Who Determines the Authority of Moral Standards?

[Mentat]

Just a, possibly-interesting, thought:

If there is a being that chooses what is right and wrong, then what tells all the other beings that they must obey this being's standards?

The being Itself can't tell us that, since we would have to assume that the being knows whether it is right or wrong to listen to It, and this assumption would preclude the necessity for It to tell us ITFP.

IOW, if one being chooses the all the standards of right and wrong, then who chooses that it is "right" to obey these standards. If it is the being Itself that chooses that it is "right" to obey It, then what causes us to obey that it is right to obey It? If it is again It that chooses this, then what causes us to obey that it is right to obey that it is right to obey It?

Do you see what I'm getting at, or have I made this completely incomprehensible?

Any response is appreciated .

 

[Mentat]

BTW, my own personal opinion is that, if this were the case, we would have to choose whether to submit to Its rules, after which every other decision about "right and wrong" would be up to It.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Is this a version of Socrates' Euthyphro argument?

Either the commands of the gods are necessary or they are not.

If they are necessary, then the gods had no choice but to issue them, and why should we obey such limited beings?

If they are not necessary then the gods might have issued other commands, but chose to issue these. And why should we obey such arbitrary beings?

 

[Dayle Record]

Right and Wrong and Rulers

We were in the tree, or under it. We had a banana, and wanted to eat. We didn't want the jaguar to bite us, or the bigger human take the banana. Our parents were occasionally lost, we were without protectors. The fear of these pains and losses, pushed us to create paternal and maternal deity. This fear caused us to stay in groups where some order let us nurse long enough, and let us have the fruit of the tribe. We wanted more, we were afraid of the weather. Finally our fears begat our masters. Now even though we are able to look deep into the universe, and watch it's processes, and notice the incomprehensible size of it, and the possibility that there is even much more we don't sense. We are the fleas on the back of the sleeping dog, that is the universe. Just take what you need, I wouldn't want to wake it up.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Is this a version of Socrates' Euthyphro argument?

Either the commands of the gods are necessary or they are not.

If they are necessary, then the gods had no choice but to issue them, and why should we obey such limited beings?

If they are not necessary then the gods might have issued other commands, but chose to issue these. And why should we obey such arbitrary beings?

I'd never heard of this before...but it does seem to fit .

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dayle Record
We were in the tree, or under it. We had a banana, and wanted to eat. We didn't want the jaguar to bite us, or the bigger human take the banana. Our parents were occasionally lost, we were without protectors. The fear of these pains and losses, pushed us to create paternal and maternal deity. This fear caused us to stay in groups where some order let us nurse long enough, and let us have the fruit of the tribe. We wanted more, we were afraid of the weather. Finally our fears begat our masters. Now even though we are able to look deep into the universe, and watch it's processes, and notice the incomprehensible size of it, and the possibility that there is even much more we don't sense. We are the fleas on the back of the sleeping dog, that is the universe. Just take what you need, I wouldn't want to wake it up.

Very interesting bit of musing there, Dayle. And welcome to the PFs.

 

[photon]

Would it help to define "right' as: Beneficial to the the most beneficial cause in the long run?
[?]

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by photon
Would it help to define "right' as: Beneficial to the the most beneficial cause in the long run?
[?]

I don't think so. If "right" were defined thus, then what would make this the "right" definition?

 

[Sikz]

I don't think so. If "right" were defined thus, then what would make this the "right" definition?

I think we're starting to mix up moral "right and wrong" and logical "correct and incorrect (also sometimes called right and wrong)". Heh.

If one being chooses right and wrong, isn't the definition of right "What the Chooser says is right"? If that is not the definition of right, then the Chooser must be in the wrong to try and choose what is right despite the real definition. If the Chooser is doing something wrong, obviously what It says is right is irrelevant.

So if there is one being that chooses right and wrong, either we accept what it says because accepting it is "right" by definition, or we accept nothing that it says because it is actually doing something wrong itself- and how can an imperfect being choose what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Sikz
I think we're starting to mix up moral "right and wrong" and logical "correct and incorrect (also sometimes called right and wrong)". Heh.

If one being chooses right and wrong, isn't the definition of right "What the Chooser says is right"?

That's what you'd think, isn't it? And yet, that cannot apply in all cases, since that Chooser cannot choose that it is right to let Him choose what is right, can He? That's the point of the thread, if the Chooser were to choose that He has the right to choose, then who gave Him the right to make that decision for us ITFP?

and how can an imperfect being choose what is right and what is wrong?

It's simple to choose what's right and wrong, you just might not choose correctly .

 

[Sikz]

I think you took those excerpts a little bit out of context...

and how can an imperfect being choose what is right and what is wrong?

That was meant as "how can an imperfect being DEFINE what is right and what is wrong?"

If one being chooses right and wrong, isn't the definition of right "What the Chooser says is right"?

That's what you'd think, isn't it? And yet, that cannot apply in all cases, since that Chooser cannot choose that it is right to let Him choose what is right, can He? That's the point of the thread, if the Chooser were to choose that He has the right to choose, then who gave Him the right to make that decision for us ITFP?

I went on "If that is not the definition...". If you think about it, the definition CAN'T be "What the Chooser says is right", for the very reason you described. This whole concept of Chooser is riddled with paradoxes, I think the idea is incorrect (for that reason, heh)...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Sikz
I went on "If that is not the definition...". If you think about it, the definition CAN'T be "What the Chooser says is right", for the very reason you described. This whole concept of Chooser is riddled with paradoxes, I think the idea is incorrect (for that reason, heh)...

Well, the fact remains that there could be a perfect being, capable of deciding right and wrong for us, on all occasion except for the occasion of choosing whether to listen to It or not.

 

[Sikz]

Well, the fact remains that there could be a perfect being, capable of deciding right and wrong for us, on all occasion except for the occasion of choosing whether to listen to It or not.

That can be rephrased to "Well, the fact remains that there could be a perfect being, capable of either deciding all right and wrong or no right and wrong, depending on if we listen to it or not." Hmm... Why do you use the word "perfect" in your sentence? What makes you think that this being would be "perfect"? If it was perfect, wouldn't it have perfect power, and thus we would not have the choice of whether or not to listen to it? And what defines perfect? The same being?

You are correct, the fact does remain that such a possibility exists. It is, however, riddled with paradoxes (as I have already said). The possibility also exists that a giant frog is in the center of the galaxy grabbing stars with his tongue, and thus the movement of the stars produces gravitational effects similar to that of a black hole. The possibility exists, but it is riddled with paradoxes.

What you are really asking in this thread is "If things have definitions, what defines the definitions?" You are trying to find, in essence, a proof for the validity of proofs- and I'm afraid it doesn't exist.

 

[mikelus]

the chooser still has to make his right and wrongs. How does he form them? who does he take them from? Does he want to destroy his world or does he want to take care of them?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Sikz
That can be rephrased to "Well, the fact remains that there could be a perfect being, capable of either deciding all right and wrong or no right and wrong, depending on if we listen to it or not."

Indeed, but It cannot decide whether we should listen or not...that's kind of the whole point of the thread.

Hmm... Why do you use the word "perfect" in your sentence?

Because you used it in yours. I have no use for it, but, since you used it, I assumed you thought it to be an important distinction.

What makes you think that this being would be "perfect"? If it was perfect, wouldn't it have perfect power, and thus we would not have the choice of whether or not to listen to it? And what defines perfect? The same being?

Exactly, these are the paradoxes when one removes the personal choice of the individual.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by mikelus
the chooser still has to make his right and wrongs.

Right...

How does he form them?

What do you mean?

who does he take them from?

Preferably from him/herself, since s/he wouldn't really be making the choice, if s/he gathered it from someone else.

Does he want to destroy his world or does he want to take care of them?

Depends on the chooser.

 

[tA]

(Alright, being new here, I've taken the liberty of reading the thread in it's entirety, adding pieces of input here and there hoping I've understood it correctly.)

Originally posted by Mentat
If there is a being that chooses what is right and wrong, then what tells all the other beings that they must obey this being's standards?

Basically the other beings need to be in accord with this being, be it common morals (on an interpersonal level) or common axioms (on a more global/cosmic level) or anything inbetween the two extremes.

Originally posted by Sikz
I think we're starting to mix up moral "right and wrong" and logical "correct and incorrect (also sometimes called right and wrong)". Heh.

Maybe values are not that far from the rules of the universe?! But that's another thread isn't it...

Originally posted by Mentat
If it is again It that chooses this, then what causes us to obey that it is right to obey that it is right to obey It?

Trying to fix this by logic. (Haven't used logic in ages though so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Chosing the being to be right basically makes it right. IE as in a logical proof, where
A->B
B->C
C->D
As long as A is true, we're cool. If A isn't true, that is if the being doesn't know what's right or wrong, it may or may not still be valid to obey it. Simply considering there may be other factors whether or not to obey it, eg whether a given behavior will get you to heaven or not. However, if any stage of obeying to obey is false, we can deduce that it also doesn't know that's right or wrong either. This all incidentally leading me to the same conclusion as yourself. The Being may or not be right. But in our little world, all that matters is our choose of submission or not submission in terms of validating the choices of the Being.

Originally posted by SelfAdjoint
If they are necessary, then the gods had no choice but to issue them, and why should we obey such limited beings?

(definately enjoyed that!)
Have to argue with everything though...
There is perhaps a choice that is not necessary, but not arbitrary. One that could be replaced by another, but is initself a better choice. It is then in fact necessary in fact, but maybe not for us small humans to frown upon, us we are unlikely to see the best choice in every situation as any pressumed gods may.
Or maybe a perfect being makes choices of right and wrong in a way that we also naturally agree and approve of them?!

Originally posted by mikelus
the chooser still has to make his right and wrongs. How does he form them? who does he take them from? Does he want to destroy his world or does he want to take care of them?

Can we really hope to understand something that much greater than ourselves without bringing it down to our level. Would be heaps of fun...=)

(Phew! )

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by tA
(Alright, being new here, I've taken the liberty of reading the thread in it's entirety, adding pieces of input here and there hoping I've understood it correctly.)

Basically the other beings need to be in accord with this being, be it common morals (on an interpersonal level) or common axioms (on a more global/cosmic level) or anything inbetween the two extremes.

I agree.

Maybe values are not that far from the rules of the universe?! But that's another thread isn't it...

Perhaps you should start a thread like that.

Trying to fix this by logic. (Haven't used logic in ages though so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Chosing the being to be right basically makes it right. IE as in a logical proof, where
A->B
B->C
C->D
As long as A is true, we're cool. If A isn't true, that is if the being doesn't know what's right or wrong, it may or may not still be valid to obey it. Simply considering there may be other factors whether or not to obey it, eg whether a given behavior will get you to heaven or not. However, if any stage of obeying to obey is false, we can deduce that it also doesn't know that's right or wrong either. This all incidentally leading me to the same conclusion as yourself. The Being may or not be right. But in our little world, all that matters is our choose of submission or not submission in terms of validating the choices of the Being.


(definately enjoyed that!)

Welcome to the PFs, tA.

Have to argue with everything though...
There is perhaps a choice that is not necessary, but not arbitrary. One that could be replaced by another, but is initself a better choice. It is then in fact necessary in fact, but maybe not for us small humans to frown upon, us we are unlikely to see the best choice in every situation as any pressumed gods may.
Or maybe a perfect being makes choices of right and wrong in a way that we also naturally agree and approve of them?!

Not sure I understand what you are getting at. Could you re-phrase please?

Also, why is it that you refer to humans as "small" (just a question)?

 

[tA]

Originally posted by tA
Have to argue with everything though...
There is perhaps a choice that is not necessary, but not arbitrary. One that could be replaced by another, but is initself a better choice. It is then in fact necessary in fact, but maybe not for us small humans to frown upon, us we are unlikely to see the best choice in every situation as any pressumed gods may. Or maybe a perfect being makes choices of right and wrong in a way that we also naturally agree and approve of them?!

Originally posted by Mentat
Not sure I understand what you are getting at. Could you re-phrase please?

Also, why is it that you refer to humans as "small" (just a question)?

Mentat, thank you for the warm welcome.
Not sure I would have understood that if I didn't already know what I was getting at either. Let's see if I can clarify...

I agree that Socrate's Euthyphro argument supplies an answer to the question to whether or not we should obey a being that creates the rules. However I disagree with the initial assumption, and hence also with the conclusions.
Here's the argument again:

Originally posted by SelfAdjoint
Is this a version of Socrates' Euthyphro argument?

Either the commands of the gods are necessary or they are not.

If they are necessary, then the gods had no choice but to issue them, and why should we obey such limited beings?

If they are not necessary then the gods might have issued other commands, but chose to issue these. And why should we obey such arbitrary beings?

It basically boils down to how we define necessity. The classical example of an arbitrary choice is vanilla or chocolate icecream right? In most cases we need chose neither one nor the other (excluding allergies and the like for arguments sake), it's not a necessary choice in our eyes. But...I might hold a very strong preference for chocolate because it pumps me full of endorphins...(or a better choice might be vanilla because a chronically high level of endorphins supresses the immune system and is likely to cause cancer.) It's not a necessary choice, only in some ways a better one.
Why wouldn't a Being we assume has the power to make rules also know what is a better choice on a grander scale.
We may of course argue that this Being is 'aware' of all factors, and can make calculations that we cannot. This might even end with the better choice(s) being the necessary choice as well. (Assuming this Being wants/needs to make the best possible choice?) But can we not then give this Being credit for knowing more than ourselves, and follow their lead in terms of right and wrong?

So the reason I call humans small, is that what they are just so in comparison to such a Being and the greater cosmos. If we assume that the Being is just as fallible as ourselves, it is of course a lot easier to distrust its judgement. So even if I am the center of my world and decide what rules I live by, it's hard to ignore that I'm not the one running the show. Not completely at any rate (if at all)...but who knows what rules really are in function, and if we are capable of comprehending them all?...
------------------------------------
Having said that, this post doesn't answer whether or not to follow a lead of a Being that doesn't know all the rules. Or at any rate a Being, whos rule comprehension we can't estimate or judge.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by tA
I agree that Socrate's Euthyphro argument supplies an answer to the question to whether or not we should obey a being that creates the rules. However I disagree with the initial assumption, and hence also with the conclusions.

First you said you agreed with his argument, then you said you disagreed with both his premises and his conclusions...how is this possible ?

It basically boils down to how we define necessity. The classical example of an arbitrary choice is vanilla or chocolate icecream right? In most cases we need chose neither one nor the other (excluding allergies and the like for arguments sake), it's not a necessary choice in our eyes. But...I might hold a very strong preference for chocolate because it pumps me full of endorphins...(or a better choice might be vanilla because a chronically high level of endorphins supresses the immune system and is likely to cause cancer.) It's not a necessary choice, only in some ways a better one.
Why wouldn't a Being we assume has the power to make rules also know what is a better choice on a grander scale.

It might know what is "better" on a grander scale, but It cannot know if it is "better" to listen to It, ITFP.

We may of course argue that this Being is 'aware' of all factors, and can make calculations that we cannot. This might even end with the better choice(s) being the necessary choice as well. (Assuming this Being wants/needs to make the best possible choice?) But can we not then give this Being credit for knowing more than ourselves, and follow their lead in terms of right and wrong?

Sure, It may know more than we do, but that is merely a limiting factor in our own choice to serve It.

 

[tA]

Originally posted by Mentat
First you said you agreed with his argument, then you said you disagreed with both his premises and his conclusions...how is this possible ?

I agreed his argument was logically correct and relevant to the question. I do however disagree with his premises and hence also his conclusions.

Originally posted by Mentat
It might know what is "better" on a grander scale, but It cannot know if it is "better" to listen to It, ITFP.

Please explain the abbreviaton ITFP? (it's the point of the forum?! )It may however know (believe?!) it is the biggest fish in the pond. But as long as _we_ don't _know_ it, and we probably can't, It still can't define for us that It is right for us to obey It.

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, It may know more than we do, but that is merely a limiting factor in our own choice to serve It.

Not completely sure what you're aiming at. Are we getting back into the fact that as soon as it gets beyond our grasp as a whole, the question of whether to obey falls with it? Please elaborate?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Just a, possibly-interesting, thought:

If there is a being that chooses what is right and wrong, then what tells all the other beings that they must obey this being's standards?

First off, if there WERE One Being who has DECIDED what is "right" and "wrong" -- and had "dominion over all" -- then It would merit the capitalization of any reference to It. Otherwise, as a "being" myself -- and one who decides for MYSELF what is "right" and "wrong" but does not have "dominion over others" -- then the lower case with which you started this thread would be OK.

So, first I must ask whether we are talking about a One Being or a one being who has DECIDED (not "chosen" because there would be no "choice" if "right" and "wrong" were absolute) what is "right" and "wrong".

I will assume -- unless you tell me otherwise -- that we are speaking of One Being who, when S/He/It "created the Universe", already knew that It was going to "create man" and would have this set of "rules" ready for "man" ...to break ...almost immediately.

Of course, there are other paradigms that would have the Universe Itself as an evolving Entity Who does NOT have "rules" but, rather, has an INHERENT PROCESS we have noticed and have called CAUSE & EFFECT. With THIS process in place, "man" MIGHT -- over time -- be able to ascertain for him and her self what "works" and what DOESN'T work with regard to our treatment of one another (for starters).

The being Itself can't tell us that, since we would have to assume that the being knows whether it is right or wrong to listen to It, and this assumption would preclude the necessity for It to tell us ITFP.

I don't understand your logic here. You seem to be saying -- in fact, you specifically say -- that the Being would know "whether it is right or wrong to listen to It". Well, if the Being has decided that one of the "rules" is that "we" should listen to and abide by the rules -- and if this Being had, in fact, gotten the rules RIGHT ITFP(an important "if")and had found a way to get the rules TO us, and had the power to "punish us" if we didn't follow them, then it would seem that, yes, we would be obliged to learn and play by the rules.

OTOH, having "created us" and bestowing on us "free will" AND "bad judgement" peppered with temptations of the flesh and of the spirit, then this Being has set up a situation whereby we all must trip and fall on a daily basis. For Someone so interested in "rules" ...does this sound "fair" to YOU?

OTOH, cause & effect served the purpose of determining what works and what doesn't and seems to be more in keeping with what we OBSERVE about almost -- if not ABSOLUTELY -- EVERYTHING: the PROCESS of EVOLUTION in ACTION. This would, of course, include SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION ...as well as the evolution of the Being Itself.

IOW, if one being chooses the all the standards of right and wrong, then who chooses that it is "right" to obey these standards. If it is the being Itself that chooses that it is "right" to obey It, then what causes us to obey that it is right to obey It? If it is again It that chooses this, then what causes us to obey that it is right to obey that it is right to obey It?

If the Being has communicated the rules to us, and we come to AGREE that these are GOOD rules to live by, then we, exercising our FREE WILL, can choose to live by these rules as much as humanly possible. This, however, would NOT be a matter of "obeying" but of "choosing" how to be. Remember, some of us on the planet never HEARD OF the rules of which you may be speaking, and yet manage to live good lives while others know the rules by heart, yet do not live them. Anyway, I would think that such a Being would better appreciate an "underling" seeing the truth of something and applying it, rather than obeying the rules without thought.

Plus, the problem with "rules" is that -- here on Earth -- there is always somebody telling us that this rule or that rule applies and must be obeyed which, in fact, is probably BREAKING a rule somewhere having to do with the free will that was granted us ITFP.

Do you see what I'm getting at, or have I made this completely incomprehensible?

I get that you are in an inquiry ...the proper attitude of a "seeker" IMO.

Any response is appreciated .

...or almost any?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, my own personal opinion is that, if this were the case, we would have to choose whether to submit to Its rules, after which every other decision about "right and wrong" would be up to It.

I think "we" would have to be VERY CAREFUL that "we" were not being told which "rules" apply in a particular situation.

For instance, interspersed throughout the rules might be primitive "explanations" about this or that. A person detecting that that these "explanations" do not hold water in the light of current knowledged -- knowledge, I might add, ascertained via a great GIFT to us (our evolving intellect) from whatever Being had created us (if this is how it happened) -- and if there were those who here on Earth had dominion -- even temporary dominion -- over this person and, because of whatever limitations those with temporary dominion may have that keep them from appreciating new information which in fact seems to CHALLENGE "explanations" imbedded in -- BUT NOT INTEGRAL TO -- the "rules" ...then those with temporary dominion might be motivated to keep one from an inquiry because they themselves cannot separate out the "meanings" -- the "rules" -- from the "stories" -- the "explanations".

And if the knowledge-seeking person where swayed to believe that they were committing some sort of "sin" by using his or her "gifts" and were actually held hostage by someone else's interpretation of the rules, then this would be a shame -- and a TRUE SIN -- don't you think?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, the fact remains that there could be a perfect being, capable of deciding right and wrong for us, on all occasion except for the occasion of choosing whether to listen to It or not.

If, among the "rules" the Being has determined that it is "wrong" to impose one's will upon another, then It would not choose to do so ...nor would it look kindly upon those who do.

There's CHOICE and then there's OBEDIENCE. I personally do not believe that it is "right" to impose one's will upon another -- unless fighting off the imposition of someone else's will on oneself ...and so do not believe that a perfect Being would deem it "right" either.

A book of rules -- like the Bible, for instance -- does NOT in fact, contain "rules" but contains WISDOM! A person can choose to do that which is "wise" ...but no-one ELSE should be able to DICTATE - forever and ever -- what is wise to do in this or that circumstance.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by tA
Trying to fix this by logic. (Haven't used logic in ages though so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)
Chosing the being to be right basically makes it right. IE as in a logical proof, where
A->B
B->C
C->D
As long as A is true, we're cool. If A isn't true, that is if the being doesn't know what's right or wrong, it may or may not still be valid to obey it. Simply considering there may be other factors whether or not to obey it, eg whether a given behavior will get you to heaven or not. However, if any stage of obeying to obey is false, we can deduce that it also doesn't know that's right or wrong either. This all incidentally leading me to the same conclusion as yourself. The Being may or not be right. But in our little world, all that matters is our choose of submission or not submission in terms of validating the choices of the Being.

(definately enjoyed that!)

There are so many assumptions here, it is difficult to know where to being.

Let us start with whether or not a Being actually exists SEPARATE FROM -- or even as the ORIGINATING PORTION OF -- the Universe in which we reside ...since it is just as likely that the Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

Then we have the assumption that It had "rules" ready and waiting for the "creation of man" to "obey" them ...instead of man evolving to the point of contemplating "right"and "wrong" and coming up with a few "rules" outselves.

Then, that It "created man" - endowing him with free will, bad judgement and temptations galore -- and said "Obey these rules." ...instead of saying "This is a good way to live. Try it or not." and, based on results (which surely would support the Being's "rightness") humankind would CHOOSE to follow the guidelines, but NOT "obey" them.

IOW, it is an assumption that such a Being -- if It exists, knows the rules and has comunicated same -- wants us to "submit" rather than "weigh and choose".

It is assumed that the rules are directly from the Being when they could be from men who, to give these rules sufficient import, ascribed them to a "Higher Being".

IOW, it is an assumption that the rules that others ask us to obey are actually from the Being in an attempt to GUIDE us ...rather than from those who INTERPRET the rules in an attempt to CONTROL us.

These are assumptions that there is a Heaven, that certain behaviors will get us there, that we cannot divine correct behaviors for ourselves, and that we need others -- here on Earth -- to tell us what they are and when they apply.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, It may know more than we do, but that is merely a limiting factor in our own choice to serve It. [/B]

Maybe we best "serve It" by using our using our gifts to CREATE (as It does) rather than PERPETUATE the past (as It -- the eternal and evolving Universe -- does NOT).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by tA

It basically boils down to how we define necessity. ...Why wouldn't a Being we assume has the power to make rules also know what is a better choice on a grander scale. We may of course argue that this Being is 'aware' of all factors, and can make calculations that we cannot. This might even end with the better choice(s) being the necessary choice as well. (Assuming this Being wants/needs to make the best possible choice?) But can we not then give this Being credit for knowing more than ourselves, and follow their lead in terms of right and wrong?

What "necessities"? We can't "hurt the Universe" no matter WHAT we do!

So the reason I call humans small, is that what they are just so in comparison to such a Being and the greater cosmos.

Size doesn't matter. The Universe has "taken the trouble" -- or, "the path of least resistance"?? -- to give rise to highly conscious beings capable of thinking about It. We might not be "Everything" but we ARE "Something" ...I think.

If we assume that the Being is just as fallible as ourselves, it is of course a lot easier to distrust its judgement. So even if I am the center of my world and decide what rules I live by, it's hard to ignore that I'm not the one running the show. Not completely at any rate (if at all)...but who knows what rules really are in function, and if we are capable of comprehending them all?...

We are each a "force" in the Universe ...and, "capable" or not, we seek to comprehend. However, let us NOT be "force fed" by others who pretend to "know the Will" of The Being.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat:

Sometimes it sheds light on the "general" to examine a "specific".

Please give an example of a "rule" that one might consider not obeying ...or that one may be being TOLD that one is not obeying.
___________________________________________________________________

Also, let me say this: while "rules" might inform one how to play the Game, it is the Game that should have our ATTENTION ...not the Rule Book. In chess, for example, one is AWARE OF the rules, but is focused on the Game. To be focused on the rules ...reading about them, talking about them, spreading them around may serve a particular purpose, but it is NOT (IMO) where our attention is "supposed to" be.

Over the course of a lifetime, would you spend 95% of your time in a lab "proving" and "re-proving" projectile motion, and only spend 5% getting a rocket into the air? Of course, if you were surrounded by science "teachers" as opposed to scienTISTS, you might be encouraged to do just that! ...and think that it was normal and fine.

 

[tA]

To start out with, thank you, thought this thread was dying. =)
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression of such narrow mindedness, but the assumptions were different. Thank you for making those assumptions clear however.

M. Gaspar
First off, if there WERE One Being who has DECIDED what is "right" and "wrong" -- and had "dominion over all" -- then It would merit the capitalization of any reference to It. Otherwise, as a "being" myself -- and one who decides for MYSELF what is "right" and "wrong" but does not have "dominion over others" -- then the lower case with which you started this thread would be OK.

But then, what if this being _could_ merit reference to It, but chose not to. Wouldn't the validity of the thread remain intact?

M. Gaspar
first I must ask whether we are talking about a One Being or a one being who has DECIDED (not "chosen" because there would be no "choice" if "right" and "wrong" were absolute) what is "right" and "wrong".

I'm not sure this is an assumption I would like to accept. Simply because societal definitions of right and wrong may differ between cultures to the extent they make a universal definition unreconcilable. (Not to disregard some moral similarites worldwide...=) I would however be willing to accept the assumption with this point in mind. Again, under consideration that the distinction between whether or not it is reconsilible may not be within my/our capabilities.

M. Gaspar (Re: Mentat) Of course, there are other paradigms that would have the Universe Itself as an evolving Entity Who does NOT have "rules" but, rather, has an INHERENT PROCESS we have noticed and have called CAUSE & EFFECT. With THIS process in place, "man" MIGHT -- over time -- be able to ascertain for him and her self what "works" and what DOESN'T work with regard to our treatment of one another (for starters).
(Re: tA) Let us start with whether or not a Being actually exists SEPARATE FROM -- or even as the ORIGINATING PORTION OF -- > the Universe in which we reside ...since it is just as likely that the Universe Itself is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

This would be the type of paradigm I had in mind actually. But then again the thread does indeed require some sort of messenger(s) if only implicitly. Say we could put everyday occurences as such messenger, when should we listen to them, and how to interpret them. -> Same question for the thread?

M. Gaspar
(Re Mentat)
OTOH, having "created us" and bestowing on us "free will" AND "bad judgement" peppered with temptations of the flesh and of the spirit, then this Being has set up a situation whereby we all must trip and fall on a daily basis. For Someone so interested in "rules" ...does this sound "fair" to YOU?
Then we have the assumption that It had "rules" ready and waiting for the "creation of man" to "obey" them ...instead of man evolving to the point of contemplating "right"and "wrong" and coming up with a few "rules" outselves.
(Re tA)
Then, that It "created man" - endowing him with free will, bad judgement and temptations galore -- and said "Obey these rules." ...instead of saying "This is a good way to live. Try it or not." and, based on results (which surely would support the Being's "rightness") humankind would CHOOSE to follow the guidelines, but NOT "obey" them.

Haven't we all had the thought it couldn't be fair...but maybe what we get out of it is worth it. And again, it may only be part of an inevitable process?

M. Gaspar
IOW, it is an assumption that the rules that others ask us to obey are actually from the Being in an attempt to GUIDE us ...rather than from those who INTERPRET the rules in an attempt to CONTROL us.

Validating the process may validate those that attempt to interpret it. However this is only to the extent that we may criticize and weigh all parts/parties equally (harshly).

M. Gaspar
These are assumptions that there is a Heaven, that certain behaviors will get us there, that we cannot divine correct behaviors for ourselves, and that we need others -- here on Earth -- to tell us what they are and when they apply.

There is an assumption that there are people that tell as that. It is up to us to judge their credibility and then make our choices. It was common enough an occurance to be meantioned as an example however. Reoccuring events do have a strong impact on my view of the world, and formation of concepts, though not necessarily in the intended direction.

M. Gaspar
What "necessities"? We can't "hurt the Universe" no matter WHAT we do!

I did mean necessities for the universe. If the process could branch and something could dicate this choice.
Are you sure the universe can't hurt itself? And we merely as components would be part of that? I think I'm defining hurt as the process' ability to counteract itself and bring itself to halt. And I'm still hoping there's something productive in something as seemingly unproductive as people being born and killed.

M. Gaspar
Size doesn't matter. The Universe has "taken the trouble" -- or, "the path of least resistance"?? -- to give rise to highly conscious beings capable of thinking about It. We might not be "Everything" but we ARE "Something" ...I think.

Oh, we are something alright. =) I do question our scope though.

I do agree with you that failing to use that evolving intellect would be a sin. But is that not why we are here at the PF?! =) Or here at all. =)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by tA
I'm not sure this is an assumption I would like to accept. Simply because societal definitions of right and wrong may differ between cultures to the extent they make a universal definition unreconcilable. (Not to disregard some moral similarites worldwide...=) I would however be willing to accept the assumption with this point in mind. Again, under consideration that the distinction between whether or not it is reconsilible may not be within my/our capabilities.

And yet some spiritual philosophies (religions) pretend to have The Answer(s) and attempt -- and often succeed -- in imposing these "answers" on certain "followers".

It is up to us to judge their credibility and then make our choices.

My point exactly. I think that if there is a "God" and that God "writes a Book" ...it would be a book of "wisdom" ...not "rules". Those who would interpret them as "rules" and impose them upon the minds -- often YOUNG minds -- of others is taking the Gift of Free Will out of the equation. I do not believe that even "God" would want to do that. That is why it would not be a Book of Rules, but a Book of Wisdom.

God would seek to GUIDE ...not to RULE. Giving "God" the characteristic of wanting to be "obeyed" is basically a PROJECTION of man's weaker traits.

I think that imposing one's will on another -- even through manipulation (mental devices) -- is really one of the true "sins" that can be committed -- unless it is in an attempt to keep someone from imposing their will on YOU -- and would certainly not be the type of "parenting" an ENLIGHTENED "Father" would do.


I think the initiator of this thread is asking the wrong question. S/he is asking whether God would "force" someone to "obey" the "rules" -- when the questions should be "Are these really rules?" and "Who gets to SAY what is relevant guidance for ME in each situation?"

I do agree with you that failing to use that evolving intellect would be a sin. But is that not why we are here at the PF?! Or here at all?

Yes, it probably IS "why we're here" in BOTH contexts. So, would you say that PREVENTING someone from developing their intellect would, in effect, be a "sin" as well?

And should someone submit to being sinned upon?

 

[tA]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

My point exactly. I think that if there is a "God" and that God "writes a Book" ...it would be a book of "wisdom" ...not "rules". Those who would interpret them as "rules" and impose them upon the minds -- often YOUNG minds -- of others is taking the Gift of Free Will out of the equation. I do not believe that even "God" would want to do that. That is why it would not be a Book of Rules, but a Book of Wisdom.

I took it soley as a slight semantic glitch. Interesting to see how I automatically correct the impression of other's thoughts to fit my framework...
Namely, I interpreted "rules" as wisdom. Compact in their presentation, but with more meaning behind. (Trying to avoid reference to holy books here, though this most definitely would apply.) Wisdom can easily be transferred through gradual transference of heuristics (rules). The mistake would then be the lack of interpretation, the medium in itself may still well be rules.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

I think the initiator of this thread is asking the wrong question. S/he is asking whether God would "force" someone to "obey" the "rules" -- when the questions should be "Are these really rules?" and "Who gets to SAY what is relevant guidance for ME in each situation?"

I think the questions I've been asking if there are any rules, how they work, and how they are relevant to me. Not rules soley stated by another person, but the rules I accumulate through observation. The attempt to understand the rules of an objective reality despite an inevitably subjective viewpoint. But in such an attempt, any viewpoint presented (any persons's statement) is also a reality manifestation of sorts, hence remains the task of decifiering reality/truth/validity ("wrong/right"). I ask (myself) what guidance to use when I extend/modify the concepts I currently entertain? And maybe more importantly, _how_ to use the guidance.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Yes, it probably IS "why we're here" in BOTH contexts. So, would you say that PREVENTING someone from developing their intellect would, in effect, be a "sin" as well?
And should someone submit to being sinned upon?

Actually, on second thought. I'm not sure I see not using intellect as a sin per se. In a social context, I'm not sure if a world full of intellectuals would actually work. It's my favorite utopia, where everyone has something to offer the world. I am however very sceptical when I attempt a realistic plan.
Having said that, I do see it as disrespectful towards any type of spirituality not to use the tools we've been given. Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition?)
It is an insult to humanity when we limit each other, intellectually as well emotionally and industrially (think I need to work on the later thought). Submission again may have it's purpose in social contexts. Placed on a scale of morals, there are most definitely things that would weigh heavier, and some that would weigh less. Is self-fulfillment a basic right and possible for everyone to have at once or is it just an elitist concept? (new thread, anything on the topic other there already?)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by tA
I took it soley as a slight semantic glitch. Interesting to see how I automatically correct the impression of other's thoughts to fit my framework...Namely, I interpreted "rules" as wisdom. Compact in their presentation, but with more meaning behind. (Trying to avoid reference to holy books here, though this most definitely would apply.) Wisdom can easily be transferred through gradual transference of heuristics (rules). The mistake would then be the lack of interpretation, the medium in itself may still well be rules.

I cannot agree that "rules" are the same as "wisdom". The former leaves no room for personal judgement while the latter INFORMS one's judgement.

I think the questions I've been asking if there are any rules, how they work, and how they are relevant to me. Not rules soley stated by another person, but the rules I accumulate through observation.

Again, the "rules" that one accumulates through observation is actually "wisdom" which one reserves the right -- and the judgement -- to apply. Let us say, as an example, that one has found that one goes over well socially when one tells a joke when one meets new people. If one adopts this as a "rule" which one must follow RELIGIOUSLY, then when one meets new people at a FUNERAL, one MUST tell a joke ...even to the bereaved. This is not good judgement. Wisdom, on the other hand, would inform one that telling a joke might usually be appropriate, but in THIS case one's judgement dictates otherwise.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a good idea ...except when someone is attacking your wife ...if you get my drift.

Actually, on second thought. I'm not sure I see not using intellect as a sin per se.

I did not suggest that it is a sin not to use one's intellect, but that it may be a sin to prevent ANOTHER from using theirs.

In a social context, I'm not sure if a world full of intellectuals would actually work. It's my favorite utopia, where everyone has something to offer the world.

I'd be happy for 10 percent "intellectuals" ...as in one out of every ten people I meet. Instead, it's about one in 50 ...and that's being kind.

Having said that, I do see it as disrespectful towards any type of spirituality not to use the tools we've been given.

I think you're saying that it "can't hurt" a religion to use one's mind. Apparently, certain religions think it CAN.

Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition?

I don't understand.

It is an insult to humanity when we limit each other, intellectually as well emotionally and industrially (think I need to work on the later thought. Submission again may have it's purpose in social contexts.

I'm not sure one can "insult humanity" ...but on MIGHT be able to "offend" the Giver of a Gift by throwing it away!

Placed on a scale of morals, there are most definitely things that would weigh heavier, and some that would weigh less. Is self-fulfillment a basic right and possible for everyone to have at once or is it just an elitist concept? (new thread, anything on the topic other there already?)

Actually, that would make an excellent thread. I'm sure you know that there's a Maslov (sp?) hierarchy that suggests that once humans get past meeting survival needs, one progresses naturally to meeting the need of self-actualization. Having been "blessed" to be born in a time and place when one has the LUXURY of thinking about what may or may not be "true" -- scientifically and metaphysically -- then blessed again with the mental capacity to do so -- then blessed AGAIN with a medium such as this whereby we can share and be enriched by information ...it would seem to be a shame (if not a sin) to be "stuck" in the "knowledge" of a primitive past ...and permitted only to discuss limited subject matter with equally limited minds.

 

[tA]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I cannot agree that "rules" are the same as "wisdom". The former leaves no room for personal judgement while the latter INFORMS one's judgement.

I still argue the difference lies in a person's interpretation. Wisdom can be presented as rules. But it is only when they are interpreted (wisely?!) that they become wisdom. I do agree that a wise approach to ethics can be little but situtational. I do believe however that rules are good for "You need to know 'em to break 'em".
When we chose to act outside our frame of mind, or even more rigidly, by set rules, we have to take note of what boundries we are going beyond, and why we chose to do so. E.g. Coming back to the example of "Thou shalt not kill"...I am strict pacisift and attempt to live by just that rule. And I do indeed find myself revising the boundries constantly. Being a vegitarian and getting nutritional deficits has also lead me to revise the killing of animals and reverting to the occasional fishdish.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I did not suggest that it is a sin not to use one's intellect, but that it may be a sin to prevent ANOTHER from using theirs.

Totatalitarian nations aside is this really possible? People are discouraged, and ostrazied at worst, but is that stopping? And is lack of education, or educating on a normalised level despite higher ability _morally_ wrong? (what about international productivity if we're talking about economy already...?)

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'd be happy for 10 percent "intellectuals" ...as in one out of every ten people I meet. Instead, it's about one in 50 ...and that's being kind.

I think they're out there, just hard to spot. I seem to be meeting more of them these days than before. ( Of which I find an even lesser minority allowing themselves to question their already very structured views.) It seems a lot of free minds keep their thoughts to themselves...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I think you're saying that it "can't hurt" a religion to use one's mind. Apparently, certain religions think it CAN.

Well it can. Who needs a higher entity when we can fend for ourselves. Why give money to charities we don't believe in when we no longer fear the wrath of God...
Don't worry, I get the point here too. In a religion where we find a connection to that which is good, we should automatically want to be part of that and be willing to give and love freely. I think we are both aware of what a radical change/revision that would mean in religious institutions today. And how much that can be and is abused by people that have been convinced that they made a "free" choice to join a certain money milking organisation...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

I don't understand.
(Re:
Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition? )

Thinking "too much" can be unproductive. We must also be able to judge whether we are getting stuck in the same though cycles, and indeed if we are intellectualising emotions beyond their actual scope. It is all good and well to understand why we feels certain things, as long as we remember the feeling underneath, even after the conclusions have come and gone.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Actually, that would make an excellent thread. I'm sure you know that there's a Maslov (sp?) hierarchy that suggests that once humans get past meeting survival needs, one progresses naturally to meeting the need of self-actualization. Having been "blessed" to be born in a time and place when one has the LUXURY of thinking about what may or may not be "true" -- scientifically and metaphysically -- then blessed again with the mental capacity to do so -- then blessed AGAIN with a medium such as this whereby we can share and be enriched by information ...it would seem to be a shame (if not a sin) to be "stuck" in the "knowledge" of a primitive past ...and permitted only to discuss limited subject matter with equally limited minds.

Cheers. I'm not sure if I ever bought the concept of Maslov's hierarchy. I only know I'd be very silly not to make use of what I've got. =)

But back to the main question. How can we use our intelligence to find out what is right and wrong in a valid way? (There has been enough harm done by very intelligent people.)

 

[Mentat]

How's it goin', M. Gaspar? It's good to see you back on the threads...but then, I haven't been on the Forum in a month ...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
First off, if there WERE One Being who has DECIDED what is "right" and "wrong" -- and had "dominion over all" -- then It would merit the capitalization of any reference to It.

Only if It believed that this was appropriate .

So, first I must ask whether we are talking about a One Being or a one being who has DECIDED (not "chosen" because there would be no "choice" if "right" and "wrong" were absolute) what is "right" and "wrong".

First off, what is the difference between a "One Being" and a "one being".

Secondly, a decision is a choice, they are equivalent terms, and choice does exist for the Being, since right and wrong would not be absolutes if that one had not chosen to make them so.

I will assume -- unless you tell me otherwise -- that we are speaking of One Being who, when S/He/It "created the Universe", already knew that It was going to "create man" and would have this set of "rules" ready for "man" ...to break ...almost immediately.

Unnecessary assumption, but not incompatible. My question works regardless of whether this Being is the "Creator" or not, and regardless of whether It had intended to make anything ITFP.

Of course, there are other paradigms that would have the Universe Itself as an evolving Entity Who does NOT have "rules" but, rather, has an INHERENT PROCESS we have noticed and have called CAUSE & EFFECT. With THIS process in place, "man" MIGHT -- over time -- be able to ascertain for him and her self what "works" and what DOESN'T work with regard to our treatment of one another (for starters).

But is what "works" necessarily what is "right"? And, is it possible for one set of ethics to "work" for everybody?

I don't understand your logic here. You seem to be saying -- in fact, you specifically say -- that the Being would know "whether it is right or wrong to listen to It".

No, I said that we would have to assume that, in order for the Being to have any dominion at all...the Being does not, in fact, have the ability to tell us whether it is right to listen to It; at least, that's how it appears to me.

Well, if the Being has decided that one of the "rules" is that "we" should listen to and abide by the rules -- and if this Being had, in fact, gotten the rules RIGHT ITFP(an important "if")and had found a way to get the rules TO us, and had the power to "punish us" if we didn't follow them, then it would seem that, yes, we would be obliged to learn and play by the rules.

Too many "if"s. What exactly are you getting at?

OTOH, having "created us" and bestowing on us "free will" AND "bad judgement" peppered with temptations of the flesh and of the spirit, then this Being has set up a situation whereby we all must trip and fall on a daily basis. For Someone so interested in "rules" ...does this sound "fair" to YOU?

You seem to be thinking of a specific Being...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I think "we" would have to be VERY CAREFUL that "we" were not being told which "rules" apply in a particular situation.

But if a Supreme Being made up all the rules, then It would have certainly made up a rule for applying the rules, right?

For instance, interspersed throughout the rules might be primitive "explanations" about this or that. A person detecting that that these "explanations" do not hold water in the light of current knowledged -- knowledge, I might add, ascertained via a great GIFT to us (our evolving intellect) from whatever Being had created us (if this is how it happened) -- and if there were those who here on Earth had dominion -- even temporary dominion -- over this person and, because of whatever limitations those with temporary dominion may have that keep them from appreciating new information which in fact seems to CHALLENGE "explanations" imbedded in -- BUT NOT INTEGRAL TO -- the "rules" ...then those with temporary dominion might be motivated to keep one from an inquiry because they themselves cannot separate out the "meanings" -- the "rules" -- from the "stories" -- the "explanations".

Clarify, please. Perhaps a specific illustration.

And if the knowledge-seeking person where swayed to believe that they were committing some sort of "sin" by using his or her "gifts" and were actually held hostage by someone else's interpretation of the rules, then this would be a shame -- and a TRUE SIN -- don't you think?

If a person is kept from using her intellectual gifts to contradict a rule that most certainly is correct, then s/he's simply being kept from going down a dead-end road, right?