16
   

is there a fundamental value that we all share?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 03:37 pm
@fresco,
I was trying to think simple, and didn't really consider the actions and choices of individuals. If we look at our species as a whole, individual behavior could perhaps be understood as probabilities. Social interaction that makes us better suited to survive become our common values, and within the range of possible ways these values can be understood and expressed, each individual expression is merely one in a multitude of probable variations.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 03:50 pm
is there a fundamental value that we all share?

the only good human is a dead human
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 04:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I agree; survival means doing all one can do to live a healthy, productive, life.
Many people smoke, eat fatty foods, drink to excess, knowing they are unhealthy. Many do not exercise enough. Everybody has a choice.


Yes, and not all agree that the amount of years lived is the best measure for a good life. What if a virus came along, and it turned out that people with excessive body fat were the only ones who could beat the disease? Improbable. Maybe even impossible. My point is just that we can't know what will happen. There is a chance, however remote it might be, that our efforts to make a better future for ourselves are having the adverse effect. What we think is for the best isn't automatically the best thing for us.
Zeke
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 04:03 pm
@djjd62,
I don't share that view, and thus that puts you short on that question. An evil living human who is dead does not apply my criteria of good which then gets into the dilemma of what criteria must be met to be good, and that is also subjective to each individuals, and thus the complexity of the issue rises one more level.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 04:52 pm
and once again, it becomes increasingly clear that philosophy folks have no sense of humour
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 07:09 pm
@Cyracuz,
I agree with that thesis, that the efforts that we make for a better future may have an adverse effect. Many people stress themselves out by working hard to get the pay increases and promotions which can be detrimental to one's health. I'm sure there are many other examples.

The quality of life is important, but how one measures it is about at subjective as there are individuals.
0 Replies
 
absos
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 08:20 pm
the instinct of survival is by definition not a value or related to any abstraction of value concept

value mean an end profit left still, while survival mean all useless efforts in the illusion or the will that u can do it, so a lot of work without ever a second rest real as nothing so to mean smthg still there n even positively free called thing value is impossible

it is amazin how all ur treasures are from negative, it says how ur fundamental ways to b living is by forcing others to feel bad so then good condition is to u hypothetically to get

so by survival instinct u mean the pleasure in killin others or else, the more intelligent u r the more u do it in abstract n free absolute objective mean

the exclusive value that all humans share is conscious, so the recognition that existence is real and not dependant on them while they are present as at least aware about in constant terms
it is a value bc in objective fact it is a plus to all existence and in relative sense it means the plus existence perspectives show by pointin it at least to itself being
0 Replies
 
Thomas33
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2016 01:06 pm
Yes. We are all the meaning of life. The cast and crew of Terminator 3 are as much why reality exists as the staff at any supermarket; citizens in Paris in the 1700's were as much why reality exists as today's citizens of Wyoming.

And not just homo sapiens, but members of any species have the value of being why there's a source of existence.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:10 pm
@existential potential,
Never went for Ayer, but that aside, he makes us to be robots, 'wet computers'. What is needed is for us all to commit to our conscience, to seek the Truth and to live by it. Until we have a passion to share and to really find out, it is just an adult's version of a schoolground fight.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:11 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas, Abortion gives the lie to the first statement.

The second is wrong, fun or not.

The third is not a shared value until we actually share it.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Way to hazy a thing to use the word 'religion' as if whatever calls itself that is okay with you.

So there are no false religions, no true religions, no scale of worthwhileness in religion, no assessment by reason, etc.

You say 'reality gauge' but you don't assess by any standards others can recognize. None at all.

For example, If I am convinced there is a God you say I am religious and then turn around and say reason can't show there is a God. Just another thug on the schoolgrounds, that's you.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:15 pm
@Xenoche,
How dumb, even thieves punish stealing amongst themselves.

How dumb.
0 Replies
 
AugustineBrother
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2016 04:20 pm
@joefromchicago,
No, that isn't even logical to say.

A pluralistic society does not generate multiplicity of views, it ALLOWS them. And for the same reason it allows freedom of speech and a free press, so that we can get closer to the Truth of things.

There is no such thing as 'imposed by the religious folks'. There is no organization, there is no lifelong adherents (many, many are converts entering and leaving, belonging to sects so diverse that I doubt you could find one universally agreed thing among them).

And anyone over 10 should not use the moral superi0rity statement. Among the many views of abortion, death sentence, marriage, etc. you can't identify more than one issue at a time that has any majority at all.

And how does Xenoche recognize these people ?? He must have met thousands of people in his life whose deepest views he had not a clue about.

Pompous BS.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 10:50 am
@AugustineBrother,
Hunh?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 10:56 am
@AugustineBrother,
Quote:
A pluralistic society does not generate multiplicity of views, it ALLOWS them.


What do you mean, it ALLOWS them? Anyone can have any view no matter where they live. Some countries may limit free speech, but that doesn't mean they can control multiplicity of views.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The ethics of killing the dead - Discussion by joefromchicago
Theoretical Question About Extra Terrestrials - Discussion by failures art
The Watchmen Dilemma - Discussion by Sentience
What is your fundamental moral compass? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
The Trolley Problem - Discussion by joefromchicago
Keep a $900 Computer I Didn't Buy? - Question by NathanCooperJones
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/19/2019 at 07:22:38