Posted on 07/25/2010 1:37:12 PM PDT by betty boop
there is no moral incumbency=there is no moral incumbency to be properly civilized, that is.
Just for clarification, by the phrase, "except social" do you mean to say that there is a moral obligation to be unselfish for the good of society?
Since it subsists only in man-made social settings, it is a pragmatic man-made value.
Again, is it incumbent upon a person to obey this pragmatic man-made value for the good of society?
Same answer. Being productive is meaningless without a society, which is a network of interconnected and interdependent activities.
Yes, but since morality is prescriptive in nature is it morally incumbent upon one to be productive for the good of society?
For superstitious religious reasons in hopes of gaining favor from some imaginary god. Its "virtue" was in the primitive cause-and-effect belief that a sacrifice was necessary for the society's well-being. Shall we call it the ancient form of "charity?"
Not that there's anything wrong with that... </seinfeld>
It's not limited to ancient, primitive societies. Nowadays we have infant family members put to death by the abortionist's knife to the god of whatever.
No, there is no moral incumbency.
I rest my case. If morality is subjective and relative as you claim it is then it provides no authoritative ethical voice and therefore no morality worthy of the name.
Cordially,
I see your addendum now after I posted. I may have to get back up out of my chair.
Is there moral incumbency to be properly civilized in society?
Cordially,
do you mean to say that there is a moral obligation to be unselfish for the good of society?
There is no sui generis ethical or moral obligation other than what the society imposes upon its members. Since the society is man-made, so are its ethical/moral obligations/values.
Again, is it incumbent upon a person to obey this pragmatic man-made value for the good of society?
Unless specifically mandated by law, no.
Yes, but since morality is prescriptive in nature is it morally incumbent upon one to be productive for the good of society?
No. If you don't have to work for a living, there is no (moral or even legal) obligation to be productive for the good of the society. But it is incumbent upon all through laws not to be harmful to the society.
It's not limited to ancient, primitive societies. Nowadays we have infant family members put to death by the abortionist's knife to the god of whatever.
Because the society as a whole no longer considers it immoral (just for the record: I personally do not approve of abortion).
Diamond: Is there moral incumbency to be properly civilized in society?
No, but there is a social incumbency to be properly civilized; properly meaning to the extent the society deems it acceptable.
What is it that makes a phenomenon "antisocial?"
What does the word "good" mean to you? For that matter, what does the word "evil" mean to you?
The way I see it, it is the opposite of unselfishness (unsalefishness being a virtue in our culture) and is therefore a vice.
Since both virtue or vice are encountered only in man-made cultures or societies (the artificial man-made world we call civilization), both have no meaning in the natural world, imo.
What does the word "good" mean to you? For that matter, what does the word "evil" mean to you?
Without looking up a dictionary definition, I would say that to mnean it means something which is implicitly or explicitly beneficial. Evil, on the other hand, is that which is implicitly or explicitly injurious.
You’re very welcome (he said warily).
“Life is a compromise . . . ”
Define ‘compromise.’ The only possible compromise with evil is abject surrender (see Ayn Rand). Evil will accept no less. Facing a path from which there is no escape and no choice, cannot be thought a compromise, but, I take your point just the same. I agree that Madison did not literally mean evil with his “necessary evil” remark. It was more a rather unartful “term of art.” Which is why I remarked that, despite their remarkable and unmatched achievement, the Founding Fathers didn’t quite hit it square on the screws. Knowing that the perfection of Mankind is not possible, they nonetheless sought to better the condition of the United States. My conclusion is that they hit it better than anyone who came before, or has come since. I take it from your remarks that you agree.
Referring to the phrase ‘a more perfect union,’ you ask how can perfect be made more perfect. I’ll not insult you by assuming you fail to understand the meaning of the phrase “a more perfect union.” So, I’ll simply ask what you meant by that query.
“This country has radically changed in the last 30-40 years in the direction that seems to be leading her into a third world camp, and most of it is by design”
You’ve said a mouthful there, and you would find it instructive to examine exactly what values have been attacked in the Progressives’ drive to demolish, brick by brick, what the Founding Fathers had built, and try to also divine the reason for their attacks against specific values. But, never mind. You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you don’t want to go there.
Responding to my query, “What went wrong” with the French Revolution, you speculate a misunderstanding or an adulteration of the Rousseau philosophy. Perhaps an adulteration occurred, but I don’t think there was any misunderstanding. The vast majority of the French people were too ignorant to be guilty of a misapprehension of either liberty or reason. They were all too happy to serve the interests of the thugs who took control of France if it permitted them the opportunity to bring retribution upon the heads of those they perceived to be their tormentors. Man, woman, child; guilty or not guilty; it didn’t matter. If they were of a certain class, then off with their heads! Sounds a good deal like today in a certain society.
Even from those who should have known better, we got nothing better. Paine’s idea of The Age of Reason amounted to nothing better than a snarky little smear of virtually ever scrap of Biblical scripture extant, and Beethoven’s “Eroica” symphony ended being dedicated to the “memory” of a great man.
“So, what will be our excuse when it happens here?”
A great many will stand around with a stupefied look on their face and a “What Happened?” query in their eyes. An equally stupefied group will protest their good intentions, express their incomprehension about how things could have turned out so badly, and mount a search for a scapegoat. Another group will know what happened, but will be grimly determined to deflect their guilt on someone else. At its worst, it will be Atlas Shrugged without the hero. The cacophony will be deafening.
I would like to say (write) a little more, but I’m off early on the morrow to visit my silver mine in northern Idaho, so I’ve got to commence to begin to start to prepare for the trip.
See you in about ten days.
But what is the decisive criterion to distinguish one from the other? I.e., good from evil? How can anything be rationally judged "explicitly beneficial" [for whom???] or otherwise, without such a criterion by which to judge?
You remind me of a denizen of Laputa — the "flying island" of Jonathan Swift's magnificent satire, Gulliver's Travels. The strange power of this flying island of Laputa was that its denizens never had to put "their feet down on the ground" of Reality as it was experienced by humans everywhere else, with all existential reality's problems and complications. I won't go into all the details here. Suffice it to say that the only "sciences" understood or credited on Laputa were mathematics (in highly bastardized and reduced form), and music. And music is only included on the list of Laputan worthies because of its likeness to mathematics. Though the Laputan scholars are not entirely sure how or why that is....
In other words, Swift the satirist is poking fun at human beings here. Including, I do believe, you, dear kosta! Perhaps especially you — or whatever "type" of thinking you represent.
Prayers continue....
May God ever bless you in your "absence!!!" (I'll miss you meanwhile. :^) )
Thank you ever so much for your splendid essay/post, dear brother in Christ!
Bump for study. Sorry did not find earlier.
Whatever motivates people, directly or indirectly. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with what drives people, including you.
How can anything be rationally judged "explicitly beneficial" [for whom???] or otherwise, without such a criterion by which to judge?
Who says there are no criteria? Societies not only have their own specific standards but they continually change them.
You remind me of a denizen of Laputa...And music is only included on the list of Laputan worthies because of its likeness to mathematics. Though the Laputan scholars are not entirely sure how or why that is.... Swift the satirist is poking fun at human beings here. Including, I do believe, you, dear kosta! Perhaps especially you
Your typical method of saying "you remind me of these idiots kosta". Obviously my answers don't sit well with you, yet instead of tackling the issue your replies consist of insulting the other side by likening it to some generally negative example. What a character.
Personally, I think I have both of my feel planted solidly on the ground. I regret that your responses, when they are not questions, always seem to be about me and what I remind you of rather than tackling the topic being discussed. Labeling me seems to be an irresistible urge with you. Yet, I don't think you are arguing with me; rather, you seem to be arguing with yourself, betty boop.
Unwittingly, you remind me— allow me to adopt your response mode for a change—of the people Friedrich Nietzsche referred to (in French) as the people of ressenetiment, otherwise known as the "people of love". A great deal of clergy fit right in that category—you know, the ones who offer prayers for others but it is they who may need prayers more than anyone else.
feel=feet
It's impossible to "tackle the topic being discussed" when you refuse to acknowledge what the topic is. It's as if we're not even discussing the same topic. You don't answer direct questions; for instance, what does the word "good" mean to you? What does "evil" mean to you? These seem to be pretty direct and simple questions. But no response from you! And it seems you're constantly trying to change the subject anyway.
I understand you to be saying that societies are completely free to establish their own criteria, out of whole cloth, as it were, and to make whatever changes to them that seem justified (justified by what? the coercive demand of a powerful ruler or ruling group?). But this sort of thing strikes me as necessarily a rule of men — which as you know, was something the Framers deeply deplored.
Why do you suppose the Framers deplored the idea of a rule of men? Why were they so committed to a rule of law instead?
Stop being such a cry-baby and THINK for a change.... Stop making these discussions "about me" — who is allegedly being so mean and abusive to kosta!!!
Otherwise, our conversations are a complete waste of time and energy.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
So true, dearest sister in Christ! Here we have a case of the wheels turning, spinning — but we never seem to get anywhere. Sigh....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.