Thread for Kaj on topic of human values

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be correlated well to the golden rule, but is not necessarily the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say it may be well correlated, but may not be an exact identity. There is no need to exhaust every implication of assuming an exact identity to a vague principle. (Oh, and isn't the point of your thread here to explicitly engage in sophistry, such as your need to pin me down on a definition to a vague principle?)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant to the question of subjectivity. Most Americans prefer pizza to eating grass, but that doesn't mean pizza is therefore an objective standard or a basis for "rights". Preference for pizza is still a subjective choice even if 99.999% of people choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if there isn't any kind of inherent morality, however minimal, that all men share, then you can't really advocate that a murderer should be punished either by society or the victim's family can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I can advocate punishment. Are you having a reading comprehension problem? See my principle above. Where do you see a condition that states every human must sharemy principle before I act on it?

[ QUOTE ]
If your principle is one sided, as in solely being used in the hope others respond similarly in a game theoretic strategy, rather than a right you and others have to be treated in a certain manner, then when someone declines to play in a game theoretically cooperative manner neither you nor others should seek to punish him for same, but only seek to persuade him regarding future actions, isn't that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already stated that I will use force to impose my will if I deem it necessary (based on my principle above). And using force to punish (or deter) murderers is entirely consistent with how I want society to act. Nowhere does my principle state that I only advocate non-violent persuasion over force.

Are you really this incapable of thinking about this subject rationally that you must continuously invent aspects of my position that are never stated and are in fact completely contrary to what I have stated?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say it may be well correlated, but may not be an exact identity. There is no need to exhaust every implication of assuming an exact identity to a vague principle. (Oh, and isn't the point of your thread here to explicitly engage in sophistry, such as your need to pin me down on a definition to a vague principle?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The principle doesn't seem that vague at all. So why are you trying to paint it as such? "Do unto others as they would do unto you". What isn't clear about that as a principle? It's not necessary to delineate every possible application of such a principle to formulate that principle.

And let's note something else. You can keep calling it "my principle" like you're some kind of philosophical genius who came up with it, but you're just another overeducated underthinking hack if you won't admit "your" principle is an archetype that has been around for thousands of years in very close form to the way you state it. If you want to assert you made some minor tweakings that are different, then fine, call it "Golden Rule Kaj variation" or something. But enough with all this obtuse refusing to define and name things.



[ QUOTE ]
Of course I can advocate punishment. Are you having a reading comprehension problem? See my principle above. Where do you see a condition that states every human must sharemy principle before I act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK tell me if I understand you correctly. You are separating the Kaj version of the golden rule from any justifications or persuasions you might make to others to punish someone who harmed you. Thus you wouldn't be making a moral appeal, but rather an appeal to self-interest. Is that right?


And again, if most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man? How can it be otherwise?

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
If most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your way of showing that something is "inherent in Man"?

It's when most humans "agree" with it? Wow.

I remember when most men "agreed" that women should be kept in line. And children whipped daily to get sin out of them. And homosexuals burned at the stake. What happened to this kind of Man? God had a change of heart or sumthin'?..

[BluffTHIS!]

Cyrus/mrick,

If you are going to troll me at least come up with something better than that. "agreement" = the minimal agreement that has always been throughout all periods of history agreed upon, not that which existed at any certain moment.

BTW, do you use a proxy server or VPN or what to mask your IP when you create new gimmicks here?

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus/mrick

[/ QUOTE ]WTF??? [ QUOTE ]
you're just another overeducated underthinking hack if you won't admit...

[/ QUOTE ] WTF???? you are losing the argument dude. How can someone be overeducated?

[ QUOTE ]
"agreement" = the minimal agreement that has always been throughout all periods of history agreed upon, not that which existed at any certain moment.

[/ QUOTE ] OK --- I know that very few things have been "agreed" throughout all periods of history etc and those would be Man's extreme aggressiveness, brutality, etc. And I AGREE that these "principles" are the way you phrased it "INHERENT IN MAN".

So, questions : 1. If God created Man in his own image or whatever did he realy wired us up to be this way or is this some kind of factory glitch? 2. What else is "inherent in Man" and why? Tell me about kindness, love and understanding before or after Son O God came down....

[Copernicus]

"And again, if most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man? How can it be otherwise? "

Nothing is "inherent in man". Mankind has learned through time how best to manage interrelationships, and those learnings vary from society to society and are passed down/evolve within that society. Man is an animal that happens to have evolved beyond the capabilities of other animals, thats it. Lower animals learn how to best deal with interrelationships and form societies as well.

The "golden rule" is one societal framework for interrelationships. It is of course, a utopian framework that is woefully incomplete unless it is universal. Since it isn't universal there needs to be at least one more rule, such as "but if my neighbor will not treat me in that way, then I sure as hell better mistreat him first".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus/mrick

[/ QUOTE ]WTF??? [ QUOTE ]
you're just another overeducated underthinking hack if you won't admit...

[/ QUOTE ] WTF???? you are losing the argument dude. How can someone be overeducated?

[ QUOTE ]
"agreement" = the minimal agreement that has always been throughout all periods of history agreed upon, not that which existed at any certain moment.

[/ QUOTE ] OK --- I know that very few things have been "agreed" throughout all periods of history etc and those would be Man's extreme aggressiveness, brutality, etc. And I AGREE that these "principles" are the way you phrased it "INHERENT IN MAN".

So, questions : 1. If God created Man in his own image or whatever did he realy wired us up to be this way or is this some kind of factory glitch? 2. What else is "inherent in Man" and why? Tell me about kindness, love and understanding before or after Son O God came down....

[/ QUOTE ]

OTOH, this definitely does not look like a Cyrus post.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
So, questions : 1. If God created Man in his own image or whatever did he realy wired us up to be this way or is this some kind of factory glitch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, mrick, I will try to answer your two questions in summary fashion.

God created man in his own image and this included free will. Man used free will wrongly and selfishly and desired to become like God (akin to a very out-of-control ego. Satan is the most extreme example of this out-of-control ego, as Satan is actually trying to take God's place).

Man was tempted to disobey God and fell prey to the temptation. This was the original sin: disobedience of God's specific instruction.

All of mankind has ego problems from the time they are babies; each person is inherently tremendously selfish and due to the sinful nature of man (resulting from the original sin), all are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

So, God created man in his own image but the original man and woman fell from grace due to misusing free will and disobeying God. This is why all of mankind is now partly evil as well as good, because we have inherited the willfull and rebellious nature which Adam and Eve freely chose.

[ QUOTE ]
2. What else is "inherent in Man" and why? Tell me about kindness, love and understanding before or after Son O God came down....

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ gave his own perfect life so that we could see unlimited love in action, thus making it possible for us to believe that God can forgive even the very worst of deeds.

All are in need of forgiveness and all have sinned and done bad things, so becoming aware that you might truly be able to be forgiven and to start entirely anew is a powerful realization.

By accepting the love and forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ, you too can be redeemed in the eyes of God and be forgiven for the sinful, evil side of your existence. The sinful nature of mankind ensures that you have done bad things: so this applies to you, to me, and to everyone else in the world.

If you do not accept the ultimate gift of love and forgiveness from God, then when you die you will not be forgiven for your evil side and deeds, since you willfully rejected the offer of love and forgiveness from God; so instead of uniting with God forever in heaven, you will instead be cast into outer darkness, separated from the love of God forever.

If you accept the love of God you must also try to put it into practice in your daily life, by extending love and forgiveness to others as well. This is what is meant by Christian love.

I hope this brief summary helps to answer your questions. If you have further questions, or wish for additional Christian reading material, please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for reading, and I hope that this was helpful in response to the questions that you specified.

[kidpokeher]

Kilduff, you crack me up. Even your one-liners take three pages.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
And let's note something else. You can keep calling it "my principle" like you're some kind of philosophical genius who came up with it, but you're just another overeducated underthinking hack if you won't admit "your" principle is an archetype that has been around for thousands of years in very close form to the way you state it. If you want to assert you made some minor tweakings that are different, then fine, call it "Golden Rule Kaj variation" or something. But enough with all this obtuse refusing to define and name things.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think he's claiming philosophical credit for inventing a new idea, then you are comprehending poorly.

[ QUOTE ]

And again, if most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man? How can it be otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
His "principle" is in fact something nearly everyone follows. It's purely a matter of pragmatism. That is, wanting behaviors we don't like to be discouraged or prevented. How strongly we feel about it and how much force we'd accept being used to stop it vary in accordance with how much we dislike the action. When I say dislike the action, I should make a distinction between disliking an action "type" and disliking an action "token". A token being a particular instance of an action and a type being that action in general. One example would be someone check raising you on the river in a poker game. You may dislike it at that particular moment, but you wont necessarily think "I don't want to play in a game where people can check raise". So you dislike it as a token, but not as a type. I believe this principle of Kaj's you are talking about applies mainly to actions we dislike as types rather than as tokens. As for the important question of what action types people will dislike, it will vary from person to person arbitrarily or based on their genes and personal history. Even if you say this principle is somewhat inherent, all we've arrived at is that people tend to act with a degree of pragmatism toward their preferences. Hardly an astonishing conclusion.