where do values come from? are they based in truth, were learning about Paradox...which in Greek is Next to Truth or something close to it, can we be anything else then opinion? were also reading Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance...this always happends to me i go back and forth from extremes, one thinking that there is no real truth, right and wrong and then theres the moral value ridden K&D...i thought Roussseau cleared everything up for me...
i thought after reading him i wouldn't be confused anymore but here i am being confused again...then theres the question of where freedom comes in play, because then where do you draw the line for other people? normally i would say anytime where it involves hurting another person in a physical way i quess.
but what about activism? if there is not right and wrong then how can you justify activism? basicly it comes down to the fact that i don't know why i have the values i do and untill i do i can't fully beleive in them, but i tend to instictivly folllow them anyway, which just makes me more mad and confused.
is there a right and wrong
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14547
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
Of course there's a right and wrong.
When you're wrong you should admit it and when I'm right you should accept it.
It's really that simple.
But seriously, KiDdo, you've hit an important point square on the head. Differing ideologies can persuade people to believe they are right, when indeed, they are way wrong. Hitler's army thought they were right. Many of the young men and women in Iraq think they're right. This isn't their fault, in both cases.
I truly believe that all humans are born with a sense of right and wrong. We know, instinctively, that it's not right to hurt each other, kill each other, steal from each other, lie to each other, abuse each other, etc. I believe that.
Our instincts are often screwed up, though, by those who attempt to skew our thinking in order to have us back them on their own agendas.
Now, they may do this because they truly believe they are RIGHT.
Gets complicated, doesn't it?
When you're wrong you should admit it and when I'm right you should accept it.
It's really that simple.
But seriously, KiDdo, you've hit an important point square on the head. Differing ideologies can persuade people to believe they are right, when indeed, they are way wrong. Hitler's army thought they were right. Many of the young men and women in Iraq think they're right. This isn't their fault, in both cases.
I truly believe that all humans are born with a sense of right and wrong. We know, instinctively, that it's not right to hurt each other, kill each other, steal from each other, lie to each other, abuse each other, etc. I believe that.
Our instincts are often screwed up, though, by those who attempt to skew our thinking in order to have us back them on their own agendas.
Now, they may do this because they truly believe they are RIGHT.
Gets complicated, doesn't it?
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14547
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
How do I know humans are born with an intrinsic innate knowledge of right and wrong?
I don't. That's just what I believe.
Why do I believe that? From observing babies and children, for the most part.
When children lie to you, they show it in their body language and demeanor, in their eyes, in their voice patterns. They KNOW they did something wrong. And I'm talking about children who are very very young.... 2 & 3. You ask, "Did you eat that ice cream?" and there sits the empty bowl and there is ice cream all over his face and all over his hands and you are asking kindly, not with any accusatory tone of voice. You're just asking... even laughing. But the child knows that you asked him not to eat the ice cream before dinner and with ice cream all over him, right in front of the empty bowl, he shakes his head no. And he looks ashamed. He knows innately that he did something wrong. And he also knows lying is wrong. You can see it in his eyes.
I could offer more examples, if you'd like.
(dammit... is it inate or innate? I can't spell. I've changed it 2x... lol)
I don't. That's just what I believe.
Why do I believe that? From observing babies and children, for the most part.
When children lie to you, they show it in their body language and demeanor, in their eyes, in their voice patterns. They KNOW they did something wrong. And I'm talking about children who are very very young.... 2 & 3. You ask, "Did you eat that ice cream?" and there sits the empty bowl and there is ice cream all over his face and all over his hands and you are asking kindly, not with any accusatory tone of voice. You're just asking... even laughing. But the child knows that you asked him not to eat the ice cream before dinner and with ice cream all over him, right in front of the empty bowl, he shakes his head no. And he looks ashamed. He knows innately that he did something wrong. And he also knows lying is wrong. You can see it in his eyes.
I could offer more examples, if you'd like.
(dammit... is it inate or innate? I can't spell. I've changed it 2x... lol)
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14547
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
I disagree. I don't think a child of 2 or 3 has had anything much instilled in his head about right and wrong.... (except maybe knowing it's wrong to touch the stove or go near the landing at the top of a stairwell.)
But I agree that the difference between right and wrong and ethical codes of behaviour are taught by parents and communities, though I think human beings are born with the basic concepts..... It's called a conscience. I truly believe that.
Everything is not opinion. There are definitely facts.
Who came up with science? Human beings did. Exactly.
But I agree that the difference between right and wrong and ethical codes of behaviour are taught by parents and communities, though I think human beings are born with the basic concepts..... It's called a conscience. I truly believe that.
Everything is not opinion. There are definitely facts.
Who came up with science? Human beings did. Exactly.
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14547
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
-
Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
Sure, we are born with some senses, but not morality. We learn our morals from our environment. We absorb the values of our parents even before we can speak. Further values are settled upon us from school and church and television.
But the values that you end up with would best be those of your own choosing, the ones you settle on for yourself because you have thought out the reasons for them.
Take the Golden Rule for example. It is easy to see the simple truth and logic of Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Even though you didn't invent it, if you see the sense in it and adopt it as your own, then it's your value.
All I am saying is question all values and verify them as your own before you live by them.
But the values that you end up with would best be those of your own choosing, the ones you settle on for yourself because you have thought out the reasons for them.
Take the Golden Rule for example. It is easy to see the simple truth and logic of Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You. Even though you didn't invent it, if you see the sense in it and adopt it as your own, then it's your value.
All I am saying is question all values and verify them as your own before you live by them.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
BingoSure, we are born with some senses, but not morality. We learn our morals from our environment. We absorb the values of our parents even before we can speak. Further values are settled upon us from school and church and television
The Genealogy Of Morals
I recommend it highly. Maybe you can work it in, I know you got a heavy load. That book turned my life around. I think of it as a laxative for the brain.
I also like The Faith Of A Heretic, Walter Kaufmann, but I have only read about forty pages so far.
Do I sound like I am sure of myself? As if I know what my values are? I like this as a short answer.What can I believe?
How should I live?
What do I hope?
ManicI believe that we all form our own morals and live by our own rules
I believe we should be considerate to others and do our best by them
Last edited by stilltrucking on August 25th, 2005, 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
lovingpenfull
- Posts: 119
- Joined: August 10th, 2005, 10:52 pm
- Location: USA
Natural Law Vs. Nilhism
This is a very interesting question, one of the more interesting ones one can ask, in my opinion. We may call the idea that we are all endowed with the faculty of discerning between Right and Wrong Natural Law. The idea that we all have it in us to know what is fundamentally Good or Bad. This Law is intimately entwined with our physical senses. We all would rather have a back rub than a punch in the face. And so we can expand this feeling to include others: what hurts me, hurts others, I don't want to hurt, and so I know that others don't want to hurt either, therefore I will not hurt others. I too feel that we all have that minimal ability to gauge what is pleasure and what is pain, what is good and what is bad, what is Right and what is Wrong.
With that said, it is a question of scale. Here on earth, in our bodies, it madders if you hit me, but in the grand sceme of things, in a spiritual sense, there is no right and there is no wrong. Both good and bad co-exist in equal measure and they lose their distinction at a point high enough in the sky.
It was this idea of Natural Law that for so long onlly a small portion of people claimed to possess; the Acclesiasitical and Royalist classes in Europe were second after the heads of late Roma to claim themselves its sole proprietor. Then later the landed airistocracy were able to elucidate in theological terms their feeling that they too were possesed of this faculty to discern natural order, and because they were able to put this to the Kings and those in the Catholic Church in those theological terms, they were then granted a place at the table, this of course was the Magna Carta, and for the first time the nobles were granted check upon the unilateral power of the King. Later still, the mercentile classes began to claim they too were able to tell the difference from Right and Wrong, they too ought to be inculded in the ruling process. Up to that point they had found that parcitipation in the ruling of the kingdom was not in of itself a function of economic wealth; they had to speak to the Church and King in a language they understood. This generated the Protestant Reformation when these artisians and craftsmen delcaired that their skills and parsimoniousness were outward signs of inward grace and that they too had what it took to take part in the ruling process. This created the bi-cameral legislation which together checked the power of the King. It was this system that was exported to the colonies in America later on. Later still, at last the great unpropertied and the great unwashed, the great mass of commoners finally said, 'hey, we too can tell Right from Wrong, we ought to be included' and the way they said that was by rallying behind Napoleon Bonapart who basically could do little more than demonstrate great skill in warcraft. He and his supporters were unable to put forth in theological terms their right to participate in the governance, and so eventually they were put down. It was at this point that the rulers of Western Civilization decided that they had better nip this bud of Natural Law at a still early stage. This is when Hagle proposed his 'Critique of Natural Law; an alternative theory of Right' in which he ascerted that there is no ablsolute truth, no absolute Right, we each only have our relative truths, our thesis, and only through conflict with an antithesis can we find meaning. This idea was furthered by Neizche who said yeah, thats true, and our thesis is that we are the Ubbermanch, the apex of human evolution, us whities, and it is our struggle against the aboriginal peoples of the world that pushes us forward. This was the concrete text embodying colonialism and later 'White Man's Burden'. Later Marx said yes to Hagel, no to Nitzche, there is no Right, but the struggle isn't between the Ubbermanch and the Indios, but rather the Capitalist class and the Proletariot. That obtained as the daielctic of Western Civilization for a while until international Communisim was on the decline and so here we are now with basically a world view based in Hagel's daielctic, but we lost our enemy. So, Islamic Terrorists were the next in line, and if Carl Rove and the Bush goons have anything to say about it, the next one will be the Asian Empire under the hegemony of China.
That is a bit much all that, but the point here is that Natural Law, the idea that we all know, at the most basic level, what is Right and what is Wrong as first put forth by the Stoics and other Greek folk, was ousted by Hagel and other as a means of securing their possition as the heads of Western Civilization. In the place of Natural Law they sought to apply an inappropriate mode of ethical reasoning for our particular 'frequency', if you are into engery fields.
There is no Right and Wrong if you are, as I've said before, in the throws of Enlightenment, but here on earth, yeah, it hurts when you stick that hot poker in my eye, there is a Wrong. I like to sleep for hours on end after have hot sex, there is a Right. It is a question of scale. When artistically viewing something: even a painting of a war scene can be bueatiful. But when here in the muck and mire of actual existance: let's treat each other nicely so we can minimalize suffering, how about it?
With that said, it is a question of scale. Here on earth, in our bodies, it madders if you hit me, but in the grand sceme of things, in a spiritual sense, there is no right and there is no wrong. Both good and bad co-exist in equal measure and they lose their distinction at a point high enough in the sky.
It was this idea of Natural Law that for so long onlly a small portion of people claimed to possess; the Acclesiasitical and Royalist classes in Europe were second after the heads of late Roma to claim themselves its sole proprietor. Then later the landed airistocracy were able to elucidate in theological terms their feeling that they too were possesed of this faculty to discern natural order, and because they were able to put this to the Kings and those in the Catholic Church in those theological terms, they were then granted a place at the table, this of course was the Magna Carta, and for the first time the nobles were granted check upon the unilateral power of the King. Later still, the mercentile classes began to claim they too were able to tell the difference from Right and Wrong, they too ought to be inculded in the ruling process. Up to that point they had found that parcitipation in the ruling of the kingdom was not in of itself a function of economic wealth; they had to speak to the Church and King in a language they understood. This generated the Protestant Reformation when these artisians and craftsmen delcaired that their skills and parsimoniousness were outward signs of inward grace and that they too had what it took to take part in the ruling process. This created the bi-cameral legislation which together checked the power of the King. It was this system that was exported to the colonies in America later on. Later still, at last the great unpropertied and the great unwashed, the great mass of commoners finally said, 'hey, we too can tell Right from Wrong, we ought to be included' and the way they said that was by rallying behind Napoleon Bonapart who basically could do little more than demonstrate great skill in warcraft. He and his supporters were unable to put forth in theological terms their right to participate in the governance, and so eventually they were put down. It was at this point that the rulers of Western Civilization decided that they had better nip this bud of Natural Law at a still early stage. This is when Hagle proposed his 'Critique of Natural Law; an alternative theory of Right' in which he ascerted that there is no ablsolute truth, no absolute Right, we each only have our relative truths, our thesis, and only through conflict with an antithesis can we find meaning. This idea was furthered by Neizche who said yeah, thats true, and our thesis is that we are the Ubbermanch, the apex of human evolution, us whities, and it is our struggle against the aboriginal peoples of the world that pushes us forward. This was the concrete text embodying colonialism and later 'White Man's Burden'. Later Marx said yes to Hagel, no to Nitzche, there is no Right, but the struggle isn't between the Ubbermanch and the Indios, but rather the Capitalist class and the Proletariot. That obtained as the daielctic of Western Civilization for a while until international Communisim was on the decline and so here we are now with basically a world view based in Hagel's daielctic, but we lost our enemy. So, Islamic Terrorists were the next in line, and if Carl Rove and the Bush goons have anything to say about it, the next one will be the Asian Empire under the hegemony of China.
That is a bit much all that, but the point here is that Natural Law, the idea that we all know, at the most basic level, what is Right and what is Wrong as first put forth by the Stoics and other Greek folk, was ousted by Hagel and other as a means of securing their possition as the heads of Western Civilization. In the place of Natural Law they sought to apply an inappropriate mode of ethical reasoning for our particular 'frequency', if you are into engery fields.
There is no Right and Wrong if you are, as I've said before, in the throws of Enlightenment, but here on earth, yeah, it hurts when you stick that hot poker in my eye, there is a Wrong. I like to sleep for hours on end after have hot sex, there is a Right. It is a question of scale. When artistically viewing something: even a painting of a war scene can be bueatiful. But when here in the muck and mire of actual existance: let's treat each other nicely so we can minimalize suffering, how about it?
I am looking for a home for my thoughts.
Arcadia- i'm going down laborday weekend to crawford, but heres my beef, protsts these days, there not extreme enough for me to feel as if they are making a big enough impact, i want sit-ins, i want civil disobediance...not marching around with a sign in my hand when the government can just as easily ignore me...but i'm going anyway just to see whats going on.
l-rod/dor/trukin- yeah i think its got to be that you choose your beleifs, its o.k that you weren't the originator of the beleif as long as you make it your own through observations, and not just beleiving it at face value...but for me, and this just maybe the way i work, i feel as if this process will never me final...i will always be changing my values, i can't seem to help it but the core ones will stay the same.
Lovingpenfull- i think we all have a natural adversion (right word?) to seeing others in pain, and i think this is where the majority of our beleifs come from...still haven't gotten to finish the reset of your response, working on it, i just wanted to reply to the others before i forgot what i wanted to say...by the way, thank you and the others so much for there thoughtfull response
p.s- Truckin- on my drive here my copilot and i got the majority of the trucks to honk/wave at us...it was entertaining for both parties.
l-rod/dor/trukin- yeah i think its got to be that you choose your beleifs, its o.k that you weren't the originator of the beleif as long as you make it your own through observations, and not just beleiving it at face value...but for me, and this just maybe the way i work, i feel as if this process will never me final...i will always be changing my values, i can't seem to help it but the core ones will stay the same.
Lovingpenfull- i think we all have a natural adversion (right word?) to seeing others in pain, and i think this is where the majority of our beleifs come from...still haven't gotten to finish the reset of your response, working on it, i just wanted to reply to the others before i forgot what i wanted to say...by the way, thank you and the others so much for there thoughtfull response
p.s- Truckin- on my drive here my copilot and i got the majority of the trucks to honk/wave at us...it was entertaining for both parties.
Blah!
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
I don't want to rain on your parade sister but I wish you listen to your mother. Stay away from the trucks. they are dangerous, and you would not believe some the sick fucks driving them. Keep your distance.
Sorry to be such a worry wart. Some of the finest people I have met have been truck drivers. Also some of the sickest. A day don't go buy that I don't see one of them big trucks threatening somebodies life.
Sorry to be such a worry wart. Some of the finest people I have met have been truck drivers. Also some of the sickest. A day don't go buy that I don't see one of them big trucks threatening somebodies life.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20607
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
I was just coming back here to edit, change that to sick fuks, they scare me, KD, they scare me when I am out there in a four wheeler. I kid you not they scare me... I got over a million miles out there, and I dread getting out on the highway with those trucks. Kindest thing you can do for them, keep your lights out their mirrors at night, if you are going to pass one, just do it, don't linger along side them and wave, just get by them as fast as you can. Tires blow, things fall off them, they scare me. I stay the hell the way out of their way. You would not believe some of the wicked shit I have seen truck drivers do. And they got cb's they talk to each other about the "seat covers" that just passed them. Hey you are young and brave, I am old and afraid of trucks. good luck
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests