disagree.
Everything in moderation. There are times when one should pursue their
passions wholeheartedly. The same is true for emotions and desires. The
real issue is distinguishing between passions, emotions, and desires
that are positive and those that are negative.
John Armstong
john...@iname.com
John Armstong
intellectuals. I am not referring to free will in the religious sense,
but free will in the sense of "individual vs. society."
From my research, I have composed the following theory:
We, as individuals, begin our lives in a personal shell with infinite
choices and possibilities. Through every decision that we make, part of
our free will is lost to either habit or regret as we begin to develop
personal customs and routines. Society leads us to believe that we
control our actions. This is true, but misleading. At some point in our
lives we had the ability to chose any path. As adults, most of these
decisions are already made for us. Our general personality has already
been formed by our decisions.
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks." There is a reason why we
associate the conservative with the older generation and the liberal
with the younger. It is because once our personalities are shaped, it
becomes much more difficult, although not impossible, to change.
Please analyze and criticize,
John Armstrong
john...@iname.com
Eugene_Khutoryansky
John Gohde wrote:
[snip]
>
> The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground.
> Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
> virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
> is a vice.
>
[snip]
I disagree with the claim that the "middle ground" or "moderation" is always
best. Consider, for example, the practice of slavery. The right way to
deal with the practice of slavery is not to "moderate" it, but to eliminate
it entirely.
Back when slavery was considered acceptable by the majority of the
population, there were many views about what the proper approach towards
this institution should be. Some believed that slavery should continue
forever in the same manner that it existed at the time. Others believed
that slavery should continue forever, but that reforms needed to be made in
the slave laws, so as to require slave masters to treat their slaves in a
more "humane" fashion. Some believed that reform laws should be passed in
the near future, and that slavery should "eventually" be outlawed sometime
in the far future, but that there was no need to abolish slavery
immediately, as this would cause a considerable shock to the economy and the
culture. In addition to these various view points, there were also some
"extremists".
These extremists believed that slavery was inherently immoral, and that it
was not enough to just pass laws requiring that slaves be treated more
"humanely", or to slowly phase out the institution of slavery over a long
period of time. They believed that slavery must be abolished immediately
and unconditionally. Considering the array of various opinions on this
issue, this position of "abolition" was certainly an extreme one. Yet in
this case, it is the extremists who were right.
I believe that the same is true for many of the moral issues which face us
today. The "middle ground" is not always the right place to be.
-Eugene
-----------------
http://members.aol.com/okhutor/essay/morals.html
A web page arguing that moral laws are
of the same nature as the law of gravity
James Prather
Nietzsche7
lol. eh nope. ever studied physics? quantum mechanics? astronomy? applied
mathmatics? they only reason the solutions seems simply is b/c someone really
worked their ass off to make it intelligble ( millikan's experiments to measure
the charge of electrons--just look at the complicated device he created for his
experiment-- or Michal Faraday's ten year struggle to understand the
relationship between eletricity and magnatism).
What is the most simple solution, and what makes it simple? What is the "middle
ground"? is it always so definable?
Adam
"We are all lying in the gutters; some of us are just looking at the stars."
--Oscar Wilde
"JOIN THE ARMY! Travel to strange, exotic lands, meet new unusual people, and
kill them!"--bumper sticker
James Prather
david eason
Extreme activists are another example. They know that most people
consider the middle ground to be ethically the correct position, and so
jump as far as they can go in the direction they want (eg the left) in
order to create a new limit further to the left. Ergo, the middle ground
just shifted a bit to the left. Have a nice day :)
David
John Gohde wrote:
> I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
> passions, emotions, and desires. The Virtue in every activity is
John Gohde
>> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
>> passions, emotions, and desires. The Virtue in every activity is
>> always found in the middle ground. Take something as simple as
>> eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue, whereas both
>> starving to death for style, and being a fat pig is a vice.
>You know, you have many fans who support this view. Greenpeace for one.
>Extreme activists are another example. They know that most people
>consider the middle ground to be ethically the correct position, and so
>jump as far as they can go in the direction they want (eg the left) in
>order to create a new limit further to the left. Ergo, the middle ground
>just shifted a bit to the left. Have a nice day :)
The middle ground is never determined by popular vote. The middle ground is
never relative to positions taken by other people. The middle ground is
always relative to the emotion or activity in question, NOT what others do
Extremists believe that those who take the middle ground are compromisers
less devoted to an ideal and therefore flawed. This is because they refuse
to recognized that life is full of competing good values. Extremist refuse
to recognized that life is full with moral ambiguities.
Extremists take the easy road in life since they never have to wrestle with
and weigh competing values.
John Gohde
>worked their ass off to make it
>What is the most simple solution, and what makes it simple? What is the
"middle
>ground"? is it always so definable?
The truth is always simple. What is not so simple, is communicating the
truth with clarity.
The middle ground is a range of activity that is neither an extreme position
nor a neglect of an activity.
Is not the middle ground compromise? The middle ground is saying that the
activity that you are engaged is not wrong in and of itself, but rather only
the extent to which
you are engaging in it that determines whether it is good or bad.
Thelma
Patrick Erler
<7impeg$jr2$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>:
>The question that I am proposing is:
>
> What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are rude
> to people?
>
>I am interested in Ethics that can be actually applied in Everyday Life.
>
>I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character, Virtue
>and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their passions,
>emotions, and desires.
>
>The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground. Take
>something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue,
>whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig is a
>vice.
>
>How has the latest spin on Ethics made an improvement over the simple
>concept of virtue in regards to eating, or other things in everyday
>life?
>
i can't really contradict your arguments when we are talking about ethic
(but a much simpler approach for me is the "don't do to other what you
don't want that other do to you (sorry, i'm no native english speaker - i
think you know what i mean))
but if we are really talking about everyday life - there is nothing as
boring as doing it "the middle way" - at least for me.
what a great feeling to drink with friends until sunrise - or to live a
whole week abstinent with noone around you, reading, thinking.
or to eat pelmeni until you collapse - and when you realize that you have 5
kilos too much and feel your belly when you sit in front of the computer,
to eat a whole week just vegetables and drink pure water.
in daily life, the extremes are what is it all about - for me.
PAT
John Gohde
Eugene_Khutoryansky wrote in message ...
>
> John Gohde wrote:
>
>> The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground.
>> Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
>> virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
>> is a vice.
>I disagree with the claim that the "middle ground" or "moderation" is
always
>best. Consider, for example, the practice of slavery. The right way to
>deal with the practice of slavery is not to "moderate" it, but to eliminate
>it entirely.
Well, as you are pointed out you are referring to a social institution
whereas I am referring to the individual, and yourself in particular. The
difference is quite significant. The individual has control over himself,
not the world.
>I believe that the same is true for many of the moral issues which face us
>today. The "middle ground" is not always the right place to be.
Name one
John Gohde
John Armstong wrote in message <374EFCD8...@iname.com>...
>> John Gohde wrote:
>>
>> The question that I am proposing is:
>>
>> What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are
>> rude to people?
>>
>> I am interested in Ethics that can be actually applied in Everyday
>> Life.
>>
>> I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
>> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
>> passions, emotions, and desires.
>>
>> Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
>> virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
>> is a vice.
>>
>
>Everything in moderation. There are times when one should pursue their
>passions wholeheartedly. The same is true for emotions and desires. The
>real issue is distinguishing between passions, emotions, and desires
>that are positive and those that are negative.
I am not too sure about that. Too much of a good thing, can be just as bad
as
too much of a bad thing.
Name, one positive thing that if taken to a far enough extreme wont end up
as a vice?
For instance, there is a saying that love is blind. Love in
general is good for you, but being in love too much can lead to folly or
worst.
Loop
>choices and possibilities. Through every decision that we make, part of
>our free will is lost to either habit or regret as we begin to develop
>personal customs and routines.
John,
I agree that as we move though life we make decisions that reduce the number
of choices we have thereafter, but not that we lose our free will in the
process.
For example, if I choose to marry, the "choice" of dating other women after
marriage is one choice that I would choose not to make. This is not because
I have lost any amount of free, but because I am aware simply of the
CONSEQUENCES. My marriage would be over. I have not lost any free will
here -- I am still free to choose.
After choosing to marry, other of my choices as a single man will disappear,
as well -- but my "free will" won't disappear.
Aloha,
Tom
Steve Smith
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7irmga$rs9$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> >> I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
> >> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
> >> passions, emotions, and desires. The Virtue in every activity is
> >> always found in the middle ground. Take something as simple as
> >> eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue, whereas both
> >> starving to death for style, and being a fat pig is a vice.
>
What about murder, or production, or survival? None of these are middle
ground issues. In some instances the middle ground is the correct action to
take. But ethically speaking there is no middle ground. There is right and
there is wrong.
Armando Ortiz
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7impeh$jr2$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net...
The question that I am proposing is:What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are rude to people?I am interested in Ethics that can be actually applied in Everyday Life.
I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character, Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their passions, emotions, and desires.The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground. Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig is a vice.
How has the latest spin on Ethics made an improvement over the simple concept of virtue in regards to eating, or other things in everyday life?
In Science, is not the correct solution the simplest?
david eason
John Gohde wrote:
> >You know, you have many fans who support this view. Greenpeace for one.
> >Extreme activists are another example. They know that most people
> >consider the middle ground to be ethically the correct position, and so
> >jump as far as they can go in the direction they want (eg the left) in
> >order to create a new limit further to the left. Ergo, the middle ground
> >just shifted a bit to the left. Have a nice day :)
>
> The middle ground is never determined by popular vote. The middle ground is
> never relative to positions taken by other people. The middle ground is
> always relative to the emotion or activity in question, NOT what others do
And if a terrorist activity increases the emotion? If it increases awareness of
the activity? If, by a roundabout way, it gets another aspect of a problem onto
world wide media coverage, will that change the viewpoint of the uninformed
millions? Yes, sometimes it does.
>
> Extremists believe that those who take the middle ground are compromisers
> less devoted to an ideal and therefore flawed. This is because they refuse
> to recognized that life is full of competing good values. Extremist refuse
> to recognized that life is full with moral ambiguities.
>
> Extremists take the easy road in life since they never have to wrestle with
> and weigh competing values.
Sometimes. Not always by any means. What I wrote was a direct result of a
conversation with a Maori activist. They will go way beyond accepted social
norms in order to get media publicity, and what they are trying to do is
portray an aspect which hasn't been seen before. They want people to think
about the wrongs that have been done, and to think about how to get them.
Sure some activists are hard-line, uncomprimising gits who think that they and
only they are right. Others have ego problems who just love attention. But some
do actually have brains, and most have a purpose which involves getting media
attention.
David Eason
Patrick Erler
It can! but it can end in heaven too!! the risk is with you... but if you
don't try you'll never know.. :-)
And - a big point in my view - if you don't believe in the heaven of love -
but someoone who loves you do and (s)he wants to try to find "heaven of
love" with you - you will badly hurt him/her... so, with beeing in the
middle you can actually hurt someone else - what you tried to avoid...
the point of living with others is not leverage but synchronisity...
PAT
Eugene_Khutoryansky
John Goodie wrote in message <7ivep9$8t2$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>Eugene_Khutoryansky wrote in message ...
>>
>> John Gohde wrote:
>>
>>> Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
>>> virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
>>> is a vice.
>
>
>always
>
>>best. Consider, for example, the practice of slavery. The right way to
>>deal with the practice of slavery is not to "moderate" it, but to
eliminate
>>it entirely.
>
>
>Well, as you are pointed out you are referring to a social institution
>whereas I am referring to the individual, and yourself in particular. The
>difference is quite significant. The individual has control over himself,
>not the world.
>
Social institutions are created and continue to exist only because of the
actions of individuals. The moment everyone stops supporting the
institution of slavery, the institution ceases to exist. Whether or not an
individual chooses to support the institution of slavery by buying products
manufactured with slaver labor, or by voting for politicians who advocate
slavery, is a matter which they have control over.
The question we are faced with can be rephrased into one which asks how much
each individual should support the institution of slavery. The correct
answer to this is not one of moderation. The correct answer is that each
person should do as little as possible to support slavery.
>>I believe that the same is true for many of the moral issues which face us
>>today. The "middle ground" is not always the right place to be.
>
>
>Name one
>
>
OK. I believe that one such issue is our responsibility to act morally
towards other species. I believe that discrimination by species is just as
immoral as discrimination by race or religion. This view is presently
regarded as extreme, considering its implications for commonly practiced
activities such as killing animals for food and clothing. Of course,
advocating an "extreme" position on an issue which is presently
controversial will not have the same effect on you as pointing out that it
has often been the "extreme" positions which have turned out to be the
correct ones in the past, such as in the cases of slavery and segregation.
-Eugene
-----------------------------
John Gohde
Steve Smith wrote in message <37535...@news.sac.bfp.net>...
>John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:7irmga$rs9$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
>> >> I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
>> >> Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
>> >> always found in the middle ground. Take something as simple as
>> >> eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue, whereas both
>> >> starving to death for style, and being a fat pig is a vice.
>middle ground issues. In some instances the middle ground is
>there is wrong.
on your prohibited list precisely because it is an extreme act.
Survival: Survival is a global concept, not a sepecific action.
Most people I know take surviving for granted. If you happen to live in a tough neighborhood, then I would suggest that you move.
Production: Production is about Economics, NOT ethics. Captialism might be
a good system, but it also feeds off of human weakness. Do I really need to point out that Captialism in moderation is good, whereas Capitalism taken to the extreme has been a great evil in our society?
John Gohde
>Social institutions are created and continue to exist only because of the
>actions of individuals. The moment everyone stops supporting the
>institution of slavery, the institution ceases to exist. Whether or not an
>individual chooses to support the institution of slavery by buying products
>manufactured with slaver labor, or by voting for politicians who advocate
>slavery, is a matter which they have control over.
I beg to differ.
You are talking about motivation and rationalization of acts made by an
individual. You are talking about actions in the collective.
Virtue Ethics is ALWAYS about one individual: YOURSELF. What other people
do is irrelevent. When have you run up against the "issue of slavery" in
your daily life? What one act did you do that resulted in Slavery being
done away with for all mankind? What have you done about ending "Economic
Slavery"? What have you done about ending the "Slavery of Child Support"?
It is really simple: From the perspective of "Everday Life" the individual
has no control over social issues.
So you voted one day, bully for you.
>I believe that one such issue is our responsibility to act morally
>towards other species. I believe that discrimination by species is just as
>immoral as discrimination by race or religion. This view is presently
>regarded as extreme, considering its implications for commonly practiced
>activities such as killing animals for food and clothing. Of course,
>advocating an "extreme" position on an issue which is presently
>controversial will not have the same effect on you as pointing out that it
>has often been the "extreme" positions which have turned out to be the
>correct ones in the past, such as in the cases of slavery and segregation.
A moral issue is not a specific action. It is a motivation or
rationalization of ones actions.
As Roy Masters would say: "You are too caught up in words!"
Anyone living a life of social issues is not living their own life. They
are not living in The Now. The Ethics of Everyday Life is for real people
who live their life fully, NOT for thinkers who never stop to smell the
roses along the road of life.
I am talking about what directly affects people everyday of their lives:
Their Character.
To put it in your terms: Anger is an Issue that is of concern to
individuals in their everyday life.
John Gohde
>Sure some activists are hard-line, uncomprimising gits who think that they
>and only they are right. Others have ego problems who just love attention.
>But some do actually have brains, and most have a purpose which
>involves getting media attention.
So???
You are judging people.
Value Ethics is about one individual: YOURSELF. It is specifically
about YOUR actions, NOT the other guy who is always wrong in
your eyes.
John Gohde
<26675-37...@newsd-272.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>The Virtue in every activity is always
>found in the middle ground. Take
>something as simple as eating.
>Maintaining a normal weight is a virtue,
>whereas both starving to death for style,
>and being a fat pig is a vice
>The only way to determine which
>course of action is ethical is by judging from the specifics of its
>situation.
And, I say that in the real world, your life would be over before you made
your first move. You sound like a perfectionalist to me.
I am talking about judging yourself, NOT other people. When you say
specifics of each situation, you are talking about motivation and
conflicting values. Motivation is nothing but rationalization. It is not
even possible to avoid rationalization when dealing with yourself.
In the real world, you have to go with what you got. Over time as your
character develops, so will you decision making ability. The world is
run with 1,000's of less than perfect decisions.
>I fear an ethics of moderation would become
>an ethics of mendacity
There is nothing about Virture Ethics that would preclude a person
from being productive, Smart, or creative.
Instead of thinking in terms of average, think of doing everthing at
the optimium level.
> Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody,
> runs the risk of being eliminated." The Revolt of the Masses, pg. 18.
I can assure you that anybody who adopts Virture Ethics would be the
exception, NOT the rule.
Eugene_Khutoryansky
John Gohde wrote in message <7jep1d$hpf$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>Eugene_Khutoryansky wrote in message to John Gohde:
>
>>Social institutions are created and continue to exist only because of the
>>actions of individuals. The moment everyone stops supporting the
>>institution of slavery, the institution ceases to exist. Whether or not
an
>>individual chooses to support the institution of slavery by buying
products
>>manufactured with slaver labor, or by voting for politicians who advocate
>>slavery, is a matter which they have control over.
>
>
>I beg to differ.
>
>You are talking about motivation and rationalization of acts made by an
>individual. You are talking about actions in the collective.
>
>Virtue Ethics is ALWAYS about one individual: YOURSELF. What other people
>do is irrelevent. When have you run up against the "issue of slavery" in
>your daily life? What one act did you do that resulted in Slavery being
>done away with for all mankind? What have you done about ending "Economic
>Slavery"? What have you done about ending the "Slavery of Child Support"?
>
>It is really simple: From the perspective of "Everday Life" the
individual
>has no control over social issues.
>
>So you voted one day, bully for you.
>
>
It is far more than just voting. As I mentioned in my previous post,
refusing to support slavery would involve refusing to buy any products
manufactured with slave labor. For people who have lived in societies which
manufactured many or most of their products with slave labor, the decision
to avoid all such products involved dramatic life style changes which
affected what they did every day. Some individuals went far beyond simply
refusing to support the institution of slavery, but actually devoted much of
their lives to the struggle to end it. Without such individuals, the
slavery of human beings would still be a common practice in our society
today. Oppressive social institutions do not disappear simply due to the
passage of time, they change only because of the effort and struggle of
individuals.
>>I believe that one such issue is our responsibility to act morally
>>towards other species. I believe that discrimination by species is just
as
>>immoral as discrimination by race or religion. This view is presently
>>regarded as extreme, considering its implications for commonly practiced
>>activities such as killing animals for food and clothing. Of course,
>>advocating an "extreme" position on an issue which is presently
>>controversial will not have the same effect on you as pointing out that it
>>has often been the "extreme" positions which have turned out to be the
>>correct ones in the past, such as in the cases of slavery and segregation.
>
>
>
>A moral issue is not a specific action. It is a motivation or
>rationalization of ones actions.
>
>As Roy Masters would say: "You are too caught up in words!"
>
>Anyone living a life of social issues is not living their own life. They
>are not living in The Now. The Ethics of Everyday Life is for real people
>who live their life fully, NOT for thinkers who never stop to smell the
>roses along the road of life.
>
>I am talking about what directly affects people everyday of their lives:
>Their Character.
>
>To put it in your terms: Anger is an Issue that is of concern to
>individuals in their everyday life.
>
>
There is no such distinction between "social issues" and "everyday life"
issues. For example, in response to your previous question, I answered that
I strongly believe in animal rights. You have now responded by claiming
that this is just a "social issue", and not an issue affecting everyday
life. Nothing could be further from the truth. My beliefs on this "social
issue" dictate that it is immoral for me to eat meat or to buy leather
clothing. Adhering to this belief affects my actions and decisions everyday
of my life.
Many more example could be given in addition to the two I have given you.
But hopefully, these will be enough to demonstrate the point I am trying to
make.
John Gohde
<0JC63.2713$m3.14...@homer.alpha.net>...
>There is no such distinction between "social issues" and "everyday life"
>issues. For example, in response to your previous question, I answered
that
Well, I strongly disagree.
And, I have posted two long messages that fully explain my position under:
The Ethics of Everyday Life: Virtue Theory & Personal Morality
No one responds to social issues in their personal life. They respond to
things that immediately affect them. Social issues are too abstract. One
only can rationalize that what they do and feel is somehow affecting social
issues.
>I strongly believe in animal rights. You have now responded by claiming
>that this is just a "social issue", and not an issue affecting everyday
>life. Nothing could be further from the truth. My beliefs on this "social
>issue" dictate that it is immoral for me to eat meat or to buy leather
>clothing. Adhering to this belief affects my actions and decisions
everyday
>of my life.
Everybody eats. Virtue Ethics addresses how much you eat. Virtue
Ethics does not address what you eat. For that I use my brain.
Philosophy does not address all questions. I am also interested in
diet, exercise, vitamins, and meditation. That don't mean that I expect
Philosophy and ethics to directly impact these subjects. Sure,
everything is related to a certain extent, ... but please ... a little
common sense!
At best, "Social Issues" come under ones value system. Values Systems have
nothing to do with Eudaimonistic Virtue Ethics. Each person could have a
completely different set of values and still follow the Doctrine of the
Golden Mean. Take for example, me I. I am not at all interested in Animal
Rights, and I am a Virtue Theorist!
Eugene_Khutoryansky
John Gohde wrote in message <7jfbn3$7uc$4...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Eugene_Khutoryansky wrote in message
><0JC63.2713$m3.14...@homer.alpha.net>...
>
>
>>There is no such distinction between "social issues" and "everyday life"
>>issues. For example, in response to your previous question, I answered
>that
>
>
>Well, I strongly disagree.
>
>And, I have posted two long messages that fully explain my position under:
>The Ethics of Everyday Life: Virtue Theory & Personal Morality
>
>No one responds to social issues in their personal life. They respond to
>things that immediately affect them. Social issues are too abstract. One
>only can rationalize that what they do and feel is somehow affecting
social
>issues.
>
[snip]
I just read the two long messages you referred to. I might respond to them
a little bit later. One thing that caught my attention is that you stated
you were claiming that following the "middle of the road" approach is the
correct strategy only "most" of the time, not all of the time. It appears
that I had misunderstood your position, since I thought that you were
claiming that it is the correct strategy "all" of the time with regards to
personal issues.
With regards to this issue of "social" vs "personal" issues, you are still
adhering to the claim that there is a distinction between the two. You
still say that people do not respond to social issues in their personal
life. In my previous posts, I gave you two examples to the contrary, and I
can give many more. I do not believe that you have addressed this point.
John Gohde
>>>issues. For example, in response to your previous question, I answered
>>that
>>Well, I strongly disagree.
>>The Ethics of Everyday Life: Virtue Theory & Personal Morality
>>things that immediately affect them. Social issues are too abstract.
>a little bit later.
>you were claiming that following the "middle of the road" approach is the
>correct strategy only "most" of the time, not all of the time. It appears
>that I had misunderstood your position, since I thought that you were
>claiming that it is the correct strategy "all" of the time with regards to
>personal issues.
happy with settling for true 99.99% of the time.
>With regards to this issue of "social" vs "personal" issues, you are still
>adhering to the claim that there is a distinction between the two. You
>still say that people do not respond to social issues in their personal
>life. In my previous posts, I gave you two examples to the contrary, and I
>can give many more. I do not believe that you have addressed this point.
post of mine to you.
individual. You are talking about actions in the collective."
your daily life? What one act did you do that resulted in Slavery being
done away with for all mankind?"
environment. I have never heard of an environmental stimulus called
"Slavery". That is because social issues like slavery are abstractions.
responds to lack of proper housing. He responds to poor food. He responds
to his chains. All of those responses, and more, add up to the social issue of
slavery.
the best of his condition. And, as Milton wrote: He would be able to
turn his Hell into Heaven. That is the payoff of developing your character
Wayne Kimmel
I still don't get it.
In order to preserve your distinction between "personal ethics" and "social
ethics" (which I believe may be suspect) you have introduced the notion of
"abstract concepts". It is my assumption that this must entail the idea of
"concrete concepts".
Using these terms it would seem reasonable to suggest that "slavery" is an
abstract term compared to the more concrete " wearing of chains" But where
are you going with this?
In your post you suggest the slave does not respond to "slavery" but rather
to "lack of proper housing" etc.
I would suggest that "lack of proper housing" is more abstract than bad
housing, or living in a shanty, or a shack, or a shed, or a hut, or a tent,
or a lean-to, or living in the fields. In all of this however, I see no
division of "kind" but only of "degree".
If your thesis is something like: In all the field of ethics, there ought to
be a sub-section that deals with ethical decisions who's outcomes affect
mostly the individual (bearing in mind that all things are connected). If
you further assert that an individual who develops the proper set of these
"personal behavior" beliefs, and acts on them, will be happier. Then I think
you may be on to something.
It seems to me you could then just dispense with all the confusion over
abstract social concepts vrs.. discrete psychological stimuli, and the
problem of trying to force a new distinction between personal - social
ethics.
This might leave you free to get on with what you have already named, Virtue
Ethics.
Regards,
Wayne.
John Gohde <johnh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7jfvc4$aq6$3...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...
>
To take a more scientific approach, people respond to stimuli from their
environment. I have never heard of an environmental stimulus called
"Slavery". That is because social issues like slavery are abstractions.
>
Even a true slave does not respond to "Slavery". He responds to fear. He
responds to lack of proper housing. He responds to poor food. He responds
to his chains. All of those responses, and more, add up to the social issue
of
slavery.
John Gohde
Wayne Kimmel wrote in message ...
>Using these terms it would seem reasonable to suggest that "slavery" is an
>abstract term compared to the more concrete " wearing of chains" But where
>are you going with this?
So, far | have been trying to respond to a few callers. But, perhaps they
simply refuse to see what | am communicating.
>If your thesis is something like: In all the field of ethics, there ought
to
>be a sub-section that deals with ethical decisions who's outcomes affect
>mostly the individual (bearing in mind that all things are connected). If
>you further assert that an individual who develops the proper set of these
>"personal behavior" beliefs, and acts on them, will be happier. Then I
think
>you may be on to something.
That pretty much sums it up.
>It seems to me you could then just dispense with all the confusion over
>abstract social concepts vrs.. discrete psychological stimuli, and the
>problem of trying to force a new distinction between personal - social
>ethics.
You are right. I could also say that employing slavery to ensure that
work is done around your house is just an extreme approach used
to obtain workers. Slavery is certainly not the moderate approach
to anything.
>This might leave you free to get on with what you have already named,
>Virtue Ethics.
Sounds good to me. Any takers out there. How about someone
responding to my ANSWERS to the major criticisms of Virtue Theory?
Tomm Carr
> > John Gohde wrote:
> >
> > The question that I am proposing is:
> > What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are
> > rude to people?
What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics?
Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with character
flaws?
>
> > I am interested in Ethics that can be actually applied in Everyday
> > Life.
I am interested in Ethics that *cannot* be applied to everyday life. If you
have a system of ethics that doesn't apply to everyday life, what the hell
good is it? And what exactly *does* it apply to?
> > I think Aristotle said it best. I like his concept of Character,
> > Virtue and Vice. To succeed in life one has to control their
> > passions, emotions, and desires.
> >
> > The Virtue in every activity is always found in the middle ground.
> > Take something as simple as eating. Maintaining a normal weight is a
> > virtue, whereas both starving to death for style, and being a fat pig
> > is a vice.
There are public and private virtues and while there may be *some* overlap,
they are generally independent. A weakness in a private virtue does not
necessarily indicate a flaw in any public virtues. For example, just
because someone is fat doesn't mean he is dishonest. Conversely, someone
who is slim may lie like a rug. Ethics cannot help one here, it is a
judgment call.
> John, you have an excellent point and I'm not sure that I disagree.
> Everything in moderation. There are times when one should pursue their
> passions wholeheartedly.
You contradict yourself. Or do you maintain that it is possible for one to
pursue their passions wholeheartedly in moderation?
> The same is true for emotions and desires. The
> real issue is distinguishing between passions, emotions, and desires
> that are positive and those that are negative.
Ah! But helping us distinguish between positive and negative, good and bad,
moral and immoral is the purpose of ethics, is it not? So here we are full
circle back to the beginning and what have we accomplished? What was the
question again?
Tomm Carr
--
Regional Director, PETA -- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
"If God hadn't meant for Man to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out
of meat!"
CYaeger
Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
> John Armstong wrote:
>
> > > John Gohde wrote:
> > >
> > > The question that I am proposing is:
> > > What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are
> > > rude to people?
>
> What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics?
> Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
character
> flaws?
Do your ethics not reflect your character?
Tomm Carr
> ...
> We, as individuals, begin our lives in a personal shell with infinite
> choices and possibilities. Through every decision that we make, part of
> our free will is lost to either habit or regret as we begin to develop
> personal customs and routines.
Free will is a characteristic of Man's mental makeup. It is the *ability*
to make choices -- even to choose which criteria to use in evaluating among
different options. The number of choices available may be many or few,
that is a characteristic of the physical, social, and personal worlds in
which we live.
Our inability to flap our arms and fly like birds is a limitation imposed
by the physical world. These limitations are discernible, rigid,
non-arbitrary laws from which there is no appeal. They also play no role
whatsoever in our exercise of free will because they apply equally to all
"things" in existence, whether these "things" have the ability to make
choices or not.
Our inability to spit on a sidewalk is imposed by our social world. These
rules may be open to interpretation, accommodating, and capricious. They
are, metaphysically speaking, guidelines only. I am able to murder if that
is what I decide. Society simply advises against it.
The limits of the personal world, the world of "habit or regret," is the
set of self-imposed rules we adopt to help us carve out our roles in life.
Like the rules imposed on us by society, these do not limit our will, only
our actions. Indeed, it is because of our free will that these rules are
necessary. Guided only by instinct, the actions of animals are limited
only by the physical rules -- the laws of nature. We need more.
> Society leads us to believe that we
> control our actions. This is true, but misleading. At some point in our
> lives we had the ability to chose any path. As adults, most of these
> decisions are already made for us.
Still not a limitation of will, only of action. Most of us *choose* to
follow the social rules (most of them, anyway, most of the time), which is
in itself an *act* of will, not a loss of will.
> Our general personality has already
> been formed by our decisions.
True, our personality is formed (in a large part) as a result of the
choices we make -- i.e. we pretty much choose our own personality. What of
it???
> "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." There is a reason why we
> associate the conservative with the older generation and the liberal
> with the younger. It is because once our personalities are shaped, it
> becomes much more difficult, although not impossible, to change.
Actually we would expect kind of behavior from intelligent, self-directed
entities. When we first start out, we try different things, we make
mistakes, we learn. As time passes, we discard the actions that don't work
and adopt our favorites of the ones that do. It is not a case of
conservative or liberal -- these are political labels and have no
application in this context. Rather it is a case of flexible or
inflexible. In general, this is a function (as we would expect) of age,
with flexibility decreasing as we grow older (gain experience). The more
comfortable we are to the "way things are," the more we resist change. But
there is no evidence to show that we become less *able* to change. Old
folks have just as much free will as young folks -- they just choose to be
rigid.
> Please analyze and criticize,
> John Armstrong
> john...@iname.com
Done. What you do with this particular analysis is, well, your choice.
Tomm Carr
Tomm...@computer.org
--
The trouble with getting it right the first time is no one appreciates how
difficult it was.
Tomm Carr
> Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
> > ...
> > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
> > character flaws?
>
> Do your ethics not reflect your character?
It's more the other way around: your character reflects your ethics. But it is
not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits rudeness
but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but allows
lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty: he won't
lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
Tomm Carr -- Tomm...@computer.org
CYaeger
Tomm Carr <Tomm...@computer.org> wrote in message
news:375F7F09...@computer.org...
> CYaeger wrote:
>
> > Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
> > > ...
> > > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
> > > character flaws?
> >
> > Do your ethics not reflect your character?
>
> It's more the other way around: your character reflects your ethics. But
it is
> not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits
rudeness
> but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but allows
> lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty: he
won't
> lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
I must admit that I don't know what the entire conversation was about but I
do agree with you to a point.
I believe we can be honest and still not be rude. I think it is calle tact.
>
> Tomm Carr -- Tomm...@computer.org
> --
> Regional Director, PETA -- People for the Eating of Tasty Animals
> "If God hadn't meant for Man to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them
out of
> meat!"
>
That was funny (your sig) but aren't humans made of meat as well?
>
John Gohde
>John Armstong wrote:
>There are public and private virtues and while there may be *some* overlap,
>they are generally independent. A weakness in a private virtue does not
>necessarily indicate a flaw in any public virtues. For example, just
>because someone is fat doesn't mean he is dishonest. Conversely, someone
>who is slim may lie like a rug. Ethics cannot help one here, it is a
>judgment call.
I would say that you are exhibiting muddy thought, here.
Eating relates to eating and nothing else.
Dishonesty has nothing to do with eating.
One becomes honest by practicing being honest when one deals with the public
and other people.
I don't think being brutally honest in all situations is a virtue. It is an
extreme response, and hence a vice. Brutally honest people are also rude
people. Here we have a moral dilemma. You can not always be civil and
truthful at the same time.
A moderate approach to matters of civility and truthfulness saves the day,
once again. Being polite to the extreme degree is just as bad as telling
the enemy, in times of war, secretes simply because you have to tell the
truth.
John Gohde
CYaeger wrote in message ...
>>
>> > > John Gohde wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The question that I am proposing is:
>> > > What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics if you are
>> > > rude to people?
>>
>> What is the point in developing a new spin on Ethics?
>character
>> flaws?
>
>Do your ethics not reflect your character?
Or perhaps, your character reflects what your ethics really are, NOT what
you pretend them to be.
But, sometimes some individuals can really "push your buttons", and you have
to do what you really would rather not have to do. But, at least one does
not have to resort to murder.
John Gohde
Wayne Kimmel wrote in message ...
>
>I still don't get it.
>
>In order to preserve your distinction between "personal ethics" and "social
>ethics" (which I believe may be suspect) you have introduced the notion of
>"abstract concepts". It is my assumption that this must entail the idea of
>"concrete concepts".
>
>to "lack of proper housing" etc.
>
>I would suggest that "lack of proper housing" is more abstract than bad
>housing, or living in a shanty, or a shack, or a shed, or a hut, or a tent,
>or a lean-to, or living in the fields. In all of this however, I see no
>division of "kind" but only of "degree".
You are correct!
Social Morality involves abstract concepts. It involves interpretation of
reality. It involves the interpretation of hundreds of events to reach the
conclusion that so and so person is a slave.
The concept of proper housing is abstract, too. Once you get involved in
social morality the abstraction never ends.
Personal morality is about things like anger management and acting with due
respect for others. I would call learning to keep a lid on your anger a
"concrete concept". When somebody walks up to you and asks for a quarter,
you could:
a) Give him a quarter.
b) Say no to him.
c) Yell profanity at him.
d) Shot him square in the face with your Colt 45.
I think most people would agree that murder is an extreme response, that
should be avoided. This situation and situations like it are very concrete.
They are likely to be faced by everyone in their daily life.
Slavery, however, is clearly an issue that will never come up in your daily
life.
jesse l nowells
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Tomm Carr wrote:
> John Armstong wrote:
>
> > ...
> > We, as individuals, begin our lives in a personal shell with infinite
> > choices and possibilities. Through every decision that we make, part of
> > our free will is lost to either habit or regret as we begin to develop
> > personal customs and routines.
Armstrong claims that we begin with infinite choices & that doesn't
bear up to scrutiny.
>
> Free will is a characteristic of Man's mental makeup. It is the *ability*
> to make choices -- even to choose which criteria to use in evaluating among
> different options. The number of choices available may be many or few,
> that is a characteristic of the physical, social, and personal worlds in
> which we live.
But where is the working definition of free will? Does free will actually
exists? The only apparent certainty is that we have an ability to make
choices from a finite set of possibilities. Aren't these choices
determined by other choices made by one & other people as well since we
live in a society & isn't it also the case that nobody can repeal the
physical laws of nature understood or not?
>
> Our inability to flap our arms and fly like birds is a limitation imposed
> by the physical world. These limitations are discernible, rigid,
> non-arbitrary laws from which there is no appeal. They also play no role
> whatsoever in our exercise of free will because they apply equally to all
> "things" in existence, whether these "things" have the ability to make
> choices or not.
But doesn't that contradict the notion of a "free will"? [ Because "free
will" is modified by the determinism described above.]
> The limits of the personal world, the world of "habit or regret," is the
> set of self-imposed rules we adopt to help us carve out our roles in life.
> Like the rules imposed on us by society, these do not limit our will, only
> our actions. Indeed, it is because of our free will that these rules are
> necessary. Guided only by instinct, the actions of animals are limited
> only by the physical rules -- the laws of nature. We need more.
But isn't what we "will" determined by the "nature" of a society? Aren't
all social rules arbitrary? How are we different from animals other than
a greater cognition? Is our "will" actually a form of instinct?
Hermann Riemann
> But where is the working definition of free will? Does free will actually
> exists?
Free will is a combination of two emotional programs:
free: delete other people out of your feeling,
forget your own control
will: while wish makes good feeling
continue state by fueling actual feeling
John Gohde
>> > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
>> > character flaws?
>>
>> Do your ethics not reflect your character?
>
it is
>not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits
rudeness
>but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but allows
>lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty: he
won't
>lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
And, why not an ethics that permits both?
Why not a moderate amount of rudeness and a moderate amount of lying.
Virtue Ethics permits both. In the real world you have to deal with both
slime balls and situations that call for gray lies.
As a matter of fact, I had to deal with one slime ball on this THREAD for
fall too long. Perhaps my high level of patience got the best of me. There
are times when you have to be blunt, and if the slime ball balks at it, that
is just plain tough!
You also have a right of privacy.
When somebody asks something that is none of there business, you tell
something that is less than being brutally honest. Being Civil often
requires a certain degree of gray lies.
Extremists fail to realize that there are competing values in this world.
It is simply impossible to be both completely Civil and Truthful at the
same time.
John Gohde
CYaeger wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> > Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
>> > news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
>> > > ...
>> > > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
>> > > character flaws?
>> >
>> > Do your ethics not reflect your character?
>>
>> It's more the other way around: your character reflects your ethics. But
>it is
>> not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits
>rudeness
>> but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but allows
>> lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty:
he
>won't
>> lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
>
>do agree with you to a point.
>I believe we can be honest and still not be rude. I think it is calle
tact.
I see the vice/virtue/vice Honesty/Civility trio as follows:
Rude /Tactful/ Groveling (i.e., Excess/Mean/Defect)
Tact is how accomplished sycophants move up the social ladder. Sycophancy,
or Kissing Ass, is how America moves.
In the real world to get along you have to go along. In short, you have to
flatter other people. Grovelers lack self-respect. They spend the entire
day catering to the whims of other people. Lying all the time, always being
civil while not living their own life. Rude people are always going to be
brutally honest no matter who they hurt. They always live their own lives
at the expense of the feelings of others. Sycophants like Bill Clinton can
insult you to your face and make you feel good about it at the same time.
In short, you have to pick and chose when to be rude, and when to be honest.
Totally honest people are totally rude and are totally egotistical. Totally
civil people are totally dishonest and lack self-respect.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Eugene_Khutoryansky
John Gohde wrote in message <7jufip$rod$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>> Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
>>> news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
>>> > ...
>>> > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
>>> > character flaws?
>>>
>>> Do your ethics not reflect your character?
>>
>>It's more the other way around: your character reflects your ethics. But
>it is
>>not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits
>rudeness
>>but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but allows
>>lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty: he
>won't
>>lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
>
>
>
>Why not a moderate amount of rudeness and a moderate amount of lying.
>
>Virtue Ethics permits both. In the real world you have to deal with both
>slime balls and situations that call for gray lies.
>
>As a matter of fact, I had to deal with one slime ball on this THREAD for
>fall too long. Perhaps my high level of patience got the best of me.
There
>are times when you have to be blunt, and if the slime ball balks at it,
that
>is just plain tough!
I can not help but wonder, which individual on this thread are you referring
to and what made you think that he was slime ball?
>
>You also have a right of privacy.
>
>When somebody asks something that is none of there business, you tell
>something that is less than being brutally honest. Being Civil often
>requires a certain degree of gray lies.
>
>Extremists fail to realize that there are competing values in this world.
>It is simply impossible to be both completely Civil and Truthful at the
>same time.
>
>
>
>
>
Here are my two cents on this issue. Being truthful and being civil are not
opposites. You do not have to give up some of one of these characteristics
to gain more of the other one. If another person behaves in a way which I
believe is inappropriate, then this can be communicated in a polite way.
Instead of saying to that person, "You are a jerk," I would prefer to tell
him that, in my opinion, I believe that behavior in question is
inappropriate and tell him the reasons why I believe this. By explaining
the reasons for the criticism of the behavior, but not insulting the person,
it is possible to simultaneously be polite and avoid being a spineless "yes
man".
When approached in polite manner about their behavior, individuals are far
more likely to rethink and modify their behavior. On the other hand, when
they are just told something like, "You are a big jerk" it is unlikely that
any significant progress will be made. Politeness is not a hindrance to
conveying criticisms to people. On the contrary, it is the most important
possible tool in accomplishing this, as well as being desirable in itself.
Of course, there are some people who will get upset when others state a view
contrary to their beliefs, regardless of how politely this view is stated.
Offending these people is sometimes a byproduct of trying to engage in a
serious and polite discussion about our beliefs about the most fundamental
issues (issues such as which religion or moral theory is the correct one).
The fact that some people will be offended as the result of such discussions
should not prevent us from stating our views or from debating the
fundamental issues. I can not help but wonder why so many people consider
it rude to debate topics like religion.
-Eugene
CYaeger
>
> CYaeger wrote in message ...
> >
> >Tomm Carr <Tomm...@computer.org> wrote in message
> >news:375F7F09...@computer.org...
> >>
> >> > Tomm Carr <tomm...@gte.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:375E9F8C...@gte.net...
> >> > > ...
> >> > > Being rude is a character flaw. What does Ethics have to do with
> >> > > character flaws?
> >> >
> >> > Do your ethics not reflect your character?
> >>
> >> It's more the other way around: your character reflects your ethics.
But
> >it is
> >> not a polished mirror. I would rather deal with an ethic that permits
> >rudeness
> >> but insists on absolute honesty than one that forbids rudeness but
allows
> >> lying. AAMOF, what you consider rudeness may simply be brutal honesty:
> he
> >won't
> >> lie to you even to keep from hurting your feelings.
> >
are honest in a tactful way then you have no self respect and are an ass
kisser?
There is a difference between people that are honest tactfully and Bill
Clinton.
Bill Clinton doesn't no how to be either.
>
>
Bob Greer
People who grovel to their "betters" will typically be arrogant and snooty
to their "lessers."
Though I don't see anything typically American in "groveling." Give me good
European or Asian servants, anytime.
- Bob Greer
John Gohde wrote in message <7jugvk$3gp$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Bob Greer
Eugene_Khutoryansky wrote in message ...
>>Why not a moderate amount of rudeness and a moderate amount of lying.
>>
>>Virtue Ethics permits both. In the real world you have to deal with both
>>slime balls and situations that call for gray lies.
>>
How does "Virtue Ethics" differ from "Situational Ethics"?
- Bob Greer
>
>
>
>
Eugene_Khutoryansky
Bob Greer wrote in message ...
I would like to mention that it was John Gohde who wrote the message you
quoted, and not me. The way you quoted it might cause some confusion, since
it has my name attached to it and not his.
What John means by "Virtue Ethics" is that he believes that it is building
good character which is the ultimate goal, and that good actions are just a
means to achieve virtuous character. He also states that once someone
becomes a virtuous person, he will want to engage in good actions because of
the fact that he is virtuous. John explained his belief in "Virtue Theory"
more in depth in the thread which he started and labeled "The Ethics of
Everyday Life: Virtue Theory".
Personally, I disagree with his perspective, due to the fact that I believe
that it is good actions which are themselves important, and which should be
the primary goal.
-Eugene
John Gohde
>>
>> Rude /Tactful/ Groveling (i.e., Excess/Mean/Defect)
>>Sycophancy, or Kissing Ass, is how America moves.
>>In the real world to get along you have to go along. In short, you have
>>to flatter other people. Grovelers lack self-respect. They spend the
>>entire day catering to the whims of other people. Lying all the
>>at the expense of the feelings of others. Sycophants like
>>In short, you have to pick and chose when to be rude, and when to be
>>honest.
>>Totally honest people are totally rude and are totally egotistical.
>>Totally civil people are totally dishonest and lack self-respect.
>> The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
>are honest in a tactful way then you have no self respect and are an ass
>kisser?
In my opinion, Tactful is the MEAN, while a lack of self-respect is one of the extremes. Ass Kissing is simply a tongue and cheek substitute for the word Sycophancy.
...................Character....................
Honesty .......Trait..............Civility
-------------------------------------------
Excess..........Rude............Defect
A Groveler has excess of Civility and a Defect of Honesty.
John Gohde
there is the practice of Virtue Theory.
How one actually behaves can be relative to one's social standing. How
one behaves is always reflective of ones character. While you may observe
that a particular person is snooty when they are around lessors, that does
not mean that particular person is a Virtue Theorist. And, even if he was,
he may be a less than perfect Virtue Theorist.
A Virtue Theorist is a person who is aware of the situation and tries to use
his intellect to put his beliefs into practice by exercising self-control.
A Virtue Theorist is concerned about character. Having a good character
There are some similarities between Virtue Theory and Situational Ethics
ethics. The ethics of a Virtue Theorist are supposed to be absolute and
It really depends on two things: the perceiver and the doer. The perceiver
may misinterpret what a Virtue Theorist does due to their imperfection too.
A very strong willed Virtue Theorist, such as Aristotle himself, is likely to
be very consistent in his actions. While a weak willed Virtue Theorist is
likely to be very inconsistent.
Virtue Theory seems to be the best overall fit of my personal ethics. I
like the Greek Concept of Character, Vice, and Virtue. I would rather
However, I also like certain parts of Stoicism and Existentialism which you
might have already picked up on. In short, one does good because they have
decided to do good. Man is born an animal, or evil. Man must then decide
to live his life as a good human being, or as a great animal. One lives a
flourishing life by pursing happiness, not pleasure. To succeed at living a
flourishing life one must exercise self-control and have reasonable concern
for his fellow man. The best course of action is at the optimum level between
In regards to religion, I agree with the best of the moral philosophy of Judaism,
Graeco-Roman moral philosophy, and Christianity; by tradition if nothing
else. Whether it is right or wrong, is besides the point. The point is ... I have
you will be judged by God, you will be judged on the basis of your ethics, not
your theology. Jesus was a positive thinker who other people took
advantage of and over time perverted into Christianity. Christianity today
is more due to Graeco-Roman thought and the bureaucracy of the Church,
than to what Jesus actually did or say. Quite frankly, I find Christians quite
disgusting as they view themselves as helpless creatures. Jews take a much
better approach, in my opinion.
The reality is that I was raised by less than perfect parents. I live in a
Capitalist Society society that values and promotes people up the chain of
commercial success for promoting the lowest of the lowest human traits. I
refuse to believe that living life like an animal and spending money should be the
reason for living. Hence, I like all others interested in morality are in a heck of
------
---
-
You have been reached out to by: John Gohde of Richmond, Va.
John Gohde
>Oh, grovelling isn't a "one way street."
>
>People who grovel to their "betters" will typically be arrogant and snooty
>to their "lessers."
The sociology of the pecking order can be rather interesting.
You can diagram the vice/virture/vice trio of the character trait of being
bossy or Prideful as:
arrogant / easygoing / self-deprecating (i.e., Excess/Mean/Defect)
>How does "Virtue Ethics" differ from "Situational Ethics"?
I have replied to your post on Situational Ethics in a single message
entitled:
The Philosophy of Everyday Ethics: Theory vs. Practise
I posted in the talk.philosophy.misc,alt.philosophy.debate,alt.philosophy
newsgroups
Ed Rawady
> John Armstong wrote:
>
> > ...
> > We, as individuals, begin our lives in a personal shell with infinite
> > choices and possibilities. Through every decision that we make, part of
> > our free will is lost to either habit or regret as we begin to develop
> > personal customs and routines.
>
> Free will is a characteristic of Man's mental makeup. It is the *ability*
> to make choices -- even to choose which criteria to use in evaluating among
> different options. The number of choices available may be many or few,
> that is a characteristic of the physical, social, and personal worlds in
> which we live.
I believe humans are a physical manifestation of a universal, ubiquitous
consciousness which knows everything that can be known about each and
every thing It has manifested. It "understands" the material world because
It *is* the material world (among other things).
If this is true then free will is highly questionable.
It's one thing to accept the notion of an infinite, all-knowing
consciousness, but the idea that we may not be in complete control of our
destinies is practically unfathomable for most people.
Peace.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ed Rawady's Real World Column
and Spiritual Discussion Forum is at
http://www.Table12.com
Tomm Carr
> In article <375EDF61...@gte.net>, Tomm...@computer.org wrote:
> > Free will is a characteristic of Man's mental makeup. It is the *ability*
> > to make choices -- even to choose which criteria to use in evaluating among
> > different options. The number of choices available may be many or few,
> > that is a characteristic of the physical, social, and personal worlds in
> > which we live.
>
> I believe humans are a physical manifestation of a universal, ubiquitous
> consciousness which knows everything that can be known about each and
> every thing It has manifested. It "understands" the material world because
> It *is* the material world (among other things).
There are many people who believe humans are a "physical manifestation" (created
in the image) of a "universal, ubiquitous consciousness" (God). How this relates
to the question of free will is beyond me.
> If this is true then free will is highly questionable.
Why?
> It's one thing to accept the notion of an infinite, all-knowing
> consciousness, but the idea that we may not be in complete control of our
> destinies is practically unfathomable for most people.
I don't think so. I of no one (except for Christian Scientists) that claim we
have *complete* control of our destinies. There are many factors beyond our
control which affect our futures. (Do you mind if I don't use the word "destiny"
here?) Free will does not mean we are able to control everything that happens to
us. We only control our own actions. We influence, but do not control, our
future.
Tomm Carr -- Tomm...@computer.org
--
"In the desert one does not beg the sun for mercy"
Frank Herbert
Cybermonk
> consciousness which knows everything that can be known about each and
> every thing It has manifested. It "understands" the material world because
> It *is* the material world (among other things).
>
It is true. The Ground of Being, or block universe, is the origin of every
one of our "personal" thoughts and actions and acts of will. We are
emanations not of our free ego, but rather, of the ground of being. Time is
frozen and the future is pre-set, eternally and timelessly. Time is best
understood tenselessly. Our future actions already exist. The
time-travelling continuant ego is an illusion. We do not control our fate,
we only live out our fate. This is described at my site, but here I am
working to make these ideas utterly clear, to write the main pages of my
site and eventually, my masterpiece of clarity which solves many ancient
philosophy problems: a comic book.
http://www.egodeath.com -- Ego Death: The Cybernetic Theory of Ego
Transcendence
> It's one thing to accept the notion of an infinite, all-knowing
> consciousness, but the idea that we may not be in complete control of our
> destinies is practically unfathomable for most people.
What is the nature of self-control? An empty loop, a system produced by the
block universe. The illusion of an inner ego agent originating one's acts
and thoughts is purely a product of the block universe, which is the only
ultimate agent and origin of all our thoughts.
zip...@tig.com.au
action, so as long as we perceive freedom to act(or not), we have free will.
The block universe theory is thus rendered irrelevant, unless a parallel
theory is ascribed to it.
Cybermonk wrote in message <3771c19b$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
jesse l nowells
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Cybermonk wrote:
> It is true. The Ground of Being, or block universe, is the origin of every
> one of our "personal" thoughts and actions and acts of will. We are
> emanations not of our free ego, but rather, of the ground of being. Time is
> frozen and the future is pre-set, eternally and timelessly. Time is best
> understood tenselessly. Our future actions already exist. The
> time-travelling continuant ego is an illusion. We do not control our fate,
> we only live out our fate.
you're confusing the perception of time with time itself which is
independent of our "ground of being". how do you support the assertion
that time is frozen & the future is pre-set. that's groundless. this
business is abt fate is passivity. to throw water in the face of your
ground of being could it be that you are floating on the continent of
delusion?
Cybermonk
>
> free: delete other people out of your feeling,
> forget your own control
>
> will: while wish makes good feeling
> continue state by fueling actual feeling
Your "free" section is not clear. I hope you expand it. Your position
might be that of Marvin Minsky, in _The Society of Mind_. He argues that
free will is a deterministic feeling in a deterministic mind, that
deterministically projects forth a sense of freedom, a sense which is an
illusion.
I part ways with conventional determinists by maintaining the future actions
are not caused by the details of past actions, but rather, all actions were
created timelessly all at once in an interlocked or mostly interlocked
pattern. I'm a fatalist or predeterminist. My position is block-universe
determinism.
We have existential, practical freedom, but metaphysical unfreedom. Our
free-in-a-way acts are pre-set and already exist in the future. The future
exists in the same way as the past and is equally fixed. Your current chain
of decision-acts is entirely fixed as well, including the *feeling* of
freedom. You are unable to do anything except that which you are doing in
the past, are doing now, and are doing in the future. The world is a frozen
spacetime block. Your stream of consciousness is a frozen worldline within
the spacetime block.
http://www.egodeath.com -- Rational Ego-Death: The Cybernetic Theory of Ego
Transcendence
RMC
predetermined? This makes NO sense.
"Sir Knowitall"
what they mean with "free" nor with "will". Thus the quality and
pointlessness of the debate.
Although I know why, it never cease to amaze me how "thick" people are!
Chuck Suit
If your argument is correct then we might as well just give up on this whole
civilized society idea. If nothing we do is done because we have the choice
to do it or not, then laws are stupid, rules are stupid, and punishment of
any kind is a moot point. I see no way to even argue with the idea that free
will doesn't exist, because if it deosn't then you have no choice denying it
and I have no choice in believing in it.
Chuck Suit
Via Trailers
Chuck Suit wrote:
I couldnt agree more. Determinism is a pessimists philosophy, due in part to the
notion that both causes outcomes of things are inevitable and unchangable.
Therefore
why should we put an effort into anything if it makes no difference ?. The
second
attack I have against determininsm is that if god does write this script, why
does
it create murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like ?
* in case you were wondering, I use the pronoun it for god because I see no
logical
reason why it should have a certain gender as gender is only necessary for
reproduction.
Ryan
Chuck Suit
I like your ideas. It is refreshing to finally hear from someone with whom I
agree. You've made my day. This happens very rearely!
Take Care,
Chuck Suit,
http://pages.prodigy.net/suit
RogerG
whole
> > civilized society idea. If nothing we do is done because we have the
choice
> > to do it or not, then laws are stupid, rules are stupid, and punishment
of
> > any kind is a moot point. I see no way to even argue with the idea that
free
> > will doesn't exist, because if it deosn't then you have no choice
denying it
> > and I have no choice in believing in it.
> > Chuck Suit
Chuck, ...just because the picture is / may be ugly, is no reason that it
may not be true.
>The second attack I have against determininsm is that if god does write
this script, why
> does it create murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like ?
> Ryan
Ryan, ...good question, but why the attack on determinism? See above
comment.
toby
Chuck Suit wrote in message
<7l6gjm$150k$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>If your argument is correct then we might as well just give up on this
whole
>civilized society idea. If nothing we do is done because we have the choice
>to do it or not, then laws are stupid, rules are stupid, and punishment of
>any kind is a moot point.
Consequentialism: laws, rules, punishment, etc. can shape people's behavoirs
in practical ways. regardless of free will. That's why it's good to have
them.
Plus the pragmatic ramifications have nothing to do with whether or not
something is true.
>I see no way to even argue with the idea that free
>will doesn't exist, because if it deosn't then you have no choice denying
it
>and I have no choice in believing in it.
If I am a determinist I can argue free will doesn't exist because it amuses
me to do so. Whether or not I have any choice in the matter is irrelevant. I
can also wish to change your mind. And I may well change your mind
(irrespective of whether or not you have any choice in that matter).
Cute, innit?
Gary R Welsh
> Determinism is a pessimists philosophy <snip>
You make it sound as if we pick and choose what we want to be true.
Determinism is a view of how the world may be, and is not provable or
disprovable. Most people who are argue from determinism are exploring the
consequences of "what if determinism is true?" No one knows for sure if it
is or isn't. Determinism isn't a plot to make everyone depressed and
apathetic. It's not a doctrine, it's a theory.
> Therefore why should we put an effort into anything if
> it makes no difference ?
There is a difference between "All events are fated to happen" and "All
events are fated to happen _no_matter_what_." Consider Oedipus. We, the
audience, may very well think that Oedipus *could* have avoided his "fate"
prophesized by Apollo. All Oedipus had to do was not *kill* anybody and/or
not marry any woman old enough to be his mother...
> The second attack I have against determininsm
> is that if god does write this script, why does it create murderers,
> rapists, pedophiles and the like ?
Because God creates them no less than He creates saints, heroes and other
paragons of virtue. You can't have good without evil, and every story
needs conflict to drive it along.
"I create both light and darkness;
I bring both blessing and disaster.
I, the LORD, do all these things."
-- Isaiah 45:7
Chuck Suit
Well, I have to disagree. First of all, determinism is nothing more than
consequentialsim. Also, whole point of the judicial system is to prevent
things from happening if at all possible. This purpose is impossible if
determinism is correct. If all things have been determined from day one,
then all criminals are criminals at birth, there is no way to stop crime, so
there is no point to the system. It can be used to house or dispose of those
who do commit the crime, but only after the fact, in that sense then at
least prisons are useful. But again, the fact that we have laws, and rules,
and courts was determined, if the determinists are correct, so there is no
point in arguing that they aren't necessary.
Thanks,
Chuck Suit
http://pages.prodigy.net/suit
Chuck Suit
You are correct in that just because I don't like something or its
consequences doesn't mean that it isn't true. I hate the IRS ,but that
doesn't mean I deny my duty to pay my taxes, atleast not if I want to avoid
being hasseled by them. But, the fact that a point of view flies in the face
of what most people accept and against the very foundation of most beliefs
doesn't make it true either. Sometimes I think that some people say they
believe what they believe not because they truely think it is correct, but
because it makes them different, gives them something to say that most
people will argue with.
toby
Chuck Suit wrote in message
>Well, I have to disagree. First of all, determinism is nothing more than
>consequentialsim. Also, whole point of the judicial system is to prevent
>things from happening if at all possible.
Actually, a great many people would have it serve as a system of revenge,
but I agree that is what it should be used for.
>This purpose is impossible if
>determinism is correct. If all things have been determined from day one,
>then all criminals are criminals at birth, there is no way to stop crime
[snip]
I think you are confusing determinism with fatalsim. Determinism is the
notion that free will does not exist. Therefore, whether or not I eat lunch
today is not under "my control". That doesn't mean I play no part in it. I
have to get out of my seat and walk over to the fridge and get something to
eat. Perhaps that is predetermined, but if it is, it still doesn't mean I
can sit here in my chair and expect food to magically appear because it is
predetermined that I will eat lunch. That is fatalism, and it's silly. True
fatalists die of starvation and other complications very quickly.
In terms of crime prevention, it *does* matter what we do, even under
determinism, because we are part of the chain of causality, or what have
you.
Incidentally, in my opinion, "determinism" is a bit of a misnomer; in the
free will debate it is the position opposite libertarianism, but rejecting
free will doesn't necessitate the belief that everything is "determined".
But even if everything is predetermined, a fatalist attitude is still a
silly thing to have.
RogerG
> You are correct in that just because I don't like something or its
> consequences doesn't mean that it isn't true. I hate the IRS ,but that
avoid
> being hasseled by them. But, the fact that a point of view flies in the
face
> of what most people accept and against the very foundation of most beliefs
> doesn't make it true either.
Agree!
> Sometimes I think that some people say they
> believe what they believe not because they truely think it is correct, but
> because it makes them different, gives them something to say that most
> people will argue with.
Yes, ...and also there are those who set their beliefs based on their
personal hopes / wants / desires.
Chuck Suit
I see your point but if you take determinism to its logical extreme then
every act is determined, even if you get up to go to the fridge. You may
feel that you decided to do that but you didn't. If you wait in your car for
food to "magically appear" that too is determined. Fatalism is silly, but
that is not what I meant to suggest. I am saying that if determinism is
correct, then nothing is ultimately open to choice. If you get up to go to
the fridge to get a snack you are just like a rock that has been dropped
from a house-top. You have no choice but to let the laws of physics take you
where they will. This is my conception of determinism which I reject.
Chuck Suit
>Yes, ...and also there are those who set their beliefs based on their
>personal hopes / wants / desires.
>
>
"what-we-would-like-to-be" view of the world. I don't condemn that because
innovations are made that way. I do however feel that one must be logical
and open to the fact that such a view will probably need alterations as one
gains knowledge and grows in intellect. I and many others like me have
arrived at the beliefs we have not through wishful-thinking, but through
thought. We don't see that logic necessitates certain conclusions that
others assert. We could be wrong, but so could they, and until the day we
can know the "right" answer, that is all we have to go on.
Chuck Suit
How is free-choice unavoidable? Please explain this for me, ok?
Thank ya,
Chuck Suit
http://pages.prodigy.net
Marvin Edwards
[I am saying that if determinism is correct, then nothing is ultimately
open to choice.]
If determinism is correct, then free choice is unavoidable.
Marvin Edwards
[How is free-choice unavoidable? Please explain this for me, ok?]
Free choice is what we see and describe. Determinism is what we deduce
from cause and effect. One cannot "contradict" the other, because each is
logically "true". The paradox arises when one tries to apply determinism
in a situation where it is irrelevant. For example, if a child says that
determinism implies that he had no choice but to steal the cookie, the
parents says that determinism implies that the parent had no choice but to
spank. Determinism is sort of like a constant, which can be removed from
both sides of the equation. It is not that determinism is untrue, but
simply that it is irrelevant and therefore meaningless to human issues such
as morality.
Chuck Suit
I might be a little too dense for that explanation, but from where I am
sitting that doesn't make any sense. Lets define our terms. First free-will:
The human capacity to act (or not to act) as we choose or prefer, without
any external compulsion or restraint. Freedom in this sense is usually
regarded as a presupposition of moral responsibility: the actions for which
I may be praised or blamed, rewarded or punished, are just those which I
perform freely. Now, Determinism: Belief that, since each momentary state of
the world entails all of its future states, it must be possible (in
principle) to offer a causal explanation for everything that happens. When
applied to human behavior, determinism is sometimes supposed to be
incompatible with the freedom required for moral responsibility. The most
extreme variety of determinism in this context is fatalism.
Now, either one is correct or one is wrong or there is somehow a
co-existence, an actual freedom with restraint. These are the only two
possibilities that I can logically see. Now, if you are saying that they
co-exist, you must explain how, but you cannot say that determinism is
simply irrelevant at least if you do you must provide detailed explanation
as to how exactly they relate to eachother.
Marvin Edwards wrote in message <01bec549$b7c6dbe0$0100007f@mbedwards>...
Chuck Suit
For the sake of fairness here is the objection to the "proof" of frre-will I
got at the following address:
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/06259a.htm#prf
Objections
The main objection to this argument is stated in the assertion that we can
be conscious only of what we actually do, not of our ability to do something
else. The reply is that we can be conscious not only of what we do, but of
how we do it; not only of the act but of the mode of the act. Observation
reveals to us that we are subjects of different kinds of processes of
thought and volition. Sometimes the line of conscious activity follows the
direction of spontaneous impulse, the preponderating force of present motive
and desire; at other times we intervene and exert personal causality.
Consciousness testifies that we freely and actively strengthen one set of
motives, resist the stronger inclination, and not only drift to one side but
actively choose it. In fact, we are sure that we sometimes exert free
volition, because at other times we are the subject of conscious activities
that are not free, and we know the difference. Again, it is urged that
experience shows that men are determined by motives, and that we always act
on this assumption. The reply is that experience proves that men are
influenced by motives, but not that they are always inexorably determined by
the strongest motive. It as alleged that we always decide in favour of the
strongest motive. This is either untrue, or the barren statement that we
always choose what we choose. A free volition is "a causeless volition". The
mind itself is the cause. (For other objections see FATALISM; ENERGY, THE
LAW OF THE CONSERVATION OF; and the works referred to at the end of this
article.)
Chuck Suit
http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/06259a.htm#prf
Ethical Argument. It is argued that necessarianism or determinism in any
form is in conflict with the chief moral notions and convictions of mankind
at large. The actual universality of such moral ideas is indisputable. Duty,
moral obligation, responsibility, merit, justice signify notions universally
present in the consciousness of normally developed men. Further, these
notions, as universally understood, imply that man is really master of some
of his acts, that he is, at least at times, capable of self-determination,
that all his volitions are not the inevitable outcome of his circumstances.
When I say that I ought not to have performed some forbidden act, that it
was my duty to obey the law, I imply that I could have done so. The judgment
of all men is the same on this point. When we say that a person is justly
held responsible for a crime, or that he deserves praise or reward for an
heroic act of self-sacrifice, we mean that he was author and cause of that
act in such fashion that he had it in his power not to perform the act. We
exempt the insane or the child, because we believe them devoid of moral
freedom and determined inevitably by the motives which happened to act on
them. So true is this, that determinists have had to admit that the meaning
of these terms will, according to their view, have to be changed. But this
is to admit that their theory is in direct conflict with universal
psychological facts. It thereby stands disproved. Again, it may be urged
that, if logically followed out, the determinist doctrine would annihilate
human morality, consequently that such a theory cannot be true. (See
FATALISM.)
(2) Psychological Argument. Consciousness testifies to our moral freedom. We
feel ourselves to be free when exercising certain acts. We judge afterwards
that we acted freely in those acts. We distinguish them quite clearly from
experiences, in which we believe we were not free or responsible. The
conviction is not confined to the ignorant; even the determinist
psychologist is governed in practical life by this belief. Henry Sidgwick
states the fact in the most moderate terms, when he says:
Certainly in the case of actions in which I have a distinct consciousness of
choosing between alternatives of conduct, one of which I conceive as right
or reasonable, I find it impossible not to think that I can now choose to do
what I so conceive, however strong may be my inclination to act
unreasonably, and however uniformly I may have yielded to such inclinations
in the past (Methods of Ethics).
The force of the evidence is best realized by carefully studying the various
mental activities in which freedom is exercised. Amongst the chief of these
are: voluntary attention, deliberation, choice, sustained resistance to
temptation. The reader will find them analyzed at length by the authors
referred to at the end of this article; or, better still, he can think them
out with concrete examples in his own inner experience.
Marvin Edwards
[I might be a little too dense for that explanation, but from where I am
sitting that doesn't make any sense.]
Don't blame yourself. I often fail to make sense.
[Lets define our terms. First free-will: The human capacity to act (or not
to act) as we choose or prefer, without any external compulsion or
restraint. Freedom in this sense is usually regarded as a presupposition of
moral responsibility: the actions for which I may be praised or blamed,
rewarded or punished, are just those which I perform freely.]
Works for me. You write very good definitions. I would add that a point of
responsibility need not always be subject to reward or punishment in order
to be subject to correction. A person can make a mistake that causes harm,
through ignorance, and the only correction needed might be education,
rather than praise or blame per se. But's that's off topic.
[Now, Determinism: Belief that, since each momentary state of the world
entails all of its future states, it must be possible (in principle) to
offer a causal explanation for everything that happens.]
So far so good.
[When applied to human behavior ... ]
That's where the error occurs. But let's continue ...
[... determinism is sometimes supposed to be incompatible with the freedom
required for moral responsibility. The most extreme variety of determinism
in this context is fatalism.]
Fatalism would be a mis-application of determism to human behavior. The
assumption that determinism implies that human initiative is somehow
fruitless, is not correctly derived from determinism. It is a flaw in
thinking. Determinism does not mean that events will take care of
themselves. To the contrary, cause and effect imply that our actions have
results, consequences. The fact that our choices are made from what we come
with, in conjunction with what we are presented with, does not remove the
choices from us or the consequences of our choices. And the fact that one
could theoretically predict our choices, does not make our choices
disappear or become unreal in any way.
Charles Francis
<m...@cstone.net> writes
>Chuck Suit <chuck...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>[How is free-choice unavoidable? Please explain this for me, ok?]
>
>Free choice is what we see and describe. Determinism is what we deduce
>from cause and effect. One cannot "contradict" the other, because each is
>logically "true". The paradox arises when one tries to apply determinism
>in a situation where it is irrelevant. For example, if a child says that
>determinism implies that he had no choice but to steal the cookie, the
>parents says that determinism implies that the parent had no choice but to
>spank. Determinism is sort of like a constant, which can be removed from
>both sides of the equation. It is not that determinism is untrue, but
>simply that it is irrelevant and therefore meaningless to human issues such
>as morality.
>
Determinism must apply if the child's behaviour is subject to the laws
of physics and if the laws of physics are deterministic. The child's
choice to steal the cookie is determined by the precise configuration of
thought pattern's, which is determined entirely by past events. The
appearance of free will would then be only an illusion caused by the
fact that we do not know the precise detail of all the determining
factors.
In fact the fundamental laws of physics are not deterministic. The past
and future influence but do not determine each other. On the other hand
the standard model of physics describes a four dimensional universe in
which time appears like a space dimension. A universe, past, present and
future all existing in a single conception. That could be a fatalist
conception, and we cannot say it is silly if it might well be true.
What we do not know is the affect of these fundamental laws on human
consciousness and behaviour (or indeed vice versa). Most events we
observe are statistically determined. We do not know how that impacts on
the working of the mind. If, as has been suggested, our thought patterns
are spread across regions of the brain, then they are likely to be
statistically determined. But consciousness itself does not appear to me
to possible under the known laws of physics. If the light of
consciousness can modify our thought away from that which we
automatically think as a result of our birth and experience, then that
must be free will.
--
Charles Francis
NewsMan
only YOUR perception of it. If you were to give up on laws and rules and
such it would be YOUR decision (predetermined or not). The fact is, if Cyber
is correct then nothing changes. I am still me, you are still you, and
everything else is still it's self.
Something you may be interested in:
If we take the location of a planet, say Jupiter, in any 2 points of time we
can figure out every place Jupiter has ever been and will be (barring any
non current outside forces).
While I know it is impossible, let us pretend that we could take the state
of the entire universe, down to the last quark, at any 2 points in time, we
would then be able to tell everywhere the universe (relative to it's self)
has been and will be down to the last quark. This includes all the particles
that make you! In other words your actions would be, and quite possibly
could be, predetermined by the laws of physics.
However, there is no way to measure, so accurately, the state of the
universe and therefore no way to determine predetermination.
Chuck Suit <chuck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7l6gjm$150k$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Hi Cyber,
> If your argument is correct then we might as well just give up on this
whole
> civilized society idea. If nothing we do is done because we have the
choice
> to do it or not, then laws are stupid, rules are stupid, and punishment of
> any kind is a moot point. I see no way to even argue with the idea that
free
> will doesn't exist, because if it deosn't then you have no choice denying
it
> and I have no choice in believing in it.
> Chuck Suit
>
>
Chuck Suit
Your point is well taken.
Charles Francis
disks.com> writes
>While I know it is impossible, let us pretend that we could take the state
>of the entire universe, down to the last quark, at any 2 points in time, we
>would then be able to tell everywhere the universe (relative to it's self)
>has been and will be down to the last quark. This includes all the particles
>that make you! In other words your actions would be, and quite possibly
>could be, predetermined by the laws of physics.
>
>However, there is no way to measure, so accurately, the state of the
>universe and therefore no way to determine predetermination.
>
is not justified. Indeterminism in quantum mechanics is not simply down
to lack of knowledge of the current state. The current state actually
does not determine the past or future.
--
Charles Francis
Gary R Welsh
> Indeterminism in quantum mechanics is not simply down
> to lack of knowledge of the current state.
Sure it is. It is about the limits on observability/measurability, which
creates a lack of knowledge of the current state.
If I'm wrong about this, please enlighten me.
jeff
You are wrong about that. Read some Feynman on the subject or Gribben.
jeff
Robert J. Kolker
jeff wrote:
Yes and no. If you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM then
the uncertainty is intrinsic to the objects.
If you accept the Bohm-DeBroglie version of the theory, you have
a deterministic ontology. I.E. particles exists, waves exist and particles
have definite positions and velocities. However measurements are
uncertain about the initial states, hence the Heisenbreg Indeterminacy
Principle holds in the mathematical sense.
The only drawback to Bohm-DeDebroglie theory (which makes exactly
the same predictions in the non relativistic case as the Copenhagen
version) is that is is non local from the git-go. And there is no relativistic
version of it (yet).
There is yet another version of QM put forth by Lewis Little, the theory
of elementary waves. It too, is deterministic, but it is also local but
it claims to account for the Bell- Aspect type of experiments.
Bob Kolker
jeff
Check out the article at this site and the magazine it refers to.
www.eurekalert.org/releases/obsaffect-reality.html
jeff
Charles Francis
<bobk...@usa.net> writes
physical theory and can comfortably be discounted.
There are two aspects here. One is that lack of knowledge of the current
state is a feature of any mathematical description. The second is that
the quantities of position which we use to describe the world, is
defined empirically in the process of measurement. Thus when it cannot
be measured, directly or indirectly, position does not exist as a
definite quantity. Thus uncertainty in quantum mechanics does not obey
classical probability theory, which pertains to a random variable - ie a
definite, but unknown value.
Truth values can be assigned to possible outcomes of measurement of
position and used to classify physical states. This should be understood
as a simple mathematical device, not a description of reality. It can be
shown that these truth values evolve in time according to the laws of
wave mechanics. This is a simple mathematical coincidence, and does not
suggest that there is any ontological wave.
The consequence of this is that the laws of quantum mechanics are the
expected laws of a physical system consisting of point-like particles
and in which space time co-ordinates are a relationship generated solely
by the interactions between particles. We can interpret this as a form
of Democritus notion of atoms in the void, if the void is interpreted as
an absence of any background whatsoever. It turns out that photon
exchange is responsible both for the electromagnetic force (as is shown
by quantum electrodynamics) and also for the space-time metric, as is
shown by analysing the radar method of measuring distance. It is
relatively easy to show curvature according to the laws of general
relativity applies to a metric generated by photon exchange.
The ontological structure may be imagined evolving in time as a web or
network, in which each strand represents the time line of a particle,
provided it is recognised that the space between the strands has no
meaning.
Then the laws of quantum mechanics show random connections in this web.
The past and future are related by the strands in the web, but the
behaviour of the web is not determined.
I have some papers on this
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
An Interpretation of Quantum Logic
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
The Fabric of Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906060
The Fabric of Space-time II: Gravity by Photon Exchange
--
Charles Francis
Chuck Suit
I am not a physicist but based on what I have read it does seem that modern
physics is laying the foundation for a scientific defense of free-will.
Thanks
Chuck Suit
http://pages.prodigy.net/suit
robmarks
NewsMan <Spa...@used-disks.com> wrote in message
news:Sbvg3.3213$XQ1...@news4.atl...
> If Cyber's argument is correct then so what? Nothing about reality
changes,
> only YOUR perception of it. If you were to give up on laws and rules and
> such it would be YOUR decision (predetermined or not). The fact is, if
Cyber
> is correct then nothing changes. I am still me, you are still you, and
> everything else is still it's self.
>
> Something you may be interested in:
>
> If we take the location of a planet, say Jupiter, in any 2 points of time
we
> can figure out every place Jupiter has ever been and will be (barring any
> non current outside forces).
>
> of the entire universe, down to the last quark, at any 2 points in time,
we
> would then be able to tell everywhere the universe (relative to it's self)
> has been and will be down to the last quark. This includes all the
particles
> that make you! In other words your actions would be, and quite possibly
> could be, predetermined by the laws of physics.
>
> However, there is no way to measure, so accurately, the state of the
> universe and therefore no way to determine predetermination.
>
>
> news:7l6gjm$150k$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> > Hi Cyber,
> > If your argument is correct then we might as well just give up on this
> whole
> > civilized society idea. If nothing we do is done because we have the
> choice
> > to do it or not, then laws are stupid, rules are stupid, and punishment
of
> > any kind is a moot point. I see no way to even argue with the idea that
> free
> > will doesn't exist, because if it deosn't then you have no choice
denying
> it
> > and I have no choice in believing in it.
> > Chuck Suit
> >
Hello Chuck,
I think that most people would agree that 'free will' does exist. I for one
feel compelled to argue for it - freedom of choice being a fundamental
component of my (& everybodies) very existence.
However, your comments seem to miss the point. Yes, laws and punishments
etc, would be pointless if there was no such thing as free will. But this
does not constitute an arguement against 'determinism'. Rather, if
determinism is true, the implementation of laws etc, merely shows how much
humanity, hitherto, has been misguided in its analysis of its own existence.
Additionally, you claim that if free will does not exist then you have no
choice to deny it, or believe in it. However, this point is irrelevant. You
might think that you have a choice to make, i.e. to believe in free will or
not, but the fact is that there is no way of telling whether you could of
made a different choice.
Put another way, if you choose 'A' instead of 'B', there is no way in which
you could put yourself back in that position and then make an alternative
choice - this being a practical immpossibility. Hence, when we 'supposedly'
make a choice, there is no way of veryfiying whether we could have made a
different choice. There would be no point in performing the choice again at
a later time, as this would constitute a different situation, with a
different set of circumstances.
Therefore, your comments are invald. We as humans may believe we have
freedom of choice, but there is no way of really knowing this to be true.
Rob Marks
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Ken Hall wrote in message
>
>In case my message didn't make it clear, I don't believe free will to
>be possible.
assuming determinism...
jean paul sartre and other contemporary philosophers have argued that
determinism is controverted by introspection, which reveals actions to be the
result of our own choices and not necessitated by previous events or external
factors.
sometimes i see that sartre is correct and other times i feel he is wrong...
>Ken
Chuck Suit
The point I was making is that if determinism is correct, then the initial
condition of the universe, when it began is all that one needs inorder to
successfully predict EVERYTING that will happen. Now, from what I have
read/heard/and seen on this NG this is exactly what determinism is.
Semantics aside, I don't see the problem with what I said.Ken Hall wrote in message <37871899...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Thu, 1 Jul 1999 20:27:07 -0700, "Chuck Suit"
><chuck...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>. . if determinism is correct. If all things have been determined from day
one, . .
>
>From this it sounds like you have an incorrect definition of
>determinism. Determinism does not mean everything was "determined
>from day one." Events/actions are unfolding in the immediate,
>determined by preexisting causes.
>
>From the Britannica:
>Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events, including moral
>choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes that
>preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have acted
>otherwise.
>
>Predestination means everything was set at day one. The outcome may,
>or may not, be the same but, the process is different.
>
>In case my message didn't make it clear, I don't believe free will to
>be possible.
>
Robert J. Kolker
Chuck Suit wrote:
> Hi Ken
> The point I was making is that if determinism is correct, then the initial
> condition of the universe, when it began is all that one needs inorder to
> successfully predict EVERYTING that will happen.
Prediction is an act performed by a conscious entity. Prediction is
limited by mental capacity, whereas causation is what happens
whether effects can be predicted or not.
The initial state of the universe is the bed rock of causation. All
subsequent states flow from the initial state in a deterministic
fashion whether or not we can predict such state. That is the
case IF there is deterministic causality. The logical alternative
to deterministic causality is inherent non determinism which
is NOT related to our state of ignorance about the world, but
is part and parcel of what is.
The question of whether deterministic causality is how the
universe works, in inherent non determinism is an open
question and probably will never be definitely answered
by humans, because our brains are too small. The only
way we could possibly answer the question is if our
brains * were * the Universe (which they are not). Our
brains weigh 3 pounds and the Universe weighs a great
deal more.
Bob Kolker
Lee Dillion
> The initial state of the universe is the bed rock of causation. All
> subsequent states flow from the initial state in a deterministic
> fashion whether or not we can predict such state. That is the
> case IF there is deterministic causality. The logical alternative
> to deterministic causality is inherent non determinism which
> is NOT related to our state of ignorance about the world, but
> is part and parcel of what is.
One logical alternative to deterministic causality is inherent non
determinism. There are other alternatives, including the alternative of
rejecting any view that posits causation as inherently existent,
inherently not existent, both, ot neither.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Marvin Edwards
[From the Britannica: Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events,
including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing
causes that preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have
acted otherwise.]
Oh. If that is the definition of determinism then determinism would be
incorrect. The flaw is in assuming that inevitability cannot coexist with
free will. It can. All choices do flow from cause and effect to an
inevitable outcome. However, we know that this does not eliminate free
will. We can observe and describe both free choice and causation.
Therefore we know both exist. So one must presume the flaw is in the
deduction from one that the other cannot exist. That deduction must be
incorrect.
Robert J. Kolker
Marvin Edwards wrote:
>
> Oh. If that is the definition of determinism then determinism would be
> incorrect. The flaw is in assuming that inevitability cannot coexist with
> free will.
Has it occurred to you that free will might be an illusion or a
delusion? We think we have free will but do we really
have free will? Deterministic causality cannot coexist with
free will.
Bob Kolker
Marvin Edwards
[Has it occurred to you that free will might be an illusion or a delusion?]
Has it occurred to you that the concept of free will as a delusion might
itself be a delusion?
[We think we have free will but do we really have free will?]
I think, therefore I am. I think I have free will, therefore I have free
will.
[Deterministic causality cannot coexist with free will.]
Apparently (from the Britanica quote) only to advocates of determinism. As
far as I'm concerned, both deterministic causality and free will are true.
The resolution is that my experience of free will is inevitable. Free will
is no more a delusion than my considering it a delusion is a delusion. Can
we get these mirrors aligned better?
Chuck Suit
I agree with you, the question of free-will vs. determinism will probably
never be answerered (never say never :>) but that is not the point. We can
still treat the question as though it were answerable. My point is that
whether or not we can know, we can argue from a dialectic process. If the
universe is deterministic TOTALLY then there is no such thing as free-will,
maybe an illusion of such, but that is not the point. Either we are free or
we are not, either we have true choice or we do not, regardless of what we
think, one is true one is false.
Chuck Suit
Actually I do not think that they can coexist. The ideas are diametrically
(sp?) opposed. A rock cannot choose to fall, if it does it has no choice in
the manner. We either can choose, or we are determined. Maybe consciousness
complicates things so that those things that are conscious can choose
because this penomenon is a variable that changes the situation, maybe but I
am not "smart" enough to figure that one out, but on the surface, the ideas
are not compatable, just like there is no God and the there is a God cannot
both be correct.Marvin Edwards wrote in message <01becbc8$3ecd6b20$0100007f@mbedwards>...
>Chuck Suit <chuck...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>[From the Britannica: Determinism, in philosophy, theory that all events,
>including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing
>causes that preclude free will and the possibility that humans could have
>acted otherwise.]
>
Marvin Edwards
[The ideas are diametrically (sp?) opposed.]
That doesn't seem to prevent them from both being true.
[We either can choose, or we are determined.]
Or, our choosing is determined.
[Maybe consciousness complicates things so that those things that are
conscious can choose because this penomenon is a variable that changes the
situation ...]
What thought is not caused?
Dapplegrim
Chuck Suit wrote in message
<7maaeg$243q$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Hi Ken
>The point I was making is that if determinism is correct, then the initial
>condition of the universe, when it began is all that one needs inorder to
>read/heard/and seen on this NG this is exactly what determinism is.
>Semantics aside, I don't see the problem with what I said.
>Thanks,
>Chuck Suit
Hi Chuck,
I have to disagree with you here.
Prediction implies that one can know in advance of an event that it is going
to happen.
Take a simple example first: Stirring a cup of tea. Supposing, for
argument's sake, that you could determine the exact initial conditions of
the cup of tea: the position of every molecule, the atomic constitution of
each molecule etc etc and all the relevant forces etc etc plus all the data
of the spoon and its motion etc etc and you had all the computing power of
all the computers in the world at your disposal, do you think that you would
be able to calculate the pattern of bubbles on the surface before they
actually appear? In other words, is all your knowledge of the initial state
plus computing power able to calculate the outcome of the bubbles on the
cup of tea faster than the cup of tea itself can? I think not.
Moving on now to the entire universe. Even if you could know the exact
condition of the initial universe, where and how could you find a computer
that could do the calculations fast enough to predict any future state of
the universe? Not within this universe.
So I suggest that it is NOT possible to predict the exact outcome of the
universe.
In this respect the universe can be likened to one huge computer
persistently calculating its own future, which simultaneously becomes the
present.
Moving on to questions about determinism and free will. While we can be
confident that the universe is unpredictable, I suspect that whether it is
determined or not is a meaningless question since we are unable to do any
experiments that might be able to answer that question. So also with free
will, it is an irrelevant question.
The important question is whether we BELIEVE that we have free will (and
whether we believe that others have free will.). (How does a belief in free
will affect our decisions?)
I certainly believe that I have free will and that others do too.
Dapplegrim.