User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 59

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    • Note how hindsight is 20/20? Until you take a course of action, the results won't be crystallised. No one can predict the future, including outcome of actions taken.
    • Note how your points are based on subjectivity and not objectivity? Let's move in a macro direction. Asteroid will hit the Earth. Why must we save the human race, considering the destruction enacted on the Earth by human beings? Let nature take its course and allow the resulting species who survive, reassert a dominance hierarchy where hopefully, the dominant species won't be so destructive.
    Well, on that note, I would make the decision to save the human race, since my goal is to survive. If I did something to destroy, or deliver the human race to a fate somehow worse than death in order to destroy the asteroid, that would not be justified, since my original goal would now be rendered pointless. On the same note, I would not sacrifice myself to destroy the asteroid if there were another way, for exactly the same reason; my goal in that situation would be to survive; killing myself would obviously not be surviving. If there was no other way but to die, then I would stop the asteroid, since now the secondary goal of saving humanity is what will take priority, since survival would be impossible.

    The ends justify the means depending on what your ends are; if my goal was to exterminate humanity, then I would allow the asteroid to hit. If my goal was simply to preserve nature, I would destroy the asteroid to prevent the damage to the biosphere that such an impact would cause, or if I had deemed humanity to be a worse threat to nature than the asteroid, I would allow it to hit and wipe us out. If my goal, like I stated above, was simply to survive, then I would destroy the asteroid, placing my own survival above that of humanity. If my goal was to save humanity, then I would save humanity at any cost; no matter what I needed to do to destroy that asteroid, I would do it.

    As for your first point; hindsight is 20/20, however, we can only do the best we can with the information we are given.

  2. #32
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,023

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    Well, on that note, I would make the decision to save the human race, since my goal is to survive. If I did something to destroy, or deliver the human race to a fate somehow worse than death in order to destroy the asteroid, that would not be justified, since my original goal would now be rendered pointless. On the same note, I would not sacrifice myself to destroy the asteroid if there were another way, for exactly the same reason; my goal in that situation would be to survive; killing myself would obviously not be surviving. If there was no other way but to die, then I would stop the asteroid, since now the secondary goal of saving humanity is what will take priority, since survival would be impossible.

    The ends justify the means depending on what your ends are; if my goal was to exterminate humanity, then I would allow the asteroid to hit. If my goal was simply to preserve nature, I would destroy the asteroid to prevent the damage to the biosphere that such an impact would cause, or if I had deemed humanity to be a worse threat to nature than the asteroid, I would allow it to hit and wipe us out. If my goal, like I stated above, was simply to survive, then I would destroy the asteroid, placing my own survival above that of humanity. If my goal was to save humanity, then I would save humanity at any cost; no matter what I needed to do to destroy that asteroid, I would do it.
    Once again, you're reinforcing my argument of subjectivity, where you cannot use objectivity to supplement an argument. So, how can you guarantee that event will happen and how do you guarantee the outcome of your plan?

    Anyways, all food for thought when attempting to view any situation. Which is why I greatly question the concepts of good/evil and right/wrong. Since it's all subjective, how can one definitively state that it's good/evil or right/wrong. The worst "evils" were enacted for the "greater good".

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    I consider good and evil to be a limiting, outdated concept; however, I can certainly debate the point if I have to.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Lily flower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    2
    Posts
    931

    Default

    Biblical values: Jesus said to love God and love others and that all other "laws" hang on those two premises. Most moral decisions can be based on loving others. The tricky ones are where loving one person means hurting another. Those take more work to figure out. Also, there is some degree of not being a doormat to the extent that loving others destroys yourself.

    Whether the ends justify the means - mostly I would say no, but there are some cases where there is temporary pain to achieve longer good. You take your baby to the doctor to get an immunization for poliio. The baby is hurt and mad for a moment, but is saved from possible death or being paralyzed later in life. In that case, the end justifies the means.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily flower View Post
    Biblical values: Jesus said to love God and love others and that all other "laws" hang on those two premises. Most moral decisions can be based on loving others. The tricky ones are where loving one person means hurting another. Those take more work to figure out. Also, there is some degree of not being a doormat to the extent that loving others destroys yourself.

    Whether the ends justify the means - mostly I would say no, but there are some cases where there is temporary pain to achieve longer good. You take your baby to the doctor to get an immunization for poliio. The baby is hurt and mad for a moment, but is saved from possible death or being paralyzed later in life. In that case, the end justifies the means.
    The actual quote from Jesus I think is to "Love others as you love thyself", it is a teaching which has some pedigree among the Jewish tradition, I've read authors who where not Christians, such as Fromm (Jewish but athiest) and Martin Buber (Hasidic Jew?), who believed that it was the logical working out of the commandments and dialogue with divinity which the Jewish tradition was about.

    I dont actually believe that Jesus meant to abolish or usurp or supplant the commandments when he said this, in many ways "Love others as you love thyself" seems to me to be the law but the commandments, the ten and other laws within the old testament, are more precise or specific. Like when you ask someone what they believe and then ask them what those beliefs look like in practice, what thinking, words and deeds are requisite as a consequence.

    Fromm's book Man For Himself is a very interesting book, it is his attempt to work out an ethics which he thought was in congruence with human psychology or human nature, in a lot of ways it is "legitimate self interest for socialists" because he spends some time working out the differences between selfishness and self-love. He manages it by returning to the idea of "love others as you love thyself", you have to love yourself before you can love others, otherwise you're a martyr or masochist or something, and you need to be capable of one to be capable of the other.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Guess View Post
    I consider good and evil to be a limiting, outdated concept; however, I can certainly debate the point if I have to.
    Really? Why outdated? Why limiting? What is your alternative conceptualisation and how does it avoid the limits and "outdated" nature you attribute to the dichotomy of good vs. evil?

  7. #37
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Really? Why outdated? Why limiting? What is your alternative conceptualisation and how does it avoid the limits and "outdated" nature you attribute to the dichotomy of good vs. evil?
    I assumed that he(she?) was talking about the huge amount of situations that involve both/ or grey areas- and of course good and evil are similar in a lot of areas across the globe and people, but still differ. The concepts are still very much alive and the same, though.

    Ugh, I felt like I couldn't spit that one out properly.

    (Goes to get my coffee.)
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  8. #38
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lily flower View Post
    Biblical values: Jesus said to love God and love others and that all other "laws" hang on those two premises. Most moral decisions can be based on loving others. The tricky ones are where loving one person means hurting another. Those take more work to figure out. Also, there is some degree of not being a doormat to the extent that loving others destroys yourself.

    Whether the ends justify the means - mostly I would say no, but there are some cases where there is temporary pain to achieve longer good. You take your baby to the doctor to get an immunization for poliio. The baby is hurt and mad for a moment, but is saved from possible death or being paralyzed later in life. In that case, the end justifies the means.
    Yeah, love seems to be a common thread in a lot of religions and belief systems. When I learned about triage situations, I thought that doing good could get sticky sometimes. Most of the time care and level of emergency is obvious based on condition.There are some who are nearly dead, you don't save them if their chances of survival are poor. But when you get down to two people who have the same level of acuity but you could only choose one, it is the caregiver choice.
    A lot of people would pick the younger and healthier one, but why?
    ...
    There's a lot of reasons why- it's just odd and unnatural for the human mind to have to think about the value of one life over another life on the spur of the moment.
    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    I assumed that he(she?) was talking about the huge amount of situations that involve both/ or grey areas- and of course good and evil are similar in a lot of areas across the globe and people, but still differ. The concepts are still very much alive and the same, though.

    Ugh, I felt like I couldn't spit that one out properly.

    (Goes to get my coffee.)
    Coffee is good.

    I just bawlk at relativism, particularly when its presented as a fact, Chesterton totally tore most of the Nietzsche lite which has since become popular to pieces in a very simple argument in a book entitled orthodoxy, he suggested that it was moral cowardice to suggest such a thing as beyond good and evil was possible, you were either extra good or extra evil but it was/is one of those definitive things its impossible to do without.

    I dont know what it is that makes good people blame authority or suspiscious of dichotomies like this right away, perhaps its a deep down hope that Socrates was right and that no one knowingly does harm or evil and that the only evil is really ignorance of the good but it bothers me and its why I tend to retort like that. Often its not something which has been thought out that much and is just thrown out with expectations of acceptance or a kind of easily knocked down moral outrage.

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Yeah, love seems to be a common thread in a lot of religions and belief systems. When I learned about triage situations, I thought that doing good could get sticky sometimes. Most of the time care and level of emergency is obvious based on condition.There are some who are nearly dead, you don't save them if their chances of survival are poor. But when you get down to two people who have the same level of acuity but you could only choose one, it is the caregiver choice.
    A lot of people would pick the younger and healthier one, but why?
    ...
    There's a lot of reasons why- it's just odd and unnatural for the human mind to have to think about the value of one life over another life on the spur of the moment.
    There are biophilis theories, shared by religious and materlist/evolutionary thinkers which suggest that we're hard wired to have reverence for life and ensure reproduction and resist extinction, its one possible explanation. Its one I like anyway.

Similar Threads

  1. Type and Handwriting
    By Ivy in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 591
    Last Post: 10-13-2017, 02:49 AM
  2. Thinking types and their emotions.
    By Athenian200 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-26-2014, 02:06 PM
  3. Personality Types and Music
    By SuperServal in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: 10-15-2012, 06:37 PM
  4. Types and Revenge
    By Natrushka in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 06:52 AM
  5. Is there a correlation between type and military enlistment?
    By Cindyrella in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-20-2007, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO