Why does man, need a agreement?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm

Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:44 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
We don't. We are no superior nor inferior to bacteria. But if we "conditionally" assign meaning through agreements though, it can serve those conspiring to comply with a common set of rules at least. (..versus mere force through physical restraint by those with more physical force behind them by default)

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:54 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
Well, because by definition, "ethics" has to do with how we treat each other, and deciding how to treat each other requires an agreement.

Think of it this way: if you were the only human being on earth (and if God, animals and nature don't get to count as ethical concerns), you would never have a need to ask yourself "Am I ethical?" at all. You would simply do whatever you wanted to do, and that would not be either "ethical" nor "unethical," because the concept would have absolutely no referent.

So there's no such thing as ethicality or morality that is a completely individualistic issue. If I'm the only one who counts, then who is there to give me a reason to ask the question?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:30 pm

Do people need contracts?

Yeah, they do.

Here's the thing: Scott's bacteria is just bio-automation, largely predictable; a man, on the other hand, can 'choose' (to honor his word or break it).

Scott's bacteria is reliable; a man sometimes isn't.

So: when Lou breaks his word to Stan, Stan -- after royally kickin' Lou's ass -- can foist up the contract to show 'why' he beat the shit outta Lou.

A contract is a handy codification layin' out responsibility, compensation, and consequence.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:47 pm

I have a cool theory/conjecture on the origins of sacrifice (and the origins of temple) that relate here. Although most of my own Atheist crowd would hold that the Biblical event of God asking Isaac to sacrifice his son was a horrific evil, I believe that the function of sacrifice, specifically prior to means to enforce contracts, required literal sacrifice in order to bind these agreements.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:28 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:47 pm
I believe that the function of sacrifice, specifically prior to means to enforce contracts, required literal sacrifice in order to bind these agreements.
Yep. Good theory.

They used to speak of "cutting a covenant," which meant that an animal was divided in two. The implication was, "If I break our contract, may what happened to this bird / cow / sheep be likewise done to me."

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:56 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:28 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:47 pm
I believe that the function of sacrifice, specifically prior to means to enforce contracts, required literal sacrifice in order to bind these agreements.
Yep. Good theory.

They used to speak of "cutting a covenant," which meant that an animal was divided in two. The implication was, "If I break our contract, may what happened to this bird / cow / sheep be likewise done to me."
I had links to my original arguments but the links have been lost (political again...it could be an attempt to steal my work, for instance, and claim it as their own.)

But here is a simplified version of my points on this:

In original tribes (transient lifestyles) due to differences in trust when no one stayed in place, contracts had to be initiated by BOTH sides requiring a sacrifice such that the OTHER side would choose each other's BUT in such a way that neither side would GAIN remotely BY the sacrifice. So eating, say, a sacrificed cow would be out of the question. This is because you can preference the other party to sacrifice something that weakens them and/or profit in some other way. For instance, if the sacrifice is a loved one, that person couldn't also loved directly by the offer.

This kind of 'sacrifice' would be similar to a gang insisting a recruit to be complicit in some real sacrificial act to bind them together. You can't rat on the other without both going down collectively. For the ancients though, one difference would be that this 'sacrifice' would have to be PUBLIC. Such binding of a contract would be stronger in times where force is generally on par with each other (less warfare advantages up to, say, a sling?)

Isaac's sacrifice was a relatively modern compromise and change of this original ritual.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:12 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:56 pm
Isaac's sacrifice was a relatively modern compromise and change of this original ritual.
Nothing "modern" about it. "Modern" would date it to the Industrial Revolution or after.

But it's important to remember: Isaac wasn't sacrificed. The ram was. (Genesis 22:13)

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:12 am
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:56 pm
Isaac's sacrifice was a relatively modern compromise and change of this original ritual.
Nothing "modern" about it. "Modern" would date it to the Industrial Revolution or after.

But it's important to remember: Isaac wasn't sacrificed. The ram was. (Genesis 22:13)
No, modern as synonymous to the contemporary time of the story of Isaac. The story was a pivoting novelty because before then sacrifice WAS normally carried out. For the secular interpretation. "(Nature == God) normally sacrificed literally BEFORE that time. So it was letting the reader know there was a time prior to then that normalized literal sacrifice (to Nature, as the heavens, as it is being burnt). They used to likely be between people but then became a new 'covenant' by Nature and to people in general. It was an evolution most likely about the capacity to hold people accountable in a more 'civil' non-destructive way.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:49 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:44 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
We don't. We are no superior nor inferior to bacteria.

we do or there's no distinction known as human nature, that is separate from animal nature. but there is a distinction from human and animal nature isn't there? seeing the activity exercised here.

flesh may be flesh but the spirit within is quite different isn't it?

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re:

Post by DPMartin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:06 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:30 pm
Do people need contracts?

Yeah, they do.

Here's the thing: Scott's bacteria is just bio-automation, largely predictable; a man, on the other hand, can 'choose' (to honor his word or break it).

Scott's bacteria is reliable; a man sometimes isn't.

So: when Lou breaks his word to Stan, Stan -- after royally kickin' Lou's ass -- can foist up the contract to show 'why' he beat the shit outta Lou.

A contract is a handy codification layin' out responsibility, compensation, and consequence.
just how does one do that "royally"?


anyway, you're right about the contract though one could question whether or not the contract stipulates if one's back side should be kicked for failure to fulfill one's part of the deal, unless the purpose of the contract was to prevent a pending butt whopping in the first place.

but there is also the possibility of renegotiating, or even forgiving the infraction all together as though it didn't happen.


its my contention that man can't coexist without agreement, or he's not man. then he's just another wild animal ready to strike at any given moment for any posable reason.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by DPMartin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:18 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:23 am
No, modern as synonymous to the contemporary time of the story of Isaac. The story was a pivoting novelty because before then sacrifice WAS normally carried out. For the secular interpretation. "(Nature == God) normally sacrificed literally BEFORE that time. So it was letting the reader know there was a time prior to then that normalized literal sacrifice (to Nature, as the heavens, as it is being burnt). They used to likely be between people but then became a new 'covenant' by Nature and to people in general. It was an evolution most likely about the capacity to hold people accountable in a more 'civil' non-destructive way.

na, in the case of Isaac (though its true that there were many different versions of the meaning of offering or sacrifice through out the world) it was an offering also in this case the offering was complete according to the One who requested it.

FYI
Isaac was the beloved son of the father (Abraham) who was offered by the father that is chosen of God. and Jacob Isaac's son was renamed by the Lord his God according to Jacob and had twelve sons, through which the Children of Israel are called by the Lord their God. ( in the words of some, a shadow of things to come). how the rest of the world wants to interpret those events is on them.


there is also (biblically speaking) the case where Adam and Eve were clothed by God with skins, hence the covering of their nakedness because of their fear or shame or guilt. which is honored that it would be God's will that man live not in shame in His Presence. disobedience isn't tolerated in the Presence of God. so the infraction is covered until its removed. Through out man's history their becomes many different gods and many different interpretations of Abel's accepted offering, to many different interpretations of what and who a god is.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:59 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:49 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:44 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:31 pm
Why does man, need a agreement? Animals don’t. And can there be such a thing as ethics without a agreement?
We don't. We are no superior nor inferior to bacteria.

we do or there's no distinction known as human nature, that is separate from animal nature. but there is a distinction from human and animal nature isn't there? seeing the activity exercised here.

flesh may be flesh but the spirit within is quite different isn't it?
Your belief would require trying to define 'spirit' that is earthly versus begging it as 'a spiritual thing', and then prove that animals lack a 'spirit'.

The concept of "spirit" for the ancients was the literal air and anything that floated UP towards the sky. The mystery of it was that no one could 'see' this type of fluid (the biblical 'waters' of above was actually a word for fluids and "adam" the word for the earthly solids with "aten" the solid form or perfect shape of the sun.) The 'spirit' is the magic nature of this fluid from above versus the fluids of below (the air versus the water), is that they noticed if your nose and mouth were plugged, you'd panic and die. Thus it was a "good" thing to have this yet unable to determine for its invisibility. Scents and smoke were also considered spirits because the mystery of things burning to go up to the 'heavens' and that dead things smelled. The loss of matter as the body decayed or burned was understood to 'go to heaven' meaning literally, the sky.

Humans are only animals that have evolved with extreme flexibility to adapt to unpredictable environments. Other animals are conscious, feel, and reason too. They just lack a NEED to where the environment still favors them without.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4936
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:17 pm

"just how does one do that "royally"?"

With style and vigor.

#

"anyway, you're right about the contract though one could question whether or not the contract stipulates if one's back side should be kicked for failure to fulfill one's part of the deal, unless the purpose of the contract was to prevent a pending butt whopping in the first place.

Oh, the ass-kickin' can be metaphorical: what matters is consequence.

#

"but there is also the possibility of renegotiating, or even forgiving the infraction all together as though it didn't happen."

Absolutely, if one is the forgivin' type.

#

"its my contention that man can't coexist without agreement, or he's not man. then he's just another wild animal ready to strike at any given moment for any posable reason."

I agree. Agreement (contract) is a foundational element of 'civillization'.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Why does man, need a agreement?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:23 am
No, modern as synonymous to the contemporary time of the story of Isaac. The story was a pivoting novelty because before then sacrifice WAS normally carried out. For the secular interpretation. "(Nature == God) normally sacrificed literally BEFORE that time. So it was letting the reader know there was a time prior to then that normalized literal sacrifice (to Nature, as the heavens, as it is being burnt). They used to likely be between people but then became a new 'covenant' by Nature and to people in general. It was an evolution most likely about the capacity to hold people accountable in a more 'civil' non-destructive way.

na, in the case of Isaac (though its true that there were many different versions of the meaning of offering or sacrifice through out the world) it was an offering also in this case the offering was complete according to the One who requested it.

FYI
Isaac was the beloved son of the father (Abraham) who was offered by the father that is chosen of God. and Jacob Isaac's son was renamed by the Lord his God according to Jacob and had twelve sons, through which the Children of Israel are called by the Lord their God. ( in the words of some, a shadow of things to come). how the rest of the world wants to interpret those events is on them.


there is also (biblically speaking) the case where Adam and Eve were clothed by God with skins, hence the covering of their nakedness because of their fear or shame or guilt. which is honored that it would be God's will that man live not in shame in His Presence. disobedience isn't tolerated in the Presence of God. so the infraction is covered until its removed. Through out man's history their becomes many different gods and many different interpretations of Abel's accepted offering, to many different interpretations of what and who a god is.
Ab(ba) ra ohem == father who sees (over) them......the Aten, originally from Egypt, the original 'promised land'.

Ra == the where we get "ray" from as well as "are" etc. The "Ra" , from Egypt again, was the rays of the sun and likely got its name from the mimicking of the lion's roar.

Ja-cob == "I cobble" (I walk and/or stumble), originally from the Achille's heal story or another earlier source than both of them.
God == "good" (a shorthand assignment for the source cause assumed to have favor for us, and thus, we saw that it was "good"

Elohem == El- ohem == "the them", the general sources collectively or plural of a collection of all people's different beliefs about sources, including possibly ancestors.

El == the, or it, or she (feminine concept means the feel versus adam, which represented mankind or men in context [now Al or el, la, il, le, or il]

Is-ra-el == I or we saw, felt, or knew him. When Egypt's last dynasties fell the remnants of the Akenaten (akin or same as the best or perfect one [aten] as the sun's shape in the heavens).

Eve == follows, that which follows in time, space or number, Where Adam represents the earthly solids that are less perfect, Aten was "the one" perfect thing and source, and Eve was all that follows after one. Note "Oden" from the Norse (north) mythology is Aten. From 'eve' we get the following: evening, ever, and even ...versus (g)od(d) or (g)oden

I could go on but thought to throw this at you given you appear to be a believer who doesn't know the secular source meanings. The bible was a secular collection of the various peoples (tribes) and had derived originally from Akenaten's reign. The whole people were a takeover of Assyrians, who represent the original Jews (or 'wanders'...those not settled or denied a place to settle by "lords", land owners.

Sorry if this blows your bubble.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests