<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| On the other hand, there may be at least one single absolute out there somewhere, I’m just awaiting an example. |
Here ya’ go… I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about!
D
Here ya’ go… I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about!
D
Ok Tom, so that I know better what you’re talking about, I’ve been reading up a bit on Bentham and utilitarianism.
Firstly, there seems to be the common mistake of confusing the model with reality, the map with the territory.
The ethical model proposed may be someone’s idea of utopia, but it’s not how the world is.
And if we look at the model, it’s soggy science at best.
Pleasure is good, pain is bad?
How about the pleasure of 5 cheesecakes a day, or the pain of a flu jab?
As for Bentham’s calculus, one has to ask if he knows what the word actually means.
Calculus is not simply a summation, but rather a way of measuring and getting to grips with rates of change.
And change denies a fixed absolute.
His comments on jurisprudence etc., make a lot of sense, but his arguments on ethics are no better than they deserve to be.
"Let there be no misunderstanding - I just called you a blind bigot. " billclarke-i appologized-the justification of these killings made me mad…i’ve done more for peace and justice for all people than you’ll ever know,you pompous #######.i’m off your forum,leave me alone…
make no mistake-i called you a pompous #######
bye,everyone!
Oh my???
Now, I never said Bentham was a good philosopher. I just suggested that your views come close to his. 
Tom, I don’t know what my philosophy of life is called, but perhaps if I describe it to you, you’ll be able to tell me what the correct label is.
Do I have a sense of right and wrong, good and bad? Yes, of course I do.
Is that sense based upon a set of rules, like the ten commandments or whatever?
No, certainly not. I do have a few general principals which basically boil down to a belief in fairness and justice, but don’t ask me to define those words any further. I know what they mean, but I’m not sure that I could accurately convey that meaning to anyone else.
So, does my sense of right and wrong enable me to make an accurate, absolute judgement?
Very rarely. The best I can usually manage is mostly wrong, or mostly right. Therefore, if an either/or decision needs making, I base it upon which way the balance swings.
(For example, at the start of the Iraq war, given the information I had available at the time, I was about 51% for it, and about 49% against it. So, if I had been asked what to do, (which I wasn’t), I’d have said, “go for it!”. But now that I have fresh information, I think it was a mistake.)
Do I believe that my judgement concerning right and wrong, and how I arrive at that decision is universal and everyone should follow it?
No, it works for me, I believe in it, but I make no claims of omniscience nor wisdom.
So that’s about it Tom. It’s a fairly fuzzy ethos I agree, and it means that because I don’t follow a rule book, then I have to judge each separate situation individually. But I feel that my idea of fairness and justice is good enough so that I don’t need a rule book.
Anyway, as I said, it works for me.
| Quote (audiobru @ Dec. 01 2005,08:15) |
| "Let there be no misunderstanding - I just called you a blind bigot. " billclarke-i appologized-the justification of these killings made me mad… i’ve done more for peace and justice for all people than you’ll ever know,you pompous #######.i’m off your forum,leave me alone… make no mistake-i called you a pompous ####### bye,everyone! |
Well, you’ve convinced me!
But hey audiobru, this is only the Internet, not the real world.
We all get pissed off with people on here from time to time, but, real life carries on regardless.
So do what I do to relieve stress; take the piss out of Toker, after all, that’s what he’s for!
I got pissed off once and “left the forum forever,” but I came back a few days later. Haven’t made the same mistake twice.
audiobru, I don’t doubt that you have done some significant peace activism. Here, we talk (type) a lot, and that’s pretty much it. So, please, stick around.
Ali, two possibilities, dunno if you’ll like either one.
First: Aristotelian "phronesis."
Second, Carol Gilligan’s “ethic of care.”
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Ali, two possibilities, dunno if you’ll like either one. First: Aristotelian "phronesis." Second, Carol Gilligan’s “ethic of care.” |
I first thought phronesis was something to do with an artificial strap-on dick, but I was relieved to see I was wrong. lol
But nah, that involves wisdom, whereas I rely on “best I can”, and use humour to smooth over the humps.
As for Gilligan, nah, we didn’t get that show in the UK.
But you are determined to put me in the feminine camp aren’t you, what with “powderpuff” and all that stuff!
But seriously, no, not ethic of care either.
My fairness and justice includes; “every dog is allowed one bite, but after the second bite, it’s cat food”.
And, “Treat others as you would wish them to treat you, (but, being ever mindful of the, one dog one bite principle)”.
So, it’s less a caring justice, but more a Jovian (and sometimes jovial
) one.Which is why, a certain individual on here, in my opinion, has used up more than his share of “bites”.
Wow, I just ran into this post and I see that people have gotten upset. What is even more surprising is that I wasn’t one of them!
I know no one asked me, (but that hasn’t stopped me before), but I would like to chime in on the war/philosophy issues. First, although I was raised a catholic, I now consider myself a quaker (no, we eat more than oatmeal). And probably the most important tenent of quakerism is that we do not believe in war…period. I don’t care if it was the 1st or 2nd world war or the war my mom and dad waged for 15 years. I don’t believe in war. So I never thought that we should go to war with Iraq. In fact the FBI has a nice letter I send to the President, before the war, to that effect explaining many options we had to the contrary. I’m really sorry he didn’t listen.
As far as philosophy, mine is simple. At the end of every guitar lesson I teach, I always ask my student if they have any questions about anything. Occasionally, I will be asked, “What is the meaning of life?” I have thought about this long and hard, and the answer is simple. Be happy and be a positive force for everyone around you. That’s it. It seems to me that anymore than that is assuming self importance.
Mike
| Quote (Guest @ Dec. 01 2005,21:54) |
| Tom, I don't know what my philosophy of life is called, but perhaps if I describe it to you, you'll be able to tell me what the correct label is. Do I have a sense of right and wrong, good and bad? Yes, of course I do. Is that sense based upon a set of rules, like the ten commandments or whatever? No, certainly not. I do have a few general principals which basically boil down to a belief in fairness and justice, but don't ask me to define those words any further. I know what they mean, but I'm not sure that I could accurately convey that meaning to anyone else. So, does my sense of right and wrong enable me to make an accurate, absolute judgement? Very rarely. The best I can usually manage is mostly wrong, or mostly right. Therefore, if an either/or decision needs making, I base it upon which way the balance swings. (For example, at the start of the Iraq war, given the information I had available at the time, I was about 51% for it, and about 49% against it. So, if I had been asked what to do, (which I wasn't), I'd have said, "go for it!". But now that I have fresh information, I think it was a mistake.) Do I believe that my judgement concerning right and wrong, and how I arrive at that decision is universal and everyone should follow it? No, it works for me, I believe in it, but I make no claims of omniscience nor wisdom. So that's about it Tom. It's a fairly fuzzy ethos I agree, and it means that because I don't follow a rule book, then I have to judge each separate situation individually. But I feel that my idea of fairness and justice is good enough so that I don't need a rule book. Anyway, as I said, it works for me.
|
We're soul mates Ali
You don't need a rule book (religious or otherwise) to know what's right or wrong. Now I'm going back to reading this thread but keeping out of it, cos ther's a little bit too much aggression going on
, and you philosophers are too smart for me anyway,Cheers,
Ian
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| you philosophers are too smart for me anyway, |
Philosophy - a manner of thought and speech designed to confuse the S$%T out of EVERYBODY!
D – should know… but don’t!
DrGuitar, you saw that one of the recent hostages is Quaker. In general people don’t know very much about the various forms of Christain pacificism. I sure didn’t. Saw a piece on CNN a few minutes ago where they were talking about non-violence and Quakerism. Good to see something on mainstream media.
Quakers historically are the first people in war ravaged countries after the war has ended. They go in to help the people living in those countries rebuild their lives and towns. Quakers are also big into saving the environment and stopping polluters. Needless to say that the current administration is not big with most quakers.
Mike
| Quote (audiobru @ Dec. 01 2005,09:15) |
| -i appologized-the justification of these killings made me mad...i've done more for peace and justice for all people than you'll ever know,you pompous #######.i'm off your forum,leave me alone...... make no mistake-i called you a pompous ####### bye,everyone! |
Been away visiting my daughter in Montreal so I missed this post.
By counting the #'s I am guessing that I've been called a "pompous a$$hole". And I have to take exception to that: as to a$$hole - no argument. I have in the past and will in the future be an a$$hole so to characterize me as such is completely fair.
As to pompous: it was not I who mistook an "in context" discussion of an event and mistook it for "justification of these killings", nor was it I who made an unsubstantiated claim to have "done more for peace and justice for all people,,," despite my twenty years of service as a peace officer. So I do somewhat take exception to the accusation of pomposity.
I have however, seen nothing to change my assessment of blind bigotry in the tone and content of your posts - so I stand by that assessment.
If you have truly left over this exchange that is entirely your choice - I estimate the damage to these fora as negligible.
nice post Bill.
But, not sure about “fora”? 
Forum (court of justice), 3rd declension, accusative plural; “fores”?
Ach well, I’d probably write; forumses!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| forumses |
Isn’t that a collection name for a group of pharaoh’s talking about politics and life in general ?
W.
no… it’s what you call four monks sitting around saying “ummm” all day.
you know… meditating is sort of like thinking, and you know like um when you can’t remember something and you’re ummm… saying ummm… and thinking really hard?
that’s what monks do for a living.
woohoo!
ok… everyone together now…
aaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…
| Quote (Ali_G @ Dec. 04 2005,18:42) |
| nice post Bill. But, not sure about "fora"? Forum (court of justice), 3rd declension, accusative plural; "fores"? Ach well, I'd probably write; forumses!
|
It is in the dictionary in case anyone wants to check.
| Quote (Ali_G @ Dec. 04 2005,19:42) |
| ...not sure about "fora"?
|
C'mon Ali - Latin 101
Singular - datum; plural - data
Singular - forum; plural - fora
Finally my parochial school experience comes in handy for something!