Hello Mike, Robert and all >"My SECULAR government shouldn't force me to think or behave against >my own conscience." > > >Absolutely. I'm with you on that point.
So am I. >"I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 >commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them." > >I have a similar problem. It almost sounds the same, except for one >word. I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 >commandments up in public buildings. If they put flags up they might as well put up whatever. >"Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic >understanding of what this means." > >The beginning of a slippery slope Er, yes. We need some definitions, IMHO, I'll make them up as I go along, LOL! Morals comes from mores, they're social rules, community relations stuff, part of the glue that holds societies together and helps prevent them from degenerating into just a group of individuals each out for himself at the others' expense. This is very ancient stuff, it goes all the way back. We never have been just groups of individuals, humans learnt as soon as they took to the plains that they had to live in communal groups to survive, if the group didn't survive neither did the individual. There's much more to it than just morals by now, or the sort of economic reasons Mike says he can't exclude. There always was much more to it. Survival was (and is) a cooperative venture - we used to live in terror of the dark and the terrifying big saber-toothed cats that preyed on us, we had to trust each other with our lives. But you don't develop bonds of life-or-death trust right just out of mere self-interest, as something you bargain with, it has to go deeper than that or it won't work, it'll break when you most need it. We conquered the big cats and the dark too when we tamed fire, also not the work of an individual out for himself; flints and stuff came later, if there were any, bows and sticks and so are high-tech, long in the development. And so on. Anyway not much has really changed except the scene: survival's still a cooperative venture and we still have to trust each other with our lives. From a previous message: "It fits what you can see around you everywhere all the time, so obvious it's virtually invisible, like water to a fish. What people do more than anything else is cooperate with each other, they almost instinctively yield, adapt, fit in, give and take, in myriad small ways that they hardly even notice they're doing, so that we can all get along with each other and go about our daily business with maximum efficiency and minimum waste of time, energy and resources. All societies and communities have learnt how to do this eons since in very sophisticated ways. Those that didn't learn didn't last very long." If you like, morals are a part of the contract between the individual and the society he lives in, a list of rules for members. The context is cooperative, but it goes much deeper than that, deeper than most people's awareness goes. In the same way a contract with an employer also isn't the only thing that determines how we behave at work. We don't really know why we behave the way we do. At the roots of it is what the religions are supposed to be about. So in a way morals or moral rules are superficial and simplistic, not always an unerring guide to doing the right thing, but it works most of the time for most people in most situations, and other sorts of influences do the rest of the job. Except with the sociopaths, and in dysfunctional, broken communities. When morals aren't the right tool for the job and you get the wrong result, you at least get to say, "Hey, it's not my fault, I did the right thing", and so you can avoid the blame. Beyond morals you get stuff like ethics and principles, which are not clear and unbending rules, you have to apply them and adapt them, and it's hard because each situation is different and you can never be sure what the outcome will be. There's no certainty. Maybe last time it worked and you got it right but that doesn't mean you'll get it right this time. You have to accept the uncertainties, judge the situation for yourself, try to do your best, and take the consequences if you screw up, it's your responsibility. This isn't a very popular course of action, LOL! Most people go for blame avoidance. But you could also say that most people are moral, and also that they're usually good rules, despite the fact that folks like Pat Robertson and so many other kinds of cynical twisters can distort them at will. Do as you would be done by, eg, it's hard to find any holes in that. Don't hurt people. Don't get caught, LOL! "The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught." - H. L. Mencken "The measure of a person's real character is what they would do if they knew they would never be found out." - Thomas B. Macauley Please read this previous post, by Jai Haissman: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30705.html Jai comments on a statement by a strangely disconnected person, which I'd also commented on: >> I know if there were no consequences to my actions, I would >> certainly act differently. We have a christmas party at work every >> year. I COULD get drunk, punch out my boss and take a leak in the >> punch bowl. Realistically, there would be no legal consequences (my >> boss is not the kind of guy to call the cops for something stupid >> like that). But I didn't do it. Why not? Because there would have >> been consequences. My coworkers would not have liked me anymore, >> life at work would have been much more difficult. It would have >> been socially unacceptable. "The premise here is that without consequences, we are basically opportunists, and will seek our advantage without a care," Jai says, and terms it sociopathic behaviour. I reckon most people do know what's right and what's wrong (hell, every kid knows that) and they do want to do the right thing, but life ain't easy and in the real world getting it right is a whole other problem. With morals and society's rules of right conduct it'll work right most of the time, that's really a big help, and if your intentions are good you needn't take the blame when it doesn't work out, you did your best, though you'll probably feel some remorse anyway. So I think Nietzsche is right: >Morality is herd instinct in the individual. >- Friedrich Nietzsche I enjoyed "Beyond Good and Evil", but that was 40 years ago, wow. The Tao Teh Ching says "Be not concerned with right and wrong, right and wrong are the sickness of the mind". Hermann Hesse's Steppenwolf has a similar sort of message. It's true, but what if you read it out of context, on the same level as moral rules? Then it reads: "I can do no wrong." Ooops! Get that wrong, or worse distort it, and maybe you can't just say, Hey sorry guys I did the right thing, because you just did a Charles Manson or a Hitler or something. The context is that all duality is the sickness of the mind, but it hasn't got anything to do with moral behaviour or right conduct in the community, except very indirectly perhaps, and it's definitely not a grand one-size-fits-all excuse. It has to do with spiritual growth: there is no duality, there is only the One. Deep waters indeed. Mike, you might enjoy Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy" when you've finished "Beyond Good and Evil", if you haven't read it already. The Lord of the Flies is fiction, IMHO, and so is Dogsville, unless you regard Manson and Hitler as the norm and think the only thing that stops us resorting to sociopathic behaviour is fear of the consequences. Lots of sociopathic behaviour around everywhere these days, eh? Has it ever been worse, short of world wars? When judging individuals and their communities, if indeed we have to judge them at all, we have to ask how much or maybe how little of what looks like sociopathic behaviour is really that, and how much of it is just a stick-on that wouldn't be there but for the unprecedented modern-day carpet-bombing tactics of the opinion manufacturing industry, which has also never been worse, and it has much more to do with sociopathic institutions than with individuals. Individuals and their communities don't generally have massive budgets to spend on Madison Avenue and on the campaign trail. Unless your name's Pat Robertson maybe. http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Heavenly-Bank-Account.html Heavenly Bank Account Best Keith >and it assumes that your basic understanding and mine are identical >with no Grey areas. Pat Robertson talks about morality all the time >on the 700 club. You know, the religious guy who called for the >assassination of Hugo Chavez. By the way "Lord of the Flies" is just >fiction, right? People are all born with the same sense of morality >or at least the "three basic ways the people have of defining what >is right and wrong". I had no idea that morality can be classified >in such a simple way. I went from almost countless ways down to >three after reading one email! > >Morality and religion share at least one attribute. It should stay >private or at least shared among an consenting community. It >absolutely should not be taught from a single, narrow interpretation >which is assumed to be "common knowledge". > >Atheists can have morals without religion. In fact, from the "black >collar, police blotter" I included in my last post, religious people >can often have no morals according to the interpretation assumed by >their own religion. Most importantly, a person with no morals (even >as seen by the most popular interpretations) can be quite functional >in society when they use a strictly economic philosophy in place of >"morals" (i.e. If I don't hurt that person, it's probable that he >won't hurt me/if I help that person, he might see me as an asset and >invest time in helping me in order to preserve a relationship). >Although I don't subscribe to this philosophy, I can't exclude it >either. > >Now if you'll excuse me, I going to continue reading my book, Beyond >Good and Evil. If only Nietzsche knew of the "three basic ways", He >wouldn't have bothered with all that babble he went on about. > >Mike > >Morality is herd instinct in the individual. >- Friedrich Nietzsche > > >robert luis rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Michael Redler wrote: > > > ...sounds redundant. Who doesn't like freedom? > >I put it in quotes because that phrase is used so often by our >imperious leader to mean "people who are just like us". Canadians, >though they sometimes don't like to admit it, differ from us Americans >in very subtle ways. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference at all. > > > What's morality? There are as many definitions to this word as there are > > cultures and religions. Nobody (religious or not) has the authority to > > "legislate morality". It's the governments job to protect the health and > > welfare of it's citizens and make sure that they have a minimum > > of obstacles to improving the quality of their lives and define their > > own sense of morality. "Morality" does not necessarily play a role, > > irrespective of the definition you've chosen. > >Morality is about "right conduct", and I think we all have a basic >understanding of what this means. There are three basic ways that >people have of defining what is right and wrong. Either they accept >the consensus of their society, select from various philosophical >perspectives that "work" for them, or appeal to an objective, external >standard by which conduct can be judged. > >I have a problem with people who insist that we put the 10 >commandments up in public buildings then refuse to live by them. I >have a problem when people who proclaim that abortion is murder, but >think nothing of bombing civilians from 50 000 feet. I have a problem >when someone says that THEIR version of "Christianity" leads to >"godly" conduct, while at the same time advocating the exploitation of >people (especially children!) and destruction of the earth. I have a >problem with people who deny basic human rights to someone because of >their race, religion, socio-economic status or sexual orientation, >while using the name of God to justify intolerant and insensitive >conduct. I have a problem with someone who thinks that we shouldn't >have a healthy debate about the origins of humanity, while at the same >time denying the right of other human beings to think differently. > >These issues are not the purvey of government. My SECULAR government >shouldn't force me to think or behave against my own conscience. Am I >making myself more clear? > > > Organized religion (including my own faith) is not exempt from the > > struggle to either define or follow any interpretation of "morality" > > (see below). > >Sigh . . . "Woe to those who cause one of my little ones to stumble!" > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
