[Ham]
> Whenever we try to apply morality to value, we run
> into problems. This is
> because morality (normative ethics) is based on the
> 'summum bonum' principle
> of virtue as conceived by the early Greeks. It is
> an attempt to quantify
> value in order to achieve what utilitarians like
> Jeremy Bentham called "the
> greatest good for the greatest number of people."
I agree. The moq would differ from this,
especially due to dynamic values. This is what I
referred to as law, maybe. The setting up of
principles of ethics that "attempt to quantify" would
label and apply a knowledge about the world that can
be completely projected as either right or wrong or
this is the way and that's the way. Too many dynamic
processes at work. I understand this from work. No
matter how many rules we have set in place, situations
change, and we have to decide for ourselves to keep up
with the dynamic events.
[Ham]
> Here is what Wikipedia says about utilitarian
> morality:
> "Since utilitarians judge all actions by their
> ability to maximize good
> consequences, any harm to one individual can often
> be justified by a greater
> gain to other individuals. This is true even if the
> loss for the one
> individual is large and the gain for the others is
> marginal, as long as
> enough individuals receive the small benefit. Thus,
> utilitarians deny that
> individuals have inviolable moral rights. As
> explained above, utilitarians
> may support legal rights or rights as rules of
> thumb, but they are not
> considered inherent to morality. This seems
> problematic to many critics of
> utilitarianism, one of whom notes that according to
> utilitarianism there is
> "nothing intrinsically wrong with sacrificing an
> important individual
> interest to a greater sum of lesser interests. That
> assumption is retained
> in the foundations of the theory, and it remains a
> source of moral concern."
> Notice the quantitative connotation of this
> philosophy -- "as long as enough
> individuals...", "...a greater sum of lesser
> interests...", etc. Clearly,
> by striving to make our decisions and actions
> conform to a collective
> majority, we impugn the meaning of value as
> proprietary sensibility. Since
> all behavioral values are represented in Nature, I
> find SA's moral
> imperative "being one with nature" somewhat
> ambiguous.
Yes, it is ambiguous. I'll try to clarify. It
is the effort of intellectualizing that brings about
good moral values. This is the highest level next to
dynamic morals, morals that are able to change and
show themselves intellectually on occasion. By 'being
one with nature', what I mean is the allowing
ourselves to 'walk', 'enact', or live what we find to
be reality. For instance, how you say, and you'll say
it better than I can, but how value sensibility is the
'joining' of our value with essence. I understand you
say we are fragmented and finite parts due to negation
of essence, but it is the valuing of essence that
fulfills us, correct? So, what I'm saying is, it is
this valuing (and in your thesis valuing of essence or
something like that) that is good morally. In the
moq, the intellectual valuing process is very moral,
and as said already, dynamic valuing is of the
highest. So, 'being one with nature' is in moq
understanding, the acts of intellectualizing and in
tune, and thus open to dynamic processes that are
'going with the flow' of nature, of reality, and since
we are human,
intellectualizing/philosophizing/artistic acts are
enacting our human abilities in total with nature, not
just the social values that seem to have outcomes that
work with nature and then those that work against
nature, which inevitably working against nature seems
to come back and bit us in the butt, such as polluting
streams.
[Ham]
> The reality we have to deal with here is that not
> all people are rational;
I'm still lingering upon what Ron said, which is
"the tyranny of dull minds" in reference to Myanmar.
Yes, if people are not intellectualizing, then the
what are they doing but possibly following other
people and in some cases mimicking wolves.
[Ham]
> therefore laws must be established whereby the
> society may legally punish,
> incarcerate or rehabilitate those who behave in an
> inhumane, criminal, or
> malevolent manner. This rule applies as well to the
> sovereign interests and
> behaviors of nations in the world community.
Yes, then if people can't even follow others that
have helped to intellectually guide what is a good
moral path, such as think, be creative, come up with a
solution, etc..., then by not even being able to
follow others who may be able to help maintain social
order, well then, the biological instincts of sexual
desire, aggression, flight, and not calmness would
need to be put in check by society. As winnie the
pooh says, "THINK, THINK, THINK, THINK".
[Ham]
> If this interpretation of moral values doesn't make
> sense, kindly tell me
> why.
Makin' sense.
thanks.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
