Killed Anything Today?

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

(Me)I always thought that G W Bush was quite a pleasant man, and I am inclined to believe that he was not very bright but was a puppet of big Oil.
(Greta)His family was part of Big Oil. I wonder what the world would be like today if, in response to the 11 Sept attacks GWB declared that the US would move to renewable energy and rub the terrorists of their oil revenue? The terrorists would have drifted into irrelevance through lack of resources and billions today would face a safer future through slowing of climate change. However, Bush was an oil man so that was an impossibility.

The sensation of big cogs in a giant machine .Do you think there is hope in understanding the formal workings of the machine?
I wonder if a man can be a good man if he is attached to his natal or otherwise exclusive group to the exclusion of the welfare of the wide world. I wonder if that is what Jesus meant by having to quit one's family in order to follow him.

[Greta]

Greta wrote:

(Me)I always thought that G W Bush was quite a pleasant man, and I am inclined to believe that he was not very bright but was a puppet of big Oil.
(Greta)His family was part of Big Oil. I wonder what the world would be like today if, in response to the 11 Sept attacks GWB declared that the US would move to renewable energy and rub the terrorists of their oil revenue? The terrorists would have drifted into irrelevance through lack of resources and billions today would face a safer future through slowing of climate change. However, Bush was an oil man so that was an impossibility.

The sensation of big cogs in a giant machine .Do you think there is hope in understanding the formal workings of the machine?
I wonder if a man can be a good man if he is attached to his natal or otherwise exclusive group to the exclusion of the welfare of the wide world. I wonder if that is what Jesus meant by having to quit one's family in order to follow him.

Hard questions, Belinda. Is it better to be disharmonious or harmonious in a group that is believed to be in itself disharmonious? Are all those little kindnesses, love, care and regard being squandered on Nick's Great Beast (GB)?

Yet, when one looks around, all of the "Beasts" operate more like voracious caterpillars than their rather more sophisticated individuals (at least some). Yet, if we reject all of the "beasts", what then? The hard part of such a rejection is authenticity. Truly rejecting the GB and not play-acting means opting out of the economic system completely, never availing oneself of the "Beast's" infrastructure and taken-for-granted security measures. No house. No internet. No recorded music, etc.

Further, who is to say that our judgement of good and bad is valid? What if we reject our particular "Great Beast" based on insufficient knowledge of its circumstances or wrongful assumptions? That would be quite a spectacular way to wreck one's life - living a life of terrible privation and lost opportunities based simply on wrong information ...

[Immanuel Can]

Greta wrote:

I wonder if a man can be a good man if he is attached to his natal or otherwise exclusive group to the exclusion of the welfare of the wide world.

On the other hand, can a man (or woman) be a good one, if he or she is unattached to natal or local social connections, but claims to "love" the whole world?

I worry about people who can embrace "the human race" as a theoretical construct, but can't stop abusing their husbands or beating their wives and starving their own children. Such have existed, apparently. They've very good at loving "people," but no good at loving a particular person.

I wonder if that is what Jesus meant by having to quit one's family in order to follow him.

I think the context of that discussion helps interpret that.

Christ is talking about persecution. He's talking about a time coming when parents will turn on their children, and children will turn on their parents. Thus, when the larger society -- and even one's own family -- embraces a poisonous but general social falsehood, the only way to avoid the loss of family would be to abandon the truth. At that point, if one loves truth, one is obliged to do that which one's family will see as "hatred"; meaning, to sever oneself from the herd, by standing alone for what's right.

Family-hatred in general is no Christian virtue. In fact, the Bible says that somebody who "fails to provide for those of his own household" has "denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever." That's strong language against the idea of abandoning natural, familial affection for casual or unworthy reasons. But when truth is at the stake, the person who truly loves truth must decide where she will stand. And even the bonds of family are not stronger than that obligation.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

I worry about people who can embrace "the human race" as a theoretical construct, but can't stop abusing their husbands or beating their wives and starving their own children. Such have existed, apparently. They've very good at loving "people," but no good at loving a particular person.

But to embrace "the human race" is not only a concept, it's also what good men do. Many philanthropists come to mind, in many walks of life. Politicians, scientists, artists, obscure workers in schools and hospitals, poets, engineers, architects, trade union stewards, charity fund raisers.

Particular persons are parts of the "human race" therefore if someone sets out to damage a particular person they are damaging the "human race".
True, there are hypocrites who say brave words about how they are philanthropic and also kind to individuals, but when one looks at what they do one finds that they are liars who have not done good work. By their fruits you shall know them, is a simple thing.

[Immanuel Can]

But to embrace "the human race" is not only a concept, it's also what good men do.

How do they do it? Do they do it because they know the entire human race? Do they do it by presuming that the people they don't know are of the sort that they do know? Or do they embrace them as a vague abstraction? What is the quality of this "embracing," I want to ask.

My worry is that there are people who profess a great "love" for "the race," but actually don't love the real people who are in their lives. And that strikes me as weird...why do they love "people" as a concept, and have no love for specific persons?

Many philanthropists come to mind, in many walks of life. Politicians, scientists, artists, obscure workers in schools and hospitals, poets, engineers, architects, trade union stewards, charity fund raisers.

What makes you think "love" is their motive? What makes you say they "embrace" the race?

By their fruits you shall know them, is a simple thing.

Yes, I agree. So what are we to say about a man who travelled the world being "compassionate," all his life, and neglected his own children? I've met such, and I know of such in philosophy too. Karl Marx, for example, professed a great desire to advocate for the proletariat, and yet sexually abused the only real proletarian he knew personally. Percy Bysshe Shelley said he loved the human race, and was also unbelievably cruel and selfish with his friends and lovers.

What's that all about?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Yes, I agree. So what are we to say about a man who travelled the world being "compassionate," all his life, and neglected his own children? I've met such, and I know of such in philosophy too. Karl Marx, for example, professed a great desire to advocate for the proletariat, and yet sexually abused the only real proletarian he knew personally. Percy Bysshe Shelley said he loved the human race, and was also unbelievably cruel and selfish with his friends and lovers.

We say that none of us is a set of scales. We also say that the parable of the workmen makes it clear that love is impartial and gives according to need not according to desert.

[Nick_A]

II didn't kill anything today. I was too busy. However I do know of two abortions so it hasn't been a total loss.

[Nick_A]

I C wrote:

Yes, I agree. So what are we to say about a man who travelled the world being "compassionate," all his life, and neglected his own children? I've met such, and I know of such in philosophy too. Karl Marx, for example, professed a great desire to advocate for the proletariat, and yet sexually abused the only real proletarian he knew personally. Percy Bysshe Shelley said he loved the human race, and was also unbelievably cruel and selfish with his friends and lovers.

"I love mankind. Its people I can't stand." Charles M. SchulzI

It takes good ol Charlie Brown to get to the bottom of it.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

The problem with "intelligence" as a criterion is that it is not an equally-distributed quality. Some humans have more of it, and some less. Some animals have more of it, and some less. And, as P. Singer has pointed out, some animals have more of it than, say, badly mentally-handicapped humans, or perhaps extreme dementia sufferers.

So whatever else that criterion will conduce to, it won't be to equality. The irresistible corollary to using "intelligence" as the criterion will be that those who have more of it are, in the relevant sense, more "valuable" than those who have less.

I think those concerns stem from a fear of implementing it into the legal system. Even if it is true that IQ is the base for the value of someones life, I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others. What works in philosophy does not always work in politics.

Though I don't think this even necessarily leads to valuing the lives of intelligent people more. Depends on the underlying principle of why 'intelligence = worth'.

[thedoc]

Even if it is true that IQ is the base for the value of someones life, I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others. What works in philosophy does not always work in politics.

In politics it is the vote that counts, and intelligence isn't a factor, and according to the last election life doesn't matter either, as many dead people voted for Hillary.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others.

True: but I think the question has to be why they don't. After all, if "intelligence" is really the right explanation of why human beings have rights, then more of it should argue for more rights. That's just the most simple kind of logic.

But somehow, we know that's not right. And our intuition that it's not points to our need of a better explanation for rights...and to the fact that "intelligence" is not the real reason for rights at all.

[Greta]

I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others.

True: but I think the question has to be why they don't. After all, if "intelligence" is really the right explanation of why human beings have rights, then more of it should argue for more rights. That's just the most simple kind of logic.

I think this highlights how Immanual's logic tends to be abstracted rather than reality-based. To follow his thinking, since food is healthy, more food must be better. Then sunlight is good for you so more must be better. By his "simple kind of logic" large animals are stronger than smaller ones so, the bigger an animal is, the more likely it will survive. And if that's the case, therefore dysentery simply gives one an especially thorough bowel cleanout so it must be especially healthful.

[Belinda]

Greta wrote:

Yet, when one looks around, all of the "Beasts" operate more like voracious caterpillars than their rather more sophisticated individuals (at least some). Yet, if we reject all of the "beasts", what then? The hard part of such a rejection is authenticity. Truly rejecting the GB and not play-acting means opting out of the economic system completely, never availing oneself of the "Beast's" infrastructure and taken-for-granted security measures. No house. No internet. No recorded music, etc.

Further, who is to say that our judgement of good and bad is valid? What if we reject our particular "Great Beast" based on insufficient knowledge of its circumstances or wrongful assumptions? That would be quite a spectacular way to wreck one's life - living a life of terrible privation and lost opportunities based simply on wrong information ...

Wouldn't you agree that this is the point at which morality becomes politics, or alternatively psychology, or more likely both?

Authenticity is admitting one's basic needs and weaknesses and hoping to do what 's best in one's circumstances. The circs include peer pressures i.e. Great Beast.I never read Simone Weil; perhaps she was existentialist of a Christian kind.it's true that authenticity includes resisting peer pressure when peers get it wrong. But one doesn't want to be brash and undiplomatic like Trump versus North Korea. I recommended Florence Nightingale who dirtied her hands in the horrible status quo of army medical facilities as they were before she could introduce better care for soldiers, and thence for civilians too. I think we all have to engage with what presents, e.g. if the modern technology is going bad we need to use it to try to set it right without creating extra harm.
So to politics. Capitalism has become bad and needs to be fixed by us who are the beneficiaries of capitalism.What we do in places like this is exchange views which then proliferate due to the free exchanges. I don't agree with Nick for instance but he introduced Simone Weil and the Great Beast which is a fertile idea.

[Greta]

Greta wrote:

Yet, when one looks around, all of the "Beasts" operate more like voracious caterpillars than their rather more sophisticated individuals (at least some). Yet, if we reject all of the "beasts", what then? The hard part of such a rejection is authenticity. Truly rejecting the GB and not play-acting means opting out of the economic system completely, never availing oneself of the "Beast's" infrastructure and taken-for-granted security measures. No house. No internet. No recorded music, etc.

Further, who is to say that our judgement of good and bad is valid? What if we reject our particular "Great Beast" based on insufficient knowledge of its circumstances or wrongful assumptions? That would be quite a spectacular way to wreck one's life - living a life of terrible privation and lost opportunities based simply on wrong information ...

Wouldn't you agree that this is the point at which morality becomes politics, or alternatively psychology, or more likely both?

Authenticity is admitting one's basic needs and weaknesses and hoping to do what 's best in one's circumstances. The circs include peer pressures i.e. Great Beast.I never read Simone Weil; perhaps she was existentialist of a Christian kind.it's true that authenticity includes resisting peer pressure when peers get it wrong. But one doesn't want to be brash and undiplomatic like Trump versus North Korea. I recommended Florence Nightingale who dirtied her hands in the horrible status quo of army medical facilities as they were before she could introduce better care for soldiers, and thence for civilians too. I think we all have to engage with what presents, e.g. if the modern technology is going bad we need to use it to try to set it right without creating extra harm.
So to politics. Capitalism has become bad and needs to be fixed by us who are the beneficiaries of capitalism.What we do in places like this is exchange views which then proliferate due to the free exchanges. I don't agree with Nick for instance but he introduced Simone Weil and the Great Beast which is a fertile idea.

Morality and politics are for those who believe they know what is right for others. I don't have that much certainty. An incredible amount of information I knew when younger is now useless, much of it found by researchers to be misconceptions. Even in the early 2000s I remember being shocked at how wrong my parents' old 1960s Encyclopaedia Britannica was on many topics.

I think politicians are all bluff merchants - they don't have much clue about the nuances of the complex beast of society, so they tend to follow their "tribal" affiliations and use post hoc rationalisations to justify their positions.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think any philosopher intends to adapt that into a political philosophy that justifies discrimination against others.

True: but I think the question has to be why they don't. After all, if "intelligence" is really the right explanation of why human beings have rights, then more of it should argue for more rights. That's just the most simple kind of logic.

I think this highlights how Immanual's logic tends to be abstracted rather than reality-based. To follow his thinking, since food is healthy, more food must be better.

No, I was not arguing in the way you're parodying. You've misunderstood.

I was not arguing that Intelligence was "good for you" at all (though perhaps it often is). Some intelligent people are toxically "smart," and can't manage life. We all know such folks. Rather, I was pointing out what proponents of the "intelligence" criterion for rights are obligated to believe if they are rational: namely, that if rights depend on "intelligence," then people who have more intelligence have a better claim to rights.

I was also saying that intuitively we all sense that that was incorrect. Intelligence is NOT the right criterion for rights.

Hope this helps.