The Good and God

[Guest Fadi]

"self-defense, shooting a hostage-taker, assasinating a bad dictator."

 

Self-defense, is rationaly neutral or good.

 

Because if you let yourself kill, you do bad, because you have permied someone to be killed, if you kill you do bad, then you substract, and come to 0... you did neither good or bad... on the other way, this person that try to kill you, may be a criminal, and if he can try to kill you, he may do it to others as well, so by killing him you protect yourself, and others, with substractions you come the the conclusion that you did good. So self defense is at least neutral.

 

If the hostage taker is dangerious, and you have no option left, then it is rationaly good to shut at him if you have no other options, for the same reason given for the self-defense. The same apply for the dictatorial regime.

 

As for lying, most of our lies are bad lies not good, we know and still do it. From Socrates, someone that knows that what he does is wrong and does it, he is commiting more bad then someone that does bad and he ignore doing bad.

[Sip]

I have a fundamental problem with how you are defining order. "Killing is worse than lying" is not a universalizable statement. It is not absolute. The same applies to "human is higher order than mouse". You almost always have to consider the big picture ... that is where Kant's thing falls apart.

 

Example: A human new-born child vs. A healthy adult female white tiger.

 

Which one is higher order in your mind? If that tiger species disappears, it is GONE FOREVER (ignore genetic research for the moment). A human new-born is relatively trivial to recreate. Granted, that that specific instance of a human is unique (some argue that it's infinitely valuable), but I am making the argument that in that case, your ordering is grossly shortsighted. You have to consider a LOT of factors in your ordering, and that's what makes it a difficult task.

 

I realize that people get a bit touchy when humans are concerned. So replace my "human baby" example above, with a chimpanzee baby. Obviously a chimp is much more "ordered" than a tiger ... or is it? In this case, I think that white tiger is a LOT more "valuable" than the chimp, even though the chimp is much higher on your scale (I am guessing).

 

Also, what if we met in real life one day and I say either:

 

1) Hi Domino, you are a fat ugly pig.

2) Hi Domino, you look good man, what's up?

 

What if #1 is the truth but I choose to say #2? I did a bad thing (lie) but I think the outcome will most likely be better (more good) than what will happen with #1.

 

[ November 09, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[vava]

Domino,

 

I think that for someone with 'limited' English, you summarized Kant's logic quite concisely.

 

You can correct me if i'm wrong,(I've never actually studied philosophy...) but I believe that Kant postulated that moral laws must absolute, and unchanging if they are to be considered laws. However, moral laws are prescriptive statements (eg. not we must do this, but rather we ought to do this). So this is a bit blurry for me.

 

For Sip's example, 'lying out of good will', Kant's moral theory is non-consequentialist in nature. He argues that if the will is to be considered good, it is good independent of its effects, laying the indicator of value solely upon intention.

 

That is, if you would state #2 (a lie) instead of number #1(the truth) in consideration of Domino's feelings - you are lying,(this is bad), but with good intentions. So that would be ok irregardless of the result, right?

 

I suppose that if I was starving to death, and decided to steal to prevent myself from dying, that would be ok with Kant too...

[Guest Fadi]

Sip, there is possible good and bad, and there is absolute good and bad. As a human, we can only achieve possible good and bad, because we don't know all the parametres, in order to know all those parametres, we should be the Universe.

 

Here an example, lets say that you see someone trying to kill another, you protect that victim, and later the person that you protected by killing the other, become a dictator and trow a nuclear bomb, and kill millions. What you have done, was it bad or good? Your intention was good, but what you did, you did it by ignorance, you could not have known that the person you saved would kill millions. Ignorance is the limit for human to reach absolute "Good" For Socrates, there was absolute "Good" and there was human "good", you did a human good by saving that person, but what you did was an "absolute" bad.

 

In order to know what is absolute good and bad, one should be the Universe, being every matters and energy of the Universe at the same time, being every parameters, and for you past present and future should be just one... Knowning past, present and future, and being all the Universe, and being everyone of those parametres, you know the consequences of eachone of your acts...

 

This is why Sip, I think you are mixing, Absolute good and bad, and human good and bad, human good and bad is limited to our ignorance, but you proved this yourself with your examples, because you gave examples of what may be bad and criticized my logic by doing so, what you did is telling me that whatever human does, he can not know this or that etc... "baby vs adult" etc... thats not a problem in the rational conception of good and bad, it is a problem in the application as human. Limited to that, we compleat it, we our love and heart.

 

Imagine that two person are dying, you can only sabe one of those two, your child and a stranger. Who you save ? Rational "good and bad" will order you to not do any distinction, and to save whom it is easier to save... but you decide to save your child. Why ? Because for you if you do not do that, you do bad etc... emotions compleats the gap left, emotions compleat our ignorance, this is why when someone ignore, he will rather turn on emotion, all emotions are based on that. Anger comes from ignorance and fear etc... try you will see, there is only the emotions important for our survival that are not.

 

As the mouse and human, the baby, is an adult to come technically, and the order we have, is rationality, we have everything physical an animal can have, and we have the plus, Socrates triangle, at the bottom, you have emotions, at the middle, volonty, and at the top, "La Raison" other animals are limited to the first ones, they do not have human volonty, they may have the volonty that will serve their survival, and their emotions, but not the special volonty that can serve the reason, and they do not have this reason, those things are not physical, even if their being there has something to do with our brain that is physical, they are still not physical... that in the hiearchy of orders makes us more ordered, because all those orders and connections, give something of a higher level then just physical interactions. This is why killing a human is worst then killing another specy... now as the consequences etc..., baby vs etc... here again, its because of ignorance, we can not know the future, and we don't know all those parametres.

 

Ah and between #1 and #2, I know i am ugly, it will make me happy if you say the truth, I would not like that you lie to me like that, so the outcome of your lie could be worster. Imagine that I decide to be a model because of what you said, and makes a fool of myself, and this kill any estimes I have for myself... You see Sip ? You though you did good, but in fact you did wrong, this is because you ignore many of the consequences, you do not control every parametres, thise does not mean good and bad don't really exist, it means that our ignorance don't permit us to reach absolute Good, that has been determinated by the Universe, as what is order, and bad, what is against order.

 

[ November 10, 2002, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[THOTH]

Back to the original issue. God & good. I really truly think that if one believes in the God (of the Bible - old & new T) of the Bible - then one is worshipping a being who is inherently evil/counter to man and man's humanity - at least if you consider what he has supposedly done to humans - pretty nasty fellow if you ask me.

[Sip]

Domino, I don't think I was mixing anything. Actually, I see now that we are in perfect agreement! The only confusion I guess is from the fact that I don't care about the "possible" or "human" (as you call it) good/bad at all. That is irrelevant I think. I am always in search of absolute good/bad (as I think everyone else should also be). And I think we both agree that our challenge in life is to try to be good in the "absolute" sense even with our limited perception. Of course we will make mistakes along the way ... but we should try to minimize mistakes as much as humanly possible.

 

Thoth: I agree! With all those powers, it just seems like the "christian" god at least is toying with us for his/her amuzement

 

[ November 10, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Guest Fadi]

OK I understand Sip, I though that you were mixing the absolute good and human possible good.

 

BTW, who need God, when we have the concept of absolute good, because absolute good is superior then any god that one can concieve.

 

[ November 10, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]