Crito

Ism Schism wrote:
This is interesting, espescially if there is no judging god. In this case, universal ethics would be useless unless they go along with what we hope is good and bad. For what if we would someday ascertain that murder, rape, torture, etc., are universal goods? And if these goods are not enforced -- if we are not punished or rewarded by an ultimate judge -- would we even think of murdering others because it's objectively good? Why not choose to live an objectively bad life (a life without murder, rape, or theft)?

-Crito, taking his mind out for a jog

Laurentius

AVE

GOOD and EVIL are moral values.
Moral values are types of social (not individual) relationships with real life.
The nature of these relationships is preferential, rational, volitional, or emotional.
The reason why these types of relationships are established is social cohesion and order.

Posted by Crito
By taking the possibility of a judge into consideration, the problem of justice, not morality is raised. For "justice is the refraining of biological urges by reason".

I would say that it is the nature of the human society that makes both morality and justice exist (with its ephemeral norms and failible judges). It is a social phenomenon meant to regulate the efficient function of the social mechanism.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Crito

Laurentius wrote:
And why do we want social cohesion and order? Is order good? Is it pleasurable? I think it was Epicurus that equated good and pleasure. Without a judge, is this true?

What is the basis for our reason?

I'm not trying to cause any trouble; I'm just curious what others think

-Crito

excreationist

Yes it's pain, but (AFAIK) it doesn't directly involve your body being injured like when you have hunger or thirst or burning skin.

I said the end of tension, which is different to the end of pain. Tension is longer-term pain (something like that).
This pleasure explains why massages can give you large amounts of pleasure. It isn't simply a matter of some pain being eliminated.

I think that practically everyone enjoys the warm-fuzzy feelings of connectedness - of feeling part of something or belonging. If they didn't have this desire then they wouldn't want to be part of something larger (like a social group, or collect collectables, etc) - only if this helped them to avoid pain or they just did it for "kicks".

Ok, it's a subset, but it can still feel different - I mean I think warm-fuzzy feelings take a while to reach full intensity and thrills act a bit quicker.

excreationist

Well I think we desire a certain amount of connectedness and togetherness - so we can get some pleasure from being a part of a cooperating group. (It also reduces negative things like frustration)

If there is no judging then there is no judgment made on whether something is good or bad.

No, you are still seeking some biological urges - e.g. connectedness - though you are refraining from some of your biological urges.

It's basically about a disciplined reasoning process that uses logical conventions rather than an impulsive one where you directly seek your desires.

Vitae

Laurentius;
Could you please explain how you come by your perception of this definition of justice?

Could you also define your interpretation of the word 'reason' in this sentence?

Laurentius

AVE

Posted by Crito:

I guess this is all part of the society’s self-regulation.

The human society as a whole automatically establishes a territory where preferences and selections are determined in order to rank phenomena, processes, works, behaviors according to the degree in which they satisfy human needs and desires.
This is the territory of values. Strictly theoretically there is no need of a judge for values to be considered positive or negative, because that’s the way values function:
a) they trigger polarity (beautiful/ugly, useful/useless, good/evil);
b) they trigger hierarchy.

Moral values aim to preserve social cohesion and order. I guess this human behavior (of setting values which to unquestionably follow) was rather instinctive in the dawn of our species, and it ensured its survival, and nowadays supremacy on the planet. Now, why would we give up such a successful recipe?

Laurentius

AVE

Posted by Vitae:
Well, this is actually a quotation from a French thinker.

I used this quotation because it seemed an epitome of what I felt about the problem of the judge and justice.

To make my feeling clear I can use many examples people are very used to hearing, there’s nothing new to it.
Let’s say I hate the government of a foreign country and have the power to organize terrorist actions against it. My emotional (religious or not) or instinctive urge is to wipe that country out, but I realize that its government, or other governments, might very well do the same to my country, or to me. Now, I do not want that to happen. In fact, we all do not want anything of the sort to happen. So we come to the conclusion that we should abide to the principle of fairness and elaborate on its code (Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you, Do to others only what you want them to do to you, etc).

I guess the word reason in the definition quoted above refers to rational. And rational is:

(a) what presupposes natural or real causes, as opposed to those imposed by religious dogma;
(b) what presupposes a goal, a finality (especially a moral one), as opposed to the unconscious (such as instincts);
(c) what can be mentally comprehended or physically controlled by human beings, as opposed to fate & stuff.

Therefore, the word reason in the definition quoted above refers especially to (b) what presupposes a goal, a finality (especially a moral one), as opposed to the unconscious (such as instincts).