tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29334951.post115147201495380832..comments2023-10-25T10:22:21.216-04:00Comments on Kylopod's Blog: The promise of a sound resolutionKylopodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29334951.post-1155005661721643942006-08-07T22:54:00.000-04:002006-08-07T22:54:00.000-04:00Same response to the Golden Rule; I could just as ...<I>Same response to the Golden Rule; I could just as easily assert that it's survival of the fitest, and I am entitled to take that which I can by any means possible (in fact, I could support this by stating that nature points to this being a "rational" perspective).</I><BR/><BR/>But I can point out that humans have shown the ability to transcend this selfish competition. Due to our higher intelligence and reasoning ability, we, unlike most animals, can sense that all members of our species have the same desire to live and be happy as "I" do. Morality is simply a structured attempt to make sense out of this knowledge which is unique to human beings. We can choose not to act based on this knowledge, but we can't help being aware of it.<BR/><BR/><I>Ask yourself this: is Saddam Hussien in jail today because he was morally wrong, or because the US was more powerful than he was?</I><BR/><BR/>The answer is easy. It's because of the U.S.'s power. The mere fact that he's in jail proves nothing, just as the mere fact that the Nazis killed six million Jews doesn't prove they were right to do so. Sometimes morality triumphs; often it does not. We cannot derive moral truths simply from observing how people treat each other. We can only use our moral knowledge to try to have an effect on the world, even knowing we might not succeed.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29334951.post-1155003245521321902006-08-07T22:14:00.000-04:002006-08-07T22:14:00.000-04:00Same response to the Golden Rule; I could just as ...Same response to the Golden Rule; I could just as easily assert that it's survival of the fitest, and I am entitled to take that which I can by any means possible (in fact, I could support this by stating that nature points to this being a "rational" perspective).<BR/><BR/>Ask yourself this: is Saddam Hussien in jail today because he was morally wrong, or because the US was more powerful than he was? Then switch Saddam and the US for any king and any people. Your ex post facto rational interpretation of history may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that those that assert the power of their ideas and realize them are the ones that are the winners, not necc the ones that are "right" or "rational" according to common sense.<BR/><BR/>I'll send you an email; I can't seem to figure out who you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29334951.post-1154976302169809932006-08-07T14:45:00.000-04:002006-08-07T14:45:00.000-04:00The problem is that all rational thought is based,...<I>The problem is that all rational thought is based, at its root on aximatic principles. These are taken as fact, and are not proved. They may seem self-evident, but they don't have to be, and I could just as easily construct a system from a different set of axioms that would eventually lead me to be able to come to a different conclusion that was wholly "rational."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but I think if you look at all societies, you find some core principles in common. Everyone agrees that killing in general is wrong. The only disputes are over the exceptions. In my essay, I didn't go into the reasons why this is so. One could argue that it's still subjective, even if everyone agrees on the basic principle.<BR/><BR/>I think the primary basis of morality as a whole is the Golden Rule. It isn't just some inscrutable commandment in the Bible but a principle that is fundamental to humanity. It is based on the idea that from a rational standpoint there is no reason to value myself over anyone else. I may <I>feel</I> that I want to avoid harm to myself, and I may not be able to feel the same thing about others. But I <I>know</I> objectively (or at least I'm able to infer) that other people possess the same level of feeling. So it wouldn't make sense to value only myself.<BR/><BR/><I>Take murder as an example. One of the axioms that underlies our disdain for murder is that each individual life is of equal value. How do we know that? Maybe those born into prominent or powerful families are inherently more valuable than poor people? I could conclude that, therefore, it is OK for a prince to kill a peseant if he needs to.</I><BR/><BR/>And such ideas have been held as true in past times. But they did not hold up to scrutiny. Rational thinkers concluded--based on the evidence of history as well as ordinary experience--that the powerful were not more valuable than the powerless. And by "valuable," I'm not merely talking about brains or innate ability. That too is a factor, of course--the gradual realization that kings and emperors aren't necessarily better at ruling over a society than the average person. But on a deeper level, we realized that everyone has as much desire to live and be free of harm as anyone else does, and from a rational standpoint there's no reason to value the ruler's desire more; he's where he is only through force, not value.<BR/><BR/><I>Do we know each other?</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. I'm a Baltimore frummie, as you appear to be. While I have not posted my name on the Internet, I am only semi-anonymous. I give out a lot of facts about myself, and my email addy (kylopod@aol.com) is known to many people in my "real" life.Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29334951.post-1154970948608149732006-08-07T13:15:00.000-04:002006-08-07T13:15:00.000-04:00Good post; I disagree with you, but this is presen...Good post; I disagree with you, but this is presented very well.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that all rational thought is based, at its root on aximatic principles. These are taken as fact, and are not proved. They may seem self-evident, but they don't have to be, and I could just as easily construct a system from a different set of axioms that would eventually lead me to be able to come to a different conclusion that was wholly "rational." Take murder as an example. One of the axioms that underlies our disdain for murder is that each individual life is of equal value. How do we know that? Maybe those born into prominent or powerful families are inherently more valuable than poor people? I could conclude that, therefore, it is OK for a prince to kill a peseant if he needs to.<BR/><BR/>I do agree that what you said in the end, "All moral controversies are ultimately power struggles." Good and evil really are just illusions, we have to bring them into existence. It helps that moral arguments make sense when trying to convince others, but ultimately, you can't rely on that.<BR/><BR/>Just found your blog, I don't remember how, good stuff, I'm subscribed. Do we know each other?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com