Philosophy Now Forum

The ethical plot deepens when the value of equality is considered. It is consonant with freedom and is therefore in the same dimension. It relates to other values that are consonant with those which relate to freedom.
Equality is opposed to such end-values as elitism, class, caste, and forms of tyranny.
On one hand it has the end-value of altruistic harmony, where equality is qualified by diversity.
On the other hand it has the end-value of discordant anarchism.
Elitism as the opposing end-value has that form of diversity, while being discordant until this is suppressed by a weight of authoritarianism and tyranny.
Authority and authoritarianism must of course be distinguished from each other.

Walker wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Walker wrote:You're rather slow.

Your requirement for discussion was to evidence comprehension of material.

You failed.

Shan't waste a moment more.

Are you too scared to answer or too stupid?

1) What do you mean by "objective" and how is that achieved?

2) In what way do you consider Natural Selection to be "moral".

Neither. I’d need a hefty incentive to enter the world of one hell-bent on shaping reality to fit hare-brained concepts, and deconstructing ignorance by journeying back to square one under the resistance of deliberate obtuseness doesn’t fit that bill. You haven't asked a question that hasn't been answered.

Run along.

You are just digging yourself deeper.

Immanuel Can wrote:
What we call "the GR" is stated in Luke 6:31, by Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I'm well aware of what it says. My critique still applies. It falsely presupposes that everyone likes the same kind of treatment. It is not good to treat another how you want to be treated, if the way you want to be treated is not they way they want to be treated.

Immanuel Can wrote:
What we call "the GR" is stated in Luke 6:31, by Jesus Christ.

it's all very well repeating what Jesus is supposed to have said, but this has nothing to do with the thread title.
You still have not stated by what means an Objective Morality is determinable, let alone suggesting what it might be.

creativesoul wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
What we call "the GR" is stated in Luke 6:31, by Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I'm well aware of what it says. My critique still applies. It falsely presupposes that everyone likes the same kind of treatment. It is not good to treat another how you want to be treated, if the way you want to be treated is not they way they want to be treated.

Well, on the flip side, what sacralizes (or makes sacred) "what they want"? As the famous theologian Mick Jagger once so poignantly intoned, "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

Immanuel Can wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
What we call "the GR" is stated in Luke 6:31, by Jesus Christ.

Yeah, I'm well aware of what it says. My critique still applies. It falsely presupposes that everyone likes the same kind of treatment. It is not good to treat another how you want to be treated, if the way you want to be treated is not they way they want to be treated.

Do unto others as you would …
Do unto others what you would …
See the difference?

Immanuel Can wrote:Well, on the flip side, what sacralizes (or makes sacred) "what they want"? As the famous theologian Mick Jagger once so poignantly intoned, "You Can't Always Get What You Want."

The answer to the question of sacred just might be found in the rest of the lyric. If you try sometime you just might find. Try.

Walker wrote:
Do unto others as you would …
Do unto others what you would …
See the difference?

Yes. In the first, the term "as" is used. In the second, the term "what" is used. Not very helpful. Both presuppose that all folk want to be treated in the same way.

Walker wrote:The answer to the question of sacred just might be found in the rest of the lyric. If you try sometime you just might find. Try.

While I'm doing that, look up the word "irony."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Walker wrote:The answer to the question of sacred just might be found in the rest of the lyric. If you try sometime you just might find. Try.

While I'm doing that, look up the word "irony."

I looked up Jagger.

Empirical and pragmatic insights from a youngster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-WD07KJu_k

When considering the sacred try, you see that to try requires motion of body, though thought, which is motion of mind, likely preceeds the try. Jagger speaks from authority, since he did try, and more than most he knows the implications of try well enough to turn thought into big moolah, which he must have needed since he got it.

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:
Do unto others as you would …
Do unto others what you would …
See the difference?

Yes. In the first, the term "as" is used. In the second, the term "what" is used. Not very helpful. Both presuppose that all folk want to be treated in the same way.

You’ve isolated the variable. Now you can think.

as: to the same degree or amount
what: the thing or things that

(Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Walker wrote: You’ve isolated the variable. Now you can think.

as: to the same degree or amount
what: the thing or things that

(Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Surprise! It was originally spoken in Aramaic, and first transcripted into Greek, so English definitions just don't really float the boat there.

Sorry to throw a wrench into a mixed metaphor.

Continue the regression to pigdin, grunts, and bird calls. Hardly relevant.

Closer to modern:
“As a lover of the theatre, King James became patron to the troop of one of his most famous subjects--William Shakespeare, the playwright. Shakespeare's troop came to be known as the King's Men. Shakespeare and the King held a special relationship as they both loved literature.”
http://jesus-is-lord.com/kingbio.htm

Words are fluid. Technical terms defined by science. Most others float on a populist current [gay]. The term 'god' may signify something out there, beyond, immanent, a corpus of belief. Terms from Catholic to capitalist are indicative, and have changed. A person's god is determined by his personal corpus of belief.

Nature: There is still a populist image of nature as something red in tooth and claw, out there beyond human society. It is an extreme simplification. Even natural evolution requires a degree of cooperative endeavour. Albeit not consciously so for simple life. Rising through the animal kingdom there is an increasing level of conscious pragmatic cooperation. Nature in the round includes humanity, and for us not to recognise this is folly. If 'god' is defined as the foundation of all that exists, and most centrally the sapient mind, then Nature must be of god, however unflattering to our egos. The great unanswered question is about what the mind is, and pat religious replies are not useful. We know what the mind does, but that does not define what it is in any rational way. A car transports people but so does a horse and cart.

Walker wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:
Do unto others as you would …
Do unto others what you would …
See the difference?

Yes. In the first, the term "as" is used. In the second, the term "what" is used. Not very helpful. Both presuppose that all folk want to be treated in the same way.

You’ve isolated the variable. Now you can think.

as: to the same degree or amount
what: the thing or things that

(Merriam-Webster online dictionary)

Same story Walker. You've presented something that makes no difference. The critique still applies regardless of which variable you use. If you see it otherwise then present an argument.