The Other Abortion Question

[artisticsolution]

Hi Chaz,

C:There is nothing more important than emotions and without them there is no morality.

AS: I see where you are coming from. I meant more along the lines of a person who is a nihilist who either isn't able to feel emotion or doesn't allow himself/herself to exhibit emotion. I don't think it would stop someone from getting up in the morning and going about their life. I think a true nihilist would not even want to end their life as there would be no judgment call good or bad. However, that is different than having no morality because of having no emotions. A nihilist could just go with the flow of society and exhibit no immoral behavior. It would not be because of a passion to not do wrong...but more of a conditioning of habit placed on him or her by society.

Now quite possibly I could see the opposite being true in regard to immorality. Because I think society is geared with rules that in general relate to those of moral behavior. So I doubt whether or not a nihilist could deliberately commit an immoral act without passion, as they would have to make a conscience choice to "go against something." Like for example, committing suicide. It is against the law in most countries, also, it is an proactive act...it's not like allowing something to fall upon you...you have to take action and that requires passion. So I doubt a true nihilist would be passionate enough to commit suicide. If he did then I would say he was more depressed than being nihilistic, which I don't think are the same even though in the usa nihilist are sometimes accused of being merely depressed. But as far as some popular "MORAL" actions, like.... going to work, paying taxes, not killing anyone, etc. I think they could just go through the motions without feeling any emotion, good or bad... moral or immoral....and thus..commit moral actions without a regard to emotion thru default. What are your thoughts on this?*

C:Without emotion we are nothing.

AS: Now this is anything but boring! I love this thought. I love how you got me thinking to myself, what is wrong with being nothing? How does "being nothing" harm us or anyone else? Why do we as a people seem to always want to "be" something? Isn't it enough to watch other's being "something"? What is wrong with a life that just wishes to observe other people's accomplishments while waiting to die?

C:I'm trying to think of a moral code that is not primarily motivated by how people feel - but I just cannot. maybe you can?

AS: I agree. People like the sense of control. But what I mean by judgment values being aesthetically shallow is when a person is not honest enough or capable of understanding that his/hers is only one value judgment in a sea of billions and that there is no reason if half believe one way and the other half the other way, that they should have it all their way. There is nothing wrong with rational and reasonable compromise esp. in decisions that aren't black or white or that may bring harm to society in the long run. My thought goes to something Rick Lewis posted lately about how scientist may one day find a way to reverse aging. Well if that happens then there will most definitely be a problem with overpopulation and not in the far off distance...it would be within a few generations. I think when it became dangerously overpopulated, most people (even the religious) would change their minds about abortion and welcome any women to have them. In fact I think they would start to abhor the women who wanted to procreate...calling them selfish. This is what I mean by a shallow aesthetic judgment. If something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not. It is shallow to not think of all avenues and just stick with ones bias without being honest about possibilities that could arise to make one change ones mind. I think of some religious people who take the bible literally, even when shown the truth about something. It is shallow.

C:I never considered a nihilist position as destructive, just a rejection of the imposition of rules by others. Anarchism and nihilism both have their good points.

AS: I meant to say destructive as an example of how some people see nihilists. I remember a doctor once told me that nihilist are simply exhibiting depression. I think that was a shallow value judgment because if a nihilist was depressed then I don't think we could call him/her a nihilist.

C:Honest is an abstraction based on a comparison of differing views. It does not come more superficial than that.

AS: I disagree. The only way to keep going deeper into a thought, subject, scientific experiment, emotion, etc., is to compare all avenues even the ones that are uncomfortable in some way. An emotion is fine...it might feel good or not...it might be moral or not...but one would never know if they are fooling themselves and being shallow unless one does more research and does not just accept their emotion on face value. Again one could be adamant against abortion one day...but then when it does not serve his purpose anymore, he switches to being pro- choice. When it is done simply through his/her emotion that is a very simplistic narcissistic thought. He could have gone into a deeper analysis in the beginning and learned more about himself and his place in the world on a deeper level. Kierkegaard talks about this better than I am explaining it in either/or. Have you ever read that book? Fabulous.

C:Clearly we look at the definition of emotion completely differently.
I'm using it in the sense considered by Hume who positions it as the key motivating force of human action.

AS: Interesting. I have never read Hume. I am reading Nietzsche now. Is Hume a difficult read?

* paragraph edited to clarify meaning.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,

C:There is nothing more important than emotions and without them there is no morality.

AS: I see where you are coming from. I meant more along the lines of a person who is a nihilist who either isn't able to feel emotion or doesn't allow himself/herself to exhibit emotion. I don't think it would stop someone from getting up in the morning and going about their life. I think a true nihilist would not even want to end their life as there would be no judgment call good or bad. However, that is different than having no morality because of having no emotions. A nihilist could just go with the flow of society and exhibit no immoral behavior. It would not be because of a passion to not do wrong...but more of a conditioning of habit placed on him or her by society.

Now quite possibly I could see the opposite being true in regard to immorality. Because I think society is geared with rules that in general relate to those of moral behavior. So I doubt whether or not a nihilist could deliberately commit an immoral act without passion, as they would have to make a conscience choice to "go against something." Like for example, committing suicide. It is against the law in most countries, also, it is an proactive act...it's not like allowing something to fall upon you...you have to take action and that requires passion. So I doubt a true nihilist would be passionate enough to commit suicide. If he did then I would say he was more depressed than being nihilistic, which I don't think are the same even though in the usa nihilist are sometimes accused of being merely depressed. But as far as some popular "MORAL" actions, like.... going to work, paying taxes, not killing anyone, etc. I think they could just go through the motions without feeling any emotion, good or bad... moral or immoral....and thus..commit moral actions without a regard to emotion thru default. What are your thoughts on this?*

C:Without emotion we are nothing.

AS: Now this is anything but boring! I love this thought. I love how you got me thinking to myself, what is wrong with being nothing? How does "being nothing" harm us or anyone else? Why do we as a people seem to always want to "be" something? Isn't it enough to watch other's being "something"? What is wrong with a life that just wishes to observe other people's accomplishments while waiting to die?

C:I'm trying to think of a moral code that is not primarily motivated by how people feel - but I just cannot. maybe you can?

AS: I agree. People like the sense of control. But what I mean by judgment values being aesthetically shallow is when a person is not honest enough or capable of understanding that his/hers is only one value judgment in a sea of billions and that there is no reason if half believe one way and the other half the other way, that they should have it all their way. There is nothing wrong with rational and reasonable compromise esp. in decisions that aren't black or white or that may bring harm to society in the long run. My thought goes to something Rick Lewis posted lately about how scientist may one day find a way to reverse aging. Well if that happens then there will most definitely be a problem with overpopulation and not in the far off distance...it would be within a few generations. I think when it became dangerously overpopulated, most people (even the religious) would change their minds about abortion and welcome any women to have them. In fact I think they would start to abhor the women who wanted to procreate...calling them selfish. This is what I mean by a shallow aesthetic judgment. If something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not. It is shallow to not think of all avenues and just stick with ones bias without being honest about possibilities that could arise to make one change ones mind. I think of some religious people who take the bible literally, even when shown the truth about something. It is shallow.

C:I never considered a nihilist position as destructive, just a rejection of the imposition of rules by others. Anarchism and nihilism both have their good points.

AS: I meant to say destructive as an example of how some people see nihilists. I remember a doctor once told me that nihilist are simply exhibiting depression. I think that was a shallow value judgment because if a nihilist was depressed then I don't think we could call him/her a nihilist.

C:Honest is an abstraction based on a comparison of differing views. It does not come more superficial than that.

AS: I disagree. The only way to keep going deeper into a thought, subject, scientific experiment, emotion, etc., is to compare all avenues even the ones that are uncomfortable in some way. An emotion is fine...it might feel good or not...it might be moral or not...but one would never know if they are fooling themselves and being shallow unless one does more research and does not just accept their emotion on face value. Again one could be adamant against abortion one day...but then when it does not serve his purpose anymore, he switches to being pro- choice. When it is done simply through his/her emotion that is a very simplistic narcissistic thought. He could have gone into a deeper analysis in the beginning and learned more about himself and his place in the world on a deeper level. Kierkegaard talks about this better than I am explaining it in either/or. Have you ever read that book? Fabulous.

C:Clearly we look at the definition of emotion completely differently.
I'm using it in the sense considered by Hume who positions it as the key motivating force of human action.

AS: Interesting. I have never read Hume. I am reading Nietzsche now. Is Hume a difficult read?

* paragraph edited to clarify meaning.

On Being and Nothingness.
"Being Nothing" is, of course, a contradiction in terms. You can't BE nothing, you can't BE dead, though we tend to use that phrase constantly - as if we are in denial of our final state of existence. Being is the opposite of being dead.
I don't think you need to be 'something', in the sense of being 'someone' - that is a 20thC american myth of the celebrity. But that is the converse of nobody - NOT nothing.
There is nothing wrong with being an observer.
The true morality
If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not." Speak to SoB - he's the one that thinks truth is 'out there'. For me truth is not so easily had, and has to lie between the perceptions of diverse individuals. We've talked about this before. Good and Evil relate to how humans perceive the word - they do not preexist humans but are defined by them. I think it is an ethical problem that people think that evil and good are forces in the universe in a struggle for dominance. It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

Honesty is your quotidian reality. When you go deeper you uncover self-deception. Honesty is also a relationship between individuals that agree. I have not read Kierkergaard I tend to avoid people who presume the existence of a God as that tends to make their wisdom stilted.

As for Hume. His first major work written in florid 18thC English like only a Scot could write is difficult to read; Treatise Concerning Human Nature
However he later did a chopped down version that covers most of the contents; An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion is an amazing dialogue that smashes the basis of religions' claims to the existence of God.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?op ... person=231

But the easily most accessible is his collection of essays.
I recommend you start with the Epicurean, compare with the Stoic, and the Platonist.

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1483/0221-03_Bk.pdf

15. The Epicurean

[artisticsolution]

C:On Being and Nothingness.
"Being Nothing" is, of course, a contradiction in terms.

AS:Yes, of course. But we weren't talking about "being nothing" we were talking about your statement, "Without emotion we are nothing." There is a huge difference. I still say that a nihilist can exhibit no emotion and still "be".

C:There is nothing wrong with being an observer.
The true morality

AS: I think you're getting confused here. First you say that sob is the one who thinks "truth is 'out there' and then you say being an observer is the 'true morality.' While I can agree there is nothing wrong with being an observer, I don't agree that it is necessarily "the true morality.' Again, I think that is a shallow value judgment based on personal preference.

C:If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not."

AS:You took my statement out of context. When I said that I meant to show an example of how a statement of this sort is a aesthetic value judgment. If you read the whole paragraph I suggested that if there is a chance that a person could change their minds and jump from one morality to another when the old morality no longer served a purpose toward selfish egotistical awareness of oneself, then it would be shallow to think that this statement could change with them as easily. What I am suggesting is that most people place a very shallow aesthetic judgment on morality. The statement above is meaningless because it is said by the whole world...a world of which can't possibly agree on all moral issues. And if they can't agree on all moral issues then who has the true morality? There cannot be an answer to that question that is based on any truthful knowledge. The best we can hope for is a compromise. That is the most ethically honest way we can proceed in matters of morality.

C: It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

AS: I thought you didn't agree with the statement "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not? But in the next breath you say there is a way to prevent more "evil" being done? How can one prevent "evil" if one can't know "true" morality?

C: I have not read Kierkergaard I tend to avoid people who presume the existence of a God as that tends to make their wisdom stilted.

AS: Not necessarily. Also, I am not convinced K presumed the existence of a God. It's just that what he had to say was difficult so he had to speak in a language that his contemporaries could understand. Remember when Wittgenstein said, " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." K says something akin to this, He says something to the effect of,' Even if I talk nonstop day and night I say nothing if another can't understand me.' Sorry, I loaned out my copy of "fear and trembling" so I could not find the quote. He basically says that faith is "absurd" but in order to relate that message so that the Christians of his day could comprehend, he had to speak their language. How many Christians do you know who could admit that faith is absurd especially if it was coming from a person they felt was not one of them? They would have thought he was the devil. The whole faith as an absurdity goes against Christian doctrine. No, K was a very clever man, he knew human nature...he knew the only way to have a voice was to speak the language of the masses. Manipulation? Perhaps...but effective. But then, I guess if you never read him then you would never be able to make up your own mind about such things.

C:But the easily most accessible is his collection of essays.
I recommend you start with the Epicurean, compare with the Stoic, and the Platonist.

AS: Thanks for the links. I will be sure to look him up!

[chaz wyman]

C:On Being and Nothingness.
"Being Nothing" is, of course, a contradiction in terms.

AS:Yes, of course. But we weren't talking about "being nothing" we were talking about your statement, "Without emotion we are nothing." There is a huge difference. I still say that a nihilist can exhibit no emotion and still "be".

Whatever you might define a nihilist as - there are no humans completely devoid of emotion.

C:There is nothing wrong with being an observer.
The true morality

???

AS: I think you're getting confused here. First you say that sob is the one who thinks "truth is 'out there' and then you say being an observer is the 'true morality.'

No I did not. Maybe I mis-typed, or you have attributed to me what I said about SoB, but for me the idea of 'one true morality' is not a possible state of affairs.

While I can agree there is nothing wrong with being an observer, I don't agree that it is necessarily "the true morality.' Again, I think that is a shallow value judgment based on personal preference.

Surely the more personal the more deep?

C:If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not."

AS:You took my statement out of context. When I said that I meant to show an example of how a statement of this sort is a aesthetic value judgment. If you read the whole paragraph I suggested that if there is a chance that a person could change their minds and jump from one morality to another when the old morality no longer served a purpose toward selfish egotistical awareness of oneself, then it would be shallow to think that this statement could change with them as easily. What I am suggesting is that most people place a very shallow aesthetic judgment on morality.

Ummmm? I think you are going to have to unpack what you mean by "aesthetic", because it does not accord with mine.
I'm also very uncomfortable about your accusation that others' moral judgements are "shallow" - how would you know the depths they have thought things through? You can't know that and you would have to be judging as if your moral judgement were better of deeper.

The statement above is meaningless because it is said by the whole world...a world of which can't possibly agree on all moral issues. And if they can't agree on all moral issues then who has the true morality? There cannot be an answer to that question that is based on any truthful knowledge. The best we can hope for is a compromise. That is the most ethically honest way we can proceed in matters of morality.

C: It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

AS: I thought you didn't agree with the statement "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not? But in the next breath you say there is a way to prevent more "evil" being done? How can one prevent "evil" if one can't know "true" morality?

You misunderstand. I don't think there is anything that is good or evil in the sense of forces of nature. That which is good or evil is about what we pleases us or does not, respectively. I was thinking of the sort of explanation about Hitler - why did he do all those bad things? A: he was evil. That is a hopeless answer. It is nothing more than a tautology. And leads to no understanding of the situation. I'm fed up with being criticised as a 'wet liberal' or similar because I plea for understanding, as if trying to understand was a dirty word. The point is that Hitler thought he was doing good for the German people, having decided that Jews and others were not worthy of his moral care. You might as well ask why was he doing so much good, as ask why he was doing so much bad.


C: I have not read Kierkergaard I tend to avoid people who presume the existence of a God as that tends to make their wisdom stilted.

AS: Not necessarily. Also, I am not convinced K presumed the existence of a God. It's just that what he had to say was difficult so he had to speak in a language that his contemporaries could understand. Remember when Wittgenstein said, " Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." K says something akin to this, He says something to the effect of,' Even if I talk nonstop day and night I say nothing if another can't understand me.' Sorry, I loaned out my copy of "fear and trembling" so I could not find the quote. He basically says that faith is "absurd" but in order to relate that message so that the Christians of his day could comprehend, he had to speak their language. How many Christians do you know who could admit that faith is absurd especially if it was coming from a person they felt was not one of them? They would have thought he was the devil. The whole faith as an absurdity goes against Christian doctrine. No, K was a very clever man, he knew human nature...he knew the only way to have a voice was to speak the language of the masses. Manipulation? Perhaps...but effective. But then, I guess if you never read him then you would never be able to make up your own mind about such things.

From what I have learned about K, it is clear enough for me that he was struggling with his faith and the relevance of god. I can only react with the phrase 'your private life drama, baby, leave me out". I'm past all that , and have no need to go all through that again, though I realise that he was a fine fellow and a great thinker. And though his attack on organised religion is welcome, what was not already said about Xianity during K's time, by Feuerbach is not worth the time of day.


C:But the easily most accessible is his collection of essays.
I recommend you start with the Epicurean, compare with the Stoic, and the Platonist.

AS: Thanks for the links. I will be sure to look him up!

That web site is a fantastic source for dozens of philosophers.

[artisticsolution]

C:Whatever you might define a nihilist as - there are no humans completely devoid of emotion.

AS: You can't possible know this for sure. You can only believe it is so. It is when turning that "belief" into a statement of "truth" that one makes a shallow aesthetic judgment. Human's do this commonly. It's no biggie. I am just saying. What I find fascinating is that we can't admit it. Most of us are so firmly entrenched in our beliefs we can't admit to ourselves that our emotions do not bring us to "truth".

It is this dishonestly I don't understand. What is wrong with saying, "I believe this with all my heart but I realize, epistemologically speaking, I may be mistaken." If we could just admit that honestly then we could have all of our heartfelt beliefs but realize that they may be wrong. That would free us up to be able to discuss other possibilities without the fear that we are betraying ourselves or "our team" if you will. Let's take for example, the person we fall in love with. While in love, most of us can't imagine anything so sublime. It feels as if our love is perfection. We can't imagine falling out of love with this individual. In fact, some people get very upset if an outsider, for example, says, "I give it 2 weeks/months/years." We simply can't allow ourselves to believe our perfect love might not be so perfect. Also, what I think is very odd about this type of passion is that it is usually a stranger with whom we project our love toward. A STRANGER! And we act as if we have some deep knowledge of that person that the world does not possess. How we fool ourselves when making this judgment! It is the epitome of shallow aesthetic judgment, whether or not our love lasts 2 hours or 70 years. There is no way we could know the depth of our knowledge of a person merely my our emotions. So too with other value judgments.

Also, I must clarify that I used the term aesthetic as defined in Websters dictionary:

1
a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful <aesthetic theories> b : artistic <a work of aesthetic value> c : pleasing in appearance : attractive <easy-to-use keyboards, clear graphics, and other ergonomic and aesthetic features — Mark Mehler>
2
: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses

I do not wish to imply that only "good" things are pleasurable in the sense that we all can agree on beauty. I mean to imply it in a broader sense that we can also view something beautiful that is commonly believed as ugly by others. It makes no difference as to the state of our preference. Even if we believe that we are being deeper by loving an ugly person, that does not make it necessarily so....it could be just as shallow. For example, one that was dumped by a supermodel might make a shallow aesthetic judgment that it was because of her beauty that she did not stay. So in there quest to not get dumped again they make another shallow aesthetic judgment that the next girl they will pursue will be ugly so that she will not leave him. The reason those are both shallow aesthetic judgments is that there is absolutely no way of knowing who will leave him or who will not...in fact there could be a multitude of reasons why the model left...perhaps it had to do with his personality or an illness or whatever. The point is he cannot know...even if she told him the reason...he still can't possible know if she was lying.



C:There is nothing wrong with being an observer.
The true morality

???

AS: You're the one who said it...if you don't know what you mean how do you expect me to?

C:Surely the more personal the more deep?

AS: Nope. Read my example above about being in love.

C:Ummmm? I think you are going to have to unpack what you mean by "aesthetic", because it does not accord with mine.

AS: Read the definition I provided above.

C:I'm also very uncomfortable about your accusation that others' moral judgements are "shallow" - how would you know the depths they have thought things through? You can't know that and you would have to be judging as if your moral judgement were better of deeper.

AS:You are right, I can't "know" if my moral judgment is better or deeper. That is why I made no such statement. I am merely pointing out that there is nothing wrong with putting our emotional values aside for a moment to consider other possibilities. It's not like there is a danger of losing our personal preference because even if we did somehow manage to get a better answer and switch our preference...the new preference would become our our new aesthetic.

C:You misunderstand. I don't think there is anything that is good or evil in the sense of forces of nature. That which is good or evil is about what we pleases us or does not, respectively. I was thinking of the sort of explanation about Hitler - why did he do all those bad things? A: he was evil. That is a hopeless answer. It is nothing more than a tautology. And leads to no understanding of the situation. I'm fed up with being criticised as a 'wet liberal' or similar because I plea for understanding, as if trying to understand was a dirty word. The point is that Hitler thought he was doing good for the German people, having decided that Jews and others were not worthy of his moral care. You might as well ask why was he doing so much good, as ask why he was doing so much bad.


AS: Yes, I agree with this, however, I don't think we should hitch our wagon to one man's morality. This is why I say compromise is in order. The majority of people love life. Therefore laws against murder should hold. But there are exceptions in which most everyone would reconsider and kill...those exception range from capital punishment to euthanasia, to abortion, to war, to self defense, suicide...etc.,

[chaz wyman]

C:Whatever you might define a nihilist as - there are no humans completely devoid of emotion.

AS: You can't possible know this for sure. You can only believe it is so. It is when turning that "belief" into a statement of "truth" that one makes a shallow aesthetic judgment. Human's do this commonly. It's no biggie. I am just saying. What I find fascinating is that we can't admit it. Most of us are so firmly entrenched in our beliefs we can't admit to ourselves that our emotions do not bring us to "truth".

Animals (and humans) are emotion first, reason second. The literally lower and literally deeper functions of the brain are primary and are shared by all animals from the reptilian brain up to the mammalian brain. This precursor to thought and reason is where feelings reside. When a gator smells blood it is pure lust.

You are not making yourself clear on the question of aesthetics.

It is this dishonestly I don't understand. What is wrong with saying, "I believe this with all my heart but I realize, epistemologically speaking, I may be mistaken." If we could just admit that honestly then we could have all of our heartfelt beliefs but realize that they may be wrong.

You are generalising too much. I'm not sure either where you are going with this or why you are saying it.
Why do you want to keep hold of a belief?

That would free us up to be able to discuss other possibilities without the fear that we are betraying ourselves or "our team" if you will.
I don't do 'teams.'

Let's take for example, the person we fall in love with. While in love, most of us can't imagine anything so sublime. It feels as if our love is perfection. We can't imagine falling out of love with this individual. In fact, some people get very upset if an outsider, for example, says, "I give it 2 weeks/months/years." We simply can't allow ourselves to believe our perfect love might not be so perfect. Also, what I think is very odd about this type of passion is that it is usually a stranger with whom we project our love toward. A STRANGER! And we act as if we have some deep knowledge of that person that the world does not possess. How we fool ourselves when making this judgment! It is the epitome of shallow aesthetic judgment, whether or not our love lasts 2 hours or 70 years. There is no way we could know the depth of our knowledge of a person merely my our emotions. So too with other value judgments.

Love is not a value judgement, nor is it predicated on knowledge alone.

Also, I must clarify that I used the term aesthetic as defined in Websters dictionary:

1
a : of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful <aesthetic theories> b : artistic <a work of aesthetic value> c : pleasing in appearance : attractive <easy-to-use keyboards, clear graphics, and other ergonomic and aesthetic features — Mark Mehler>
2
: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also : responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses



I do not wish to imply that only "good" things are pleasurable in the sense that we all can agree on beauty. I mean to imply it in a broader sense that we can also view something beautiful that is commonly believed as ugly by others. It makes no difference as to the state of our preference. Even if we believe that we are being deeper by loving an ugly person, that does not make it necessarily so....it could be just as shallow.

There is a deeper aesthetic which enables us to see the beauty in ugliness, or agedness. If you can get to that as millions seem to then love can last a lifetime and is beyond reason.

For example, one that was dumped by a supermodel might make a shallow aesthetic judgment that it was because of her beauty that she did not stay. So in there quest to not get dumped again they make another shallow aesthetic judgment that the next girl they will pursue will be ugly so that she will not leave him. The reason those are both shallow aesthetic judgments is that there is absolutely no way of knowing who will leave him or who will not...in fact there could be a multitude of reasons why the model left...perhaps it had to do with his personality or an illness or whatever. The point is he cannot know...even if she told him the reason...he still can't possible know if she was lying.



C:There is nothing wrong with being an observer.
The true morality

???

AS: You're the one who said it...if you don't know what you mean how do you expect me to?

I really did not say this.

C:Surely the more personal the more deep?

AS: Nope. Read my example above about being in love.

Yup
Knowing the person, and not just what the person looks like is deeper.

C:Ummmm? I think you are going to have to unpack what you mean by "aesthetic", because it does not accord with mine.

AS: Read the definition I provided above.

And the deeper aesthetic that can recognise beauty despite disfigurement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY0zpag5 ... ure=relmfu

C:I'm also very uncomfortable about your accusation that others' moral judgements are "shallow" - how would you know the depths they have thought things through? You can't know that and you would have to be judging as if your moral judgement were better of deeper.

AS:You are right, I can't "know" if my moral judgment is better or deeper. That is why I made no such statement. I am merely pointing out that there is nothing wrong with putting our emotional values aside for a moment to consider other possibilities. It's not like there is a danger of losing our personal preference because even if we did somehow manage to get a better answer and switch our preference...the new preference would become our our new aesthetic.

C:You misunderstand. I don't think there is anything that is good or evil in the sense of forces of nature. That which is good or evil is about what we pleases us or does not, respectively. I was thinking of the sort of explanation about Hitler - why did he do all those bad things? A: he was evil. That is a hopeless answer. It is nothing more than a tautology. And leads to no understanding of the situation. I'm fed up with being criticised as a 'wet liberal' or similar because I plea for understanding, as if trying to understand was a dirty word. The point is that Hitler thought he was doing good for the German people, having decided that Jews and others were not worthy of his moral care. You might as well ask why was he doing so much good, as ask why he was doing so much bad.


AS: Yes, I agree with this, however, I don't think we should hitch our wagon to one man's morality. This is why I say compromise is in order. The majority of people love life. Therefore laws against murder should hold. But there are exceptions in which most everyone would reconsider and kill...those exception range from capital punishment to euthanasia, to abortion, to war, to self defense, suicide...etc.,

[chaz wyman]

The true morality
If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not." Speak to SoB - he's the one that thinks truth is 'out there'. For me truth is not so easily had, and has to lie between the perceptions of diverse individuals. We've talked about this before. Good and Evil relate to how humans perceive the word - they do not preexist humans but are defined by them. I think it is an ethical problem that people think that evil and good are forces in the universe in a struggle for dominance. It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

i.e. I do not believe in a 'true morality'

[artisticsolution]

The true morality
If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not." Speak to SoB - he's the one that thinks truth is 'out there'. For me truth is not so easily had, and has to lie between the perceptions of diverse individuals. We've talked about this before. Good and Evil relate to how humans perceive the word - they do not preexist humans but are defined by them. I think it is an ethical problem that people think that evil and good are forces in the universe in a struggle for dominance. It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

i.e. I do not believe in a 'true morality'

Good...me neither. But that is only personal preference. What makes our opinions better than anyone elses? How does our opinion help or harm society vs. someone who believes in a "true" morality?

[chaz wyman]

The true morality
If you want to talk about If "something is morally right then it is morally right. If it is not then it;s not." Speak to SoB - he's the one that thinks truth is 'out there'. For me truth is not so easily had, and has to lie between the perceptions of diverse individuals. We've talked about this before. Good and Evil relate to how humans perceive the word - they do not preexist humans but are defined by them. I think it is an ethical problem that people think that evil and good are forces in the universe in a struggle for dominance. It is too easy an explanation to say a person if evil, when they do evil things. The trick is to figure out the social or political conditions that enabled them to behave this way, other wise you don't have any kind of explanation, and without that you can't know how to prevent more 'evil' being done.

i.e. I do not believe in a 'true morality'

Good...me neither. But that is only personal preference. What makes our opinions better than anyone elses? How does our opinion help or harm society vs. someone who believes in a "true" morality?

What makes our perspective better is that is is consonant with the fact that different cultures have different moral laws.
A person that believes in a true morality is ready to impose it on another. Only people who accepts a range of positions can ever hope to understand conflicts. The resolution of conflicts can only come with understanding both sides.

[artisticsolution]

C:A person that believes in a true morality is ready to impose it on another.

AS:Not necessarily. A person could believe in a "true" morality for themselves and not wish to impose it on others. I believe that abortion is wrong/immoral for myself, but I don't wish to impose my morality on others.

C:Only people who accepts a range of positions can ever hope to understand conflicts. The resolution of conflicts can only come with understanding both sides.

AS: Right. Do you understand Wootah's side?

[chaz wyman]

C:A person that believes in a true morality is ready to impose it on another.

AS:Not necessarily. A person could believe in a "true" morality for themselves and not wish to impose it on others. I believe that abortion is wrong/immoral for myself, but I don't wish to impose my morality on others.

If you really think that then you don't understand the difference between a moral position and an ethical one.

C:Only people who accepts a range of positions can ever hope to understand conflicts. The resolution of conflicts can only come with understanding both sides.

AS: Right. Do you understand Wootah's side?

Yes, he is an idiot who has taken a traditional explanation rather than thought it through for himself. I'd say the same thing about a Moslem or a Jew. Until both sides are willing to see that neither of their positions can be real can the age-old conflict between these religions be solved. It is not in the nature of religion to accept the validity of another religion. The only way forward is the rejection of belief and fantasy, and the acceptance that we are all humans.
That's the beauty of enlightenment, I'm not stuck on either side.

[artisticsolution]

C:If you really think that then you don't understand the difference between a moral position and an ethical one.

AS: Okay, perhaps you are right. Please tell me the difference as you see it because I think my position is perfectly reasonable.

C:The only way forward is the rejection of belief and fantasy, and the acceptance that we are all humans.
That's the beauty of enlightenment, I'm not stuck on either side.

AS: Seems like you are stuck to me. You are stuck on wanting everyone to think like you. I think that is called a fantasy. I don't think it could ever happen even if you did manage to get rid of Christianity.

[chaz wyman]

C:If you really think that then you don't understand the difference between a moral position and an ethical one.

AS: Okay, perhaps you are right. Please tell me the difference as you see it because I think my position is perfectly reasonable.

Do you not recall we had a long (and fruitful!!) discussion about this a few months ago? Before out little disagreement concerning gender.

C:The only way forward is the rejection of belief and fantasy, and the acceptance that we are all humans.
That's the beauty of enlightenment, I'm not stuck on either side.

AS: Seems like you are stuck to me. You are stuck on wanting everyone to think like you.

No. And you are (once again) trying to tell another person what they want and what they think.

I think that is called a fantasy. I don't think it could ever happen even if you did manage to get rid of Christianity.

You want me to think as you do - otherwise you would not be in discussion with me. What is the difference?

When you hold an opinion that you have thought about, it has held up to challenges and been found to be robust, then obvious you consider that to be worthwhile. I don't want everyone to think as I do. But I enjoy getting others to think about what they are said, and find it fun to point out inconsistencies and unfounded beliefs.
I have no illusions about ending Xianity. As a long time teacher I know that most people would rather think than die. I have always thought it important to encourage them to take the chance and challenge their own preconceptions - most of which are just borrowed from their parents.
It can be difficult to un-think something you have held on to for decades, but it is great if you can allow yourself to do it successfully and actually change your mind.

[artisticsolution]

C:Do you not recall we had a long (and fruitful!!) discussion about this a few months ago? Before out little disagreement concerning gender.

AS: I don't recall. Could you link it please?

C:You want me to think as you do - otherwise you would not be in discussion with me. What is the difference?

AS: No, I want you to explain to me where you think I am wrong instead of demanding that I am. It seems to me you just want me to believe your way because you said so. I am not that type of girl.

C:It can be difficult to un-think something you have held on to for decades, but it is great if you can allow yourself to do it successfully and actually change your mind.

AS:I agree.

[chaz wyman]

C:Do you not recall we had a long (and fruitful!!) discussion about this a few months ago? Before out little disagreement concerning gender.

AS: I don't recall. Could you link it please?

C:You want me to think as you do - otherwise you would not be in discussion with me. What is the difference?

AS: No, I want you to explain to me where you think I am wrong instead of demanding that I am. It seems to me you just want me to believe your way because you said so. I am not that type of girl.

I think you have misconceived the position here. You are the one asking all the questions. I've made a few statements and you have been criticising them. You are telling me where I am wring, not the other way round.

C:It can be difficult to un-think something you have held on to for decades, but it is great if you can allow yourself to do it successfully and actually change your mind.

AS:I agree.