|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 27, 2005 10:30:57 GMT -5
Firstly, are we assuming that this hypothetical person has knowledge of other systems of behavior to judge their actions by? If they have no knowledge, why would they say, want to share their food with others? It takes away from them? Out of the kindness of their heart? Straight-forward, that doesn't seem to add to that person's survival curve.
Secondly you said:
Why help others?
Pain in the ass aren't I?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 27, 2005 12:20:53 GMT -5
I don't know what a system of behaviour is. If you have helped yourself to the point that you are not needy, there is only hedonism or helping others. Well, I suppose there is also acting to gain approval, but this goes against the grain because these sheep you help only become more needy. People approve of being taken care of. They approve of self sacrifice. I am excluding this. Self sacrifice goes against your own life.
I tend to think that alone an enlightened individual would not indulge in hedonism, but would instead act to cater for potential needs (saving for the future) or would do nothing at all.
At a threshold of reduced risk said individual would go from catering to needs to helping deserving others, or if alone would at a higher threshold do nothing. I mean after gaining knowledge, etc, because gaining knowledge is catering to future needs.
The reason I say hedonism would be rejected is because to live one must fight and overcome nature. Nature is there to be conquered, nature is anti-life. To fight for life but then choose hedonism is counterintuitive. Why sleep with the enemy? Why debase yourself?
Life is a side-effect of nature, an anomaly. I think an enlightened being would rightly abhor hedonism.
And why I say an individual would choose to help deserving others is because it too is against nature. It is taking the fight to other theatres. If the point of living is to live, and life is anti-nature, it is consonant with the purpose.
Deserving others are helped because they won't become needy as a result. The idea is to reduce need, to further abstract nature's wiles.
The process of living is an emancipation from nature. I imagine an enlightened being would proceed in line with that.
Most definitely not. I don't get to have many serious discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Sept 29, 2005 21:27:52 GMT -5
To vertigo: I am not sure I agree with your survival=morality approach, but now I understand what it is that you're getting at.
To solidsquid: I see your point now. I would say that to someone who feels guilt about nothing, everything is moral. Obviously I have my own opinions on what is or is not moral, but I'm not about to speculate about the existance of a "universal morality" since logically I am sure one does not exist. There are things most rational humans agree on about morality; I would say this rough average is as close as there comes to "universal."
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 30, 2005 6:08:07 GMT -5
Griffey, do you agree that morality, whatever it is and if it exists, is what ought to be done? Do you agree that the point of living is to live?
If you agree with these two statements, acting to survive is moral. Are you truly saying one should not act to survive? Remember, value can only be attained while living.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Oct 1, 2005 17:16:36 GMT -5
I think I understand your point now Vertigo, thanks for the clarification. I did a very short paper on morality for one of my classes last semester. Maybe I can expand it someday soon.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 1, 2005 22:31:45 GMT -5
As you can probably tell, most of the time I revise my opinion in such discussions. Often what I end up saying is slightly different than what I start out saying. It annoys some people, but when someone makes a valid point I try to integrate that.
I am not defending a position so much as revising it. I started out saying that the point of life is to live morally, not just to live. I ended up saying that the point is to live, but that demands living morally.
This whole 'emancipation' lot is in a very raw state. The more I discuss it, the more refined it will get. Is life or sentient life the anomaly? I tend to think one follows from the other, with the advent of language. Sentient beings uniquely have the choice not to follow hedonism. It's what differentiates sentient and non-sentient life. To say sentient beings should then follow hedonism by default seems a step backwards.
Hedonism is like an adult using training wheels, those urges are there to make sure you don't steer too badly. No adult should need training wheels, in fact training wheels would be very limiting. To say everybody should revert to using training wheels would be very strange indeed.
|
|