the_cave

All I'm saying is that obviously there are still standards of responsible behavior. Hedonism doesn't imply unlimited egoism or selfishness--but I'm sure everyone here would agree, so I'm not saying anyone is saying that. I'm sure we all agree there are still standards to be reasoned.

Ensign Steve

I do agree with you on that. Using reason, and my moral standards, I came to the conclusion that there is nothing morally wrong with drunken orgies. Drunken orgies are consistent with my standards of responsible behavior, because they don't directly cause harm to anybody else.

You say that they could lead to victims. You don't say that they do, just that they could. So my quote to you was an example of morally-neutral activities leading to unwanted results. My point was that an activity that could lead to immoral activity is not necessarily an immoral activity in and of itself.

echidna

Heh, maybe that's because you're not a bloke (guy). Mind you, breathing usually counts for something as well.

beastmaster

Um, what is the "philosophy" of Jesus?

If you pull out all the red words from the Bible, how many you got? Maybe a couple of pamphlets' worth? There's more written on the toilet stalls in the men's bathroom at the Whiskey-a-Go-Go.

And what do they consist of? Occasional rants, disconnected sayings, mystifying parables, hyperbole about eye-gouging and whatnot.

And that's the "enlightening" stuff. Most of what he says is "Follow me" and "Lazarus come forth!" and "You shall deny me thrice before the cock crows."

Peoples have been beating their heads for 2000 years trying to figure out what the fuck Jesus was talking about.

The philosophers I admire define their terms, present their assumptions and systematically formulate a worldview.

So, no, I don't admire Jesus as a philosopher.

the_cave

Sometimes it's hard being a Christian--some say you're too mean, others say you're too nice

But thank you for the post--I spent a lot of time thinking about it. And this response took forever to write...

I think maybe we are indeed talking about different kinds of love. I'm suggesting we at least care about the fate of reprehensible people, simply because they are capable of performing good, due to their humanity. Because, this is exactly the same reason why we are capable of performing good--we're human. This is different from the kind of love you might extend someone who actually has performed good. If you don't find those labels helpful, fine--as long as you can see what I'm saying.

Again, this is probably due to a difference in distinction. I think that the love I'm talking about is mostly a willingness to recognize someone as human, if they ask you to (something I should note Ted Bundy, I believe, never in fact did ask anyone...) And one big part of being human, I argue, is to realize your bad actions, regret them, and intend to make things right (perhaps because, you realize you love other people--for their goodness or what have you--which would complete the circle.) That's one way of putting it. The love I'm talking about is a way of extending this possibility to others. Maybe they haven't felt this way, maybe they never will. But you hold out the possibility anyway--indeed, you hope they do feel that way, even if you don't feel any other good thoughts about them at all, for the simple reason that you want to make it a better world, and hope they agree. That's what I'm talking about.

And I'm not asking for anyone to love out of pity. Now I don't sympathize with Ted Bundy one bit, and he was justly punished, but I realize that others might be driven by forces that I don't understand. That doesn't excuse or justify them in any way, but it helps me to understand that perhaps someone who's done evil doesn't comprehend the same things I do. If they did, they would be sorry. Now it might be completely impossible for them to rectify things, but I have to hold the same attitude towards their potential contrition as I do towards anyone's potential contrition, for the reason that a contrite person is a contrite person, whether or not they can ever make up for what they've done wrong. Please note that forgiving someone is not necessarily the same thing as saying everything is ok--or even that they can make it ok. But it is at least acknowledging that they would be willing to try and make it ok.

Alright, I think this is the difference--I would call these lower levels a form of love, I think. I'd at least argue that what I call love begins at the level of charity, which we should perform if possible when we think it will make the world a better place.

But then they have to believe that they will be restored to their former status if they pay their dues. I rarely see this happening, except at a small scale. Humans are unforgiving. I'm not saying you feel this way. I'm saying that people tend not to stop penalizing people after they've done wrong, even if they begin to do good, which would seem to give them no reason to stop doing wrong.

Nothing--but the kind of love I'm talking about isn't weakness. Loving someone in this way doesn't mean you have to put up with them! Now even you claim that some people need rewards to behave well--so if that someone doesn't see a possible reward, why would they be less likely to perform the rewarded behavior.

Now, abuse doesn't ever, ever have to be suffered, period--but forgiving an abuser doesn't mean letting them back into one's home, or even one's heart. It would mean, I suppose, accepting their sorrow if they sincerely give it (and also being ready to in case they do), thus restoring the relationship of humanity between both persons, and helping to create the possibility of a better world. Again, it's a two-way street, I will certainly grant you that.

Love might be like that, too.

Again, it's not out of pity. And I wouldn't expect the kind of love you're talking about for those reasons, either. But accepting someone's word that they regret their actions and want to do better--that can be given, merely because they are human. And I call it love--you don't have to.

Ensign Steve

:boohoo:

Does anybody ever say you are a communist? Or that you are un-American?

christ-on-a-stick

....great post. <snip> An excellent point to bear in mind. After all, as you said, the compiled "red letters" that make up the entirety of Jesus' words do not, in any remote sense, seem to formulate a "philosophy" - particularly considering that he contradicts himself on many occasions.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by the_cave
I think maybe we are indeed talking about different kinds of love. I'm suggesting we at least care about the fate of reprehensible people,

I certainly care about whether a serial rapist is incarcerated or released into the community, but I wouldn't call this love.

simply because they are capable of performing good, due to their humanity.

I don't care about people based on potential. I care about people based on what they do. If they are capable of performing good, but they prefer to disembowel others, why should I care about them?

Because, this is exactly the same reason why we are capable of performing good--we're human.

Being human does not automatically mean that one is capable of performing good. A human being may be permanently comatose, brain dead, sociopathic to the point of monstrosity, etc.

This is different from the kind of love you might extend someone who actually has performed good. If you don't find those labels helpful, fine--as long as you can see what I'm saying.

What you are saying is in a language that might be substantially different from the one I'm using, so I'm not sure that your point is coming across. I'm not certain, for example, how precisely "love" is supposed to be extended to a serial killer.

Again, this is probably due to a difference in distinction. I think that the love I'm talking about is mostly a willingness to recognize someone as human, if they ask you to

So "love" is now defined as "a willingness to recognize someone as human if they ask you to"?

This is substantially different from my definition of love, which involves respect, caring and loyalty. By the way, if someone doesn't ask you to recognize them as human, it it OK not to love them?

And one big part of being human, I argue, is to realize your bad actions, regret them, and intend to make things right (perhaps because, you realize you love other people--for their goodness or what have you--which would complete the circle.)

I would argue that another reason to correct your bad actions is because your self-respect depends on your behavior. In other words, it's not always primarily about love for other people.

The love I'm talking about is a way of extending this possibility to others. Maybe they haven't felt this way, maybe they never will. But you hold out the possibility anyway--

I'm not sure how precisely one "holds out this possibility" towards a reprehensible person, and how one avoids being harmed by this person just in case they don't want to make this a better world.

Personally, I can see other ways to make this a better world than wasting "love" on people who have shown their capacity and willingness to harm others.

And I'm not asking for anyone to love out of pity.

I beg your pardon. Statements such as

implied that to me.

...perhaps someone who's done evil doesn't comprehend the same things I do. If they did, they would be sorry.

I agree, but I don't think this justifies anything that can be termed as "love".

Now it might be completely impossible for them to rectify things, but I have to hold the same attitude towards their potential contrition as I do towards anyone's potential contrition

I disagree. There is a difference between decent, honest people who go about their lives, and serial killers. The latter don't deserve the same regard as other people do.

I would call these lower levels a form of love, I think. I'd at least argue that what I call love begins at the level of charity,

I don't like to cheapen love by reducing it to the level of tolerance.

I also don't like the semantics involved. Perhaps in future discussions, we will have to refer to Love 1, which is a willingness to recognize someone as human, but which is perhaps inferior to Love 2, tolerance, and to Love 3, charity. It might get a little clunky after a while.

which we should perform if possible when we think it will make the world a better place.

You must listen to "Heal the World" a lot.

But then they have to believe that they will be restored to their former status if they pay their dues.

When a person has destroyed the lives of others, they cannot pay the "dues". They cannot completely make up for what they have done.

Humans are unforgiving.

Why give forgiveness when none is deserved? Why give forgiveness to someone who has destroyed your life or that of someone you love and who shows no regret or even acknowledgement of what they have done?

I'm not saying you feel this way. I'm saying that people tend not to stop penalizing people after they've done wrong, even if they begin to do good, which would seem to give them no reason to stop doing wrong.

No reason to stop doing wrong? Here's one - society will incarcerate you for life if you keep doing wrong.

As for doing good, how do you know that the person is not simply trying to get their sentence reduced or attempting to get close enough to you that he can molest your child?

Nothing--but the kind of love I'm talking about isn't weakness. Loving someone in this way doesn't mean you have to put up with them!

Then what, precisely, is the point of loving them?

Now even you claim that some people need rewards to behave well--so if that someone doesn't see a possible reward, why would they be less likely to perform the rewarded behavior.

Using the abusive spouse analogy again, should an abusive spouse be led to believe that if they behave well, the victim will move back in with them? Often, this is what the abusive spouse wants - the potential reward. If the victim doesn't feel capable of doing that, what reward do you suggest that he/she hold out, bearing in mind that many abusive spouses are possessive and demanding and may not be content with just having coffee together every weekend?

Now, abuse doesn't ever, ever have to be suffered, period--but forgiving an abuser doesn't mean letting them back into one's home, or even one's heart. It would mean, I suppose, accepting their sorrow if they sincerely give it

How can one be sure that sorrow is sincerely given, rather than as a prelude to a manipulation?

(and also being ready to in case they do), thus restoring the relationship of humanity between both persons,

Is it a relationship of inhumanity if the victim never wants to speak with the abuser again? Does the victim suffer from this relationship of inhumanity?

and helping to create the possibility of a better world.

Is the possibility of a better world so important that you must get into contact with an abuser who might beat you just so that you can forgive them, for example?

Love might be like that, too.

My point was that the righteousness of humanity was not a black-or-white thing, therefore your claim of dividing humanity into the righteous or the unrighteous might not stand.

Again, it's not out of pity.

Again, someone who loves me because I am "broken" and "flawed" is acting out of pity.

And I wouldn't expect the kind of love you're talking about for those reasons, either. But accepting someone's word that they regret their actions and want to do better--that can be given, merely because they are human.

That depends on how much the person's word is worth. As for the fact that they happened to be born into the human race, that earns them zero in my book. You don't get love because of your 46 chromosomes and opposable thumbs; you get it because of your goodness and integrity. And if someone wants to do better, let them go ahead and do better, with or without "love" given to them just because they happen to be Homo sapiens. Then maybe they'll deserve forgiveness. And people always value the things they earn.

the_cave

Finally getting back again--thank you once more. I apologize for the length of this thing--it took a lot of thinking through.

Originally posted by QueenofSwords
I certainly care about whether a serial rapist is incarcerated or released into the community, but I wouldn't call this love.
I'm very glad you feel this way, but it's still not what I'm talking about. See below.

I don't care about people based on potential. I care about people based on what they do. If they are capable of performing good, but they prefer to disembowel others, why should I care about them?
First, I'm not exactly arguing that we have to spend much energy loving, say, convicted serial killers, or anyone else who's violent and abusive. In fact, I didn't argue that radical love was universal love. Forgiveness might not imply love...I can imagine forgiving someone I hated, but I'm not sure I can love someone I can't forgive.

Maybe it would help to start instead with someone who's finally begun to feel truly sorry for what they've done, whatever it is. Let's start there.

I think that the kind of love I'm talking about is an intellectual virtue, not an emotional one. It's not a matter of caring for or about someone--it's a matter of caring whether we at least try to open the possibility up for them to be a human being. Even if a serial rapist is imprisoned for life (and I certainly hope they would be), a world where they realized the enormity of their deed and were remorseful for it is a better world than one where they don't. Now there are differerent ways of achieving this with someone--punishment is one way. Disassociating ourselves with them entirely is another. I'm importantly arguing against our instinctive desire for simple revenge--I'm also trying to help those whomight be bitter about past wrongs, because I don't want to see that bitterness dominate their lives.

And we care about children, mostly for no reason other than we wish them well. I'm not arguing that adults are the same thing as children, but children are at least an example of people whom we love not necessarily for their deeds, but rather for their potential, and indeed for their own sake.

Being human does not automatically mean that one is capable of performing good. A human being may be permanently comatose, brain dead, sociopathic to the
point of monstrosity, etc.
Well, the first two cases I would argue might be human, but they're not persons. It's persons I'm talking about. And if someone is truly sociopathic to the point of monstrosity, can it be that it's their fault they're like that? Could we really call them a person? If not, then they're robots programmed to do evil. We can't hate robots, even though we can certainly lock them up. It's largely the lack of hate that I'm preaching--love as an intellectual virtue is the understanding that we are created beings. I don't really know why I have no desire to perform henious deeds. I suppose that, given different circumstances and cognitive faculties and life experiences, I could. I didn't ask to be made mostly decent. It just happened. People who act wickedly didn't ask to be made that way, either. Therefore I approach them with the understanding that there are influences at work in their lives I don't have and don't really comprehend. I want to free them (and thus, society) from their evilness (certainly less so than I might want to protect others from them, but I at least want to free them a little bit. It's little bits that I'm arguing for.)

What you are saying is in a language that might be substantially different from the one I'm using, so I'm not sure that your point is coming across. I'm not certain, for example, how precisely "love" is supposed to be extended to a serial killer.
Like I say, it's an intellectual virtue. It's not the kind of love I extend to my sister, for example, or any of my friends, or even my acquaintances. Or even to anyone who isn't a serial killer. It's merely a desire to understand their faulty reasoning, and to have the attitude that with infinite time and understanding, they could be changed. We don't have infinite time and understanding, but we certainly want it, and would use it if we could. It's a tragedy that they can't be changed, but the kind of love I'm talking about is the understanding that it's a tragedy for them, too. Not the kind of tragedy that makes me feel pity, or good thoughts of any kind about them, but the kind that makes me wish they could become better--it's a matter of including them, too, in the group of people who would benefit from this imaginary transformation. It relieves me of burdens of bitterness and pain and hatred, and helps be to become more constructive in my life--and I want to
share this sense with others.

So "love" is now defined as "a willingness to recognize someone as human if they ask you to"? That's a part of love. There's obviously quite a lot more to it, but I believe we owe at least that to others.

This is substantially different from my definition of love, which involves respect, caring and loyalty.
As a maximum definition of love, I would absolutely agree.

By the way, if someone doesn't ask you to recognize them as human, it it OK not to love them?
I'd argue no--because they might in the future. Intellectual love is an attitude towards the future.

I would argue that another reason to correct your bad actions is because your self-respect depends on your behavior. In other words, it's not always primarily about love for other people.
Oh, I'd definitely agree with this.

I'm not sure how precisely one "holds out this possibility" towards a reprehensible person, and how one avoids being harmed by this person just in case they don't want to make this a better world.
Easy--avoid them. I'm arguing for a conceptual possibility--you certainly wouldn't need to call them up to let them know you've moved on. It's an inner state, that I believe subconsiously leads to a more peaceful world.

Personally, I can see other ways to make this a better world than wasting "love" on people who have shown their capacity and willingness to harm others.
We all have the capacity and willingness to harm others, however trivial. If you're talking about serious harm, I certainly don't want to discourage the other ways of making the world a better place. But the only way to completely solve the problem of bitterness and pain for a particular harm is in the end to let go of it. That sounds kind of self-helpy, but that's how I see it.

I beg your pardon. Statements such as [...] implied that to me.
You are suggesting that my comments about the frail nature of humanity implied that I base love on pity. Let me clarify: what I mean is, the kind of love I'm talking about is done out of an understanding that none of us are asked to be created the way we are--and that includes the people who generally do good. We're all capable of being turned into worse creatures than we now are, and circumstances can have a lot to do with that.

...perhaps someone who's done evil doesn't comprehend the same things I do. If they did, they would be sorry.
I agree, but I don't think this justifies anything that can be termed as "love".
Again, a difference in terminology. Alright, I accept your position--I accept that I can call intellectual love "love", and you would not. But if people who do evil deeds need comprehension that we posess and they lack, shouldn't it be given to them, if at all possible? I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished--but as long as we hope that punishment actually teaches them to love what's good even a little bit, we're doing more than simple retribution, which is all the little bit more that I'm asking for.

I disagree. There is a difference between decent, honest people who go about their lives, and serial killers. The latter don't deserve the same regard as other people do.
Definitely not--and of course there's a huge difference. But there is also a similarity. We have the same brains and bodies, and we share the same world. We are all born without asking, we all have parents and character traits, we all have experiences that affect us. Some have good intentions, others are psychotic. I can't explain why, therefore I can't cast absolute judgment on anyone, even though I can cast absolute judgment on their deeds. And for that matter, there is a big difference between a serial killer, and someone who's learned some bad lessons about how to treat others. The latter is more likely to, in time, realize the error of their ways. Not that we need to be the ones to teach it to them. But we can still acknowledge that they're not psychotic serial killers.

I don't like to cheapen love by reducing it to the level of tolerance.
I don't like to cheapen love by turning it into a reward.

I also don't like the semantics involved. Perhaps in future discussions, we will have to refer to Love 1, which is a willingness to recognize someone as human, but which is perhaps inferior to Love 2, tolerance, and to Love 3, charity. It might get a
little clunky after a while.
It would, which is why I'm distinguishing intellectual love from emotional love.

You must listen to "Heal the World" a lot.
I don't know what "Heal the World" is. It sounds like the kind of thing I don't listen to.

When a person has destroyed the lives of others, they cannot pay the "dues". They cannot completely make up for what they have done.
But how do we decide at what point someone destroys the life of another? Murder? Ok...what about accidents? They certainly destroy lives, too...what about other horrible deeds? Where is the line to be drawn?

Besides, even when people don't destroy each other's lives, people are not inclined to agree that things can be restored...people like to hold grudges,

Why give forgiveness when none is deserved? Why give forgiveness to someone who has destroyed your life or that of someone you love and who shows no regret or even acknowledgement of what they have done?
First, if they don't understand what they've done, it's difficult for me to judge them...I can certainly judge their action, but I can't judge someone who doesn't comprehend morals in any way.

But the reason for one's self to forgive is (here I go getting self-helpy again) to move past the event and to break the past's power over one's self. Otherwise the harm dominate's one's life,
and instead of being your life, it becomes a response to an injury. I don't want to live my live a slave to evil. Therefore I release evildoers from their ethical debt to me--even if I don't release their material debt to me, or their debt to society.

When is forgiveness deserved? When their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds? I'm merely inquiring. What if they performed some more good deeds, and then came back to ask forgiveness? Would that maybe be ok? I'm just asking.

No reason to stop doing wrong? Here's one - society will incarcerate you for life if you keep doing wrong...As for doing good, how do you know that the person is not simply trying to get their sentence reduced or attempting to get close enough to you that he can molest your child?
You don't. Again, I'm not arguing that anyone needs to spend time around dangerous people. If you have any good reason not to let someone come near you, don't let them come near you! I have no idea how sentencing guidelines work...the point is, this kind of love doesn't even involve contacting someone for the rest of anyone's life. Like I say, it's an internal state.

Then what, precisely, is the point of loving them?
a) to help free yourself from the consequences of their actions
b) to help free the world from the consequences of their actions
c) to understand better what motivates people to do wrong, and to strive even harder to ensure that wrongs do not happen. I would agree that this is practically accomplished by emotionally loving those whom you in fact can love, even more, even better. But having an internal state of intellectual love towards all helps
to further these goals.

Using the abusive spouse analogy again, should an abusive spouse be led to believe that if they behave well, the victim will move back in with them?
Oh, God, no way! I would never, ever, ever argue that, believe me.

Often, this is what the abusive spouse wants - the potential reward. If the victim doesn't feel capable of doing that, what reward do you suggest that he/she hold out, bearing in mind that many abusive spouses are possessive and demanding and may not be content with just having coffee together every
weekend?
It's not really like they need to be given any reward whatsoever. It's just the case that it would certainly be better if they understood that good actions are good, and bad actions are bad. I think they need to understand that they can change--intellectual love is merely acknowledging that change, indeed welcoming it, showing that it is desired. Again, this is first an internal state. If someone feels up to confronting their abuser (or
whomever), and explaining this to them, more power to
them--but it's by no means necessary.

How can one be sure that sorrow is sincerely given, rather than as a prelude to a manipulation?
You can't--but if I extended that logic to its limits, I'm not sure I would end up talking to anyone.

If you don't trust someone, then certainly don't trust them until you can! Forgiveness does not equal trust. It's about the past, and about future possibilities--even when you're no longer involved in that future.

Is it a relationship of inhumanity if the victim never wants to speak with the abuser again?
Easy: no. But that's not what I'm saying--

Does the victim suffer from this relationship of inhumanity?
I'm not calling it an "inhumane" relationship--since all relationships are human. But yes, they suffer--rightly so in some cases, but surely this suffering should have a goal. Part of that goal should be the transformation of the sinner, whether
it's possible within a lifetime or not.

Is the possibility of a better world so important that you must get into contact with an abuser who might beat you just so that you can forgive them, for example?

NO. No no no no no...Let me make myself absolutely clear; it's important enough that we should realize it as an internal state, and, when possible, allow the sinner to understand that the possibility of their transformation, and at least partial
reconciliation with society, is real. But this is completely different from setting yourself up again to be harmed by them. I would never, ever, ever encourage anyone to put themselves in danger, if they think they would be in danger. They should do what
they can with others emotionally as far as they can trust them; but the rest is purely an exercise in intellectual love.

Someone who loves me because I am "broken" and "flawed" is acting out of pity.
Alright; I think it's different when it's intellectual love. That love is an understanding that it's possible for all of us to harm others, and an understanding that we all have suffered harms that
have shaped our character. It's specifically different from pity, because it's not emotional.

That depends on how much the person's word is worth.
Alright, but I really think we need to believe that it's at least possible that someone's word could be worth something. You don't need to let a serial killer out of jail if they just say "Oh,
but I'm so sorry I did it!" But you can at least encourage their attitude! They should keep it up...and they have their whole lives in jail to do it. This is different from wholly rejecting their attempts at sorrow, which would be wrong.

You don't get love because of your 46 chromosomes and opposable thumbs; you get it because of your goodness and integrity.
EXCEPT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

And if someone wants to do better, let them go ahead and do better, with or without "love" given to them just because they happen to be Homo sapiens. Then maybe they'll deserve forgiveness. And people always value the things they earn.
If only we were both Christian; then this could be a wonderful debate on faith vs. works! Ironically, you would get to be the Catholic...(this is ironic because in fact I'm the Catholic.)

Alright, I'm willing to accept your attitude; in fact, that last statement of yours is closer to my position than it seems on first glance..."if someone wants to do better, let them go ahead and do better"...to me, that's maybe one way of expressing intellectual love. It's opening the future up to a possibility, while
still leaving that possibility entirely in the sinner's hands. "Then maybe they'll deserve forgiveness" is also fine--it's the "maybe" that puts it in line with what I'm saying.

Unas

Let us assume that Jesus was not original, (which is certainly not the case anyhow) - SO F...ING WHAT? What is so wonderful and meritorious about originality? I see capitalism's malignant presence intruding here, with its maniacal, nihilistic lust for constant pseudo innovation, i.e., originality for its own sake. Is Jesus not enough of a true individualist for all of you teenybopperish egotists?

Christ was a transmitter of transcendent spiritual truth, like many before him and the legions to come.

And a hint to the clumsy Christologists: Jesus was first of all a SYMBOLIST. Perhaps, just perhaps, his words shouldn't be interpreted and received on a strictly literal level... Hmmm.... There's an idea. Another suggestion: Don't view Jesus through the eyes of his pedestrian followers (Paul, the various Churches, etc.) Strip away superimposed interpretation as much as possible.

BTW, I'm not some demented monomaniacal Christian fundamentalist, but a strong supporter of wisdom in all its variegated expressions.