Suicidal Moron World.

I feel obliged to respond now, against my better judgment, for the sake of any impressionable minds that may be following this. First let me sigh. Alright, we proceed.

I think we are becoming lost in this 'debate'; either you are not understanding what I am saying or you are ignoring it. In either case, I think it would help if we looked back and stated our positions whole, and cease merely responding to each others, attacking every sentence, bringing up new issues when, somehow, the others have yet to be resolved.

This issue of freedom began when I said something to the effect that moral law is a restriction thereof. What I mean is that adopting some code of conduct because you believe it to be the right code of conduct is, in my opinion, silly, if it does not correspond to the manner in which you would behave if left to your own devices: i.e., if you were not under the impression that there was a moral obligation laid on you by some external entity.

You then brought up the issue of freedom in terms of social relations, government, law, etc., which was not my original intention. Nonetheles, the issues are related.

What you mean by the social contract (I am quite familiar with the concept, invented by jean-jacques Rousseau in a treatise by that name; do not explain it to me) confuses me; do you mean that I should accept societal law simply because I am in society? That is speculation; why should I? You seem to think that my existance itself is some sort of binding legal contract and that, as I receive benefits from society, I must accept its dictates. Why must I? I have broken the law on numerous occasions; therefore, I do not have to obey them. I might or I might not and if I do not, I might still expect or desire the benefits. That might be an unrealistic expectation or a desire unlikely to be fulfilled, if I commit suffiicent violations of the custom, but that is not the point.

if you do not feel the need to participate in American society, do you have the confidence in yourself to divorce yourself of all of the benefits of American society

Perhaps, but in any case, why should I? I don't feel any moral obligation to suffer under its obligations, regardless of whether or not I enjoy the benefits.


As far as cultural superiorty is concerned, you said that you disgreed with my view that no culture is superior to another. You claimed that the superior culture is that which, in one way or another, fulfills its members best. How would this be determined except statistically, by which culture has more satisfied members. Therefore, you are basing your judgement of quality on a majority opinion. What of those who are not satisfied? You imply that, because X culture is most satisfying (statistically) it is the best. Is it best for them? Is it best for them to not be satisfied?

As a side note, there is no such thing as scientific, or any other kind, of proof.

That's all.

Your existence is dependent on what came before you. Without the conditions necessary to give rise to your life you do not exist. Your right was granted by a set of circumstances. These circumstances were caused by the evolution of the universe at various levels. So your existence is not depended on someone, but something.

[quote=]... it seems to me to be a sad commentary on Western culture that the only options open to it are every-man-for-himself or else a government-enforced-socialist-utopia (which sounds like no utopia at all) ... it's too bad we're all deeply enculturated with the fiction that it's against our individual interests to simply give a sh*t![/quote]

The reason for the Orwellian future is because of the attempt to enforce cooperation. You are correct in this. The true way to have people cooperate is through facilitating cooperation. The reason why the world tries enforce cooperation is because there is so much injustice in the world, and thus, requires coercive methods to try getting minorities of people to cooperate and suppress other minorities. In other words, the structure and foundations of society are messed up. By reforming the world, and creating a way of life that facilitates and incubate cooperation would evolve civilization passed the age of the dystopia.

Your existence is dependent on what came before you. Without the conditions necessary to give rise to your life you do not exist. Your right was granted by a set of circumstances. These circumstances were caused by the evolution of the universe at various levels. So your existence is not depended on someone, but something.

Of course I would not exist if various circumstances had not preceeded my existance; that is obvious. The issue is whether or not, by existing, I have a right to exist. I would say no; there are no rights, only realities. That I have a right to exist means nothing unless by this you mean simply that I do exist, unless you beleive in some sort of god, benevolent force of nature, etc., which, hardly able to contain my laughter, I do not.

I ask you this;

(1) What is this something that has granted me my right, without which generosity, I would, supposedly, not exist?

(2) What is the right to life anyhow, as distinct from the simple fact that I am alive?

So when your existence is threatened you will not cry out for someone to give a sh*** and help you.

Brightnoon,

I hope yopu didn't feel put out that I stopped talking to you, it's just that, when I asked:



I assure you that not talking to you constituted a failure to satisfy myself, but I wanted to make the point that we have obligations because other people have needs, emotions and rights - even you.

iconoclast.

1. This something that has granted your right to exist is your collective circumstance.

2. Your right to life exists as long as your circumstance makes it possible to continue living. The simple fact that you are alive is a passive existence. Because you have a set of circumstances that enshroud your existence there is an active interplay between it and your passive existence.

To Savagemonk:

Yes, I imagine I would.


To Iconoclast:

See next response.


To Theaetetus:

1. This something that has granted your right to exist is your collective circumstance.

I was unaware that circumstances had the power to grant things; I was under the impression that circumstances were indifferent, arbitrary and not animated by little men who grant rights. Did one such homuniculus tell you how he granted me some rights one day? No, I thought not. How then did you come to know that these circumstances granted me something? There are certainly circumstances and there is also me; where does the granting by the former to the lattter come in?

Instead of 'rights', I see reality. Instead of imaginary, self-serving ideals, I see the course of the world as it progresses. that I live is a fact; the statement that I have a right to live is speculation and moreover, one without any definite meaning. What is a right, except in the socio-political sense(arbitrary and not universal)? Can you answer this?! I doubt it...

2. Your right to life exists as long as your circumstance makes it possible to continue living.

How? What is this right to life, as distinct from simply living?

The simple fact that you are alive is a passive existence.

How so? What would be an active existance, being dead?

Because you have a set of circumstances that enshroud your existence there is an active interplay between it and your passive existence.

Once again, what do you mean by a passove existance? Also, what are you trying to say...I feel I might need to make a tinfoil hat or go buy a crystal of some kind in order to understand your argument...

Sorry if it seems like I'm making fun of you; I am, because you are worthy of being made fun of.

Brightnoon,

So, you admit you're an evolutionary animal who enjoys the ability to think, feel and know because of thousands of generations struggled to survive and breed, sacrificing time and resources to bring children into the world and raise them, who's language and knowledge are social developments, who's clothes, house and all else are not your own inventions or constructions.

Do you feel no sense of gratitude?

Do you not feel that you embody the present moment of the species?

Is your biological independence really the most fundamental fact about you?

Are there any circumstances in which you see yourself as being obliged to act a certain way, or not act a certain way?

Please explain.

iconoclast.

So, you admit you're an evolutionary animal who enjoys the ability to think, feel and know because of thousands of generations struggled to survive and breed, sacrificing time and resources to bring children into the world and raise them, who's language and knowledge are social developments, who's clothes, house and all else are not your own inventions or constructions.

I do.

Do you feel no sense of gratitude?

I would have to say its more a feeling of pride, but there may be some gratitude in the mix.
Do you not feel that you embody the present moment of the species?

I feel that I am alive, while ancestors of mine are dead, if that is what you mean. I also feel a sense of adventurism in going forth.

Is your biological independence really the most fundamental fact about you?

Well, as any ideas od community, history, etc. would be ideas in my mind nonetheless, Yes.
Are there any circumstances in which you see yourself as being obliged to act a certain way, or not act a certain way?

If by oblliged you mean, feel an obligation, then there are times when I feel or suspect I would feel obligations.


Now, as for these questions, what do they prove? Are you trying to evaluate or direct my behavior; I thought we were having a debate. My argument is very simple; (1) there are no obligations/rights/morals which are universal or which are right, however much you might beleive in them; (2) One who repudiates all morals, such as myself, does not neccessarily behave in an amoral/mean/d-bagish fashion; i.e., not being bound by one's belief that an ethic is right does not mean that, behaviorally speaking, one cannot follow that ethic: e.g., I do not think that I should avoid smacking people who I find ugly, but I generally avoid doing so nonetheless: ideal versus reality.

To refresh your memory, we have been talking about the right to exist, as a part of the moral issue I just mentioned. You have yet to explain how I, or anyone else, has a right to live, unless by 'right to live' you mean some legal document or social convention. That you believe everyone has a right to live and that you and others like you would install a political system to accomplish that does not prove that there is a right to life. The fact remains, one lives or dies, regardless of this imaginary right, except in that the idea of the right might influence your killer/protector, etc.

The whole subjuntive is influential on the course of events only as ideas. For example, no one follows a law because it is the law; the law is nothing. They follow it because they fear the real consequences of violating said low or because they think they should follow the law because it is the law.

By the way, Theaetetus, I apologize for the harsh words; this debate seems to be going in circles and I get frustrated. Hope I haven't scared you off.

Bn,

A couple of quich corrections if I may. I didn't raise or defend your right to exist. I agree you have no such right, (see post #9) but the right to life now that you do exist I think should be defended in simple preference to someone elses right to kill you, and/or by implication, me!

The other thing is that I'm not of the Eastern school, whatever that means. Buddhist? No, I'm firmly, some would say rabidly athiestic - I even find the term athiest offensive because it's defined as the neagtive of belief in God, where I posistively believe in a scientific conception of reality and an evolutionary conception of man and see little reason to consider the idea.

My questions are directed toward revealing natural obligations to the continued existence of the species - where, given the title of this post, i'm the average man stuck on a world, and youre arguing the case of the suicidal moron who feels no obligation to act to perpetuate his kind.

I do understand your distinction between actual obligation and feelings of obligation which you may or may not act upon, so in that case, do you feel obliged to act to secure the continued existence of the species, or would you claim the individual right to use resources ruinously and fcuk future generations?

iconoclast.

...do you feel obliged to act to secure the continued existence of the species, or would you claim the individual right to use resources ruinously and fcuk future generations?

I will thoroughly waste any and all resources whose wasting gives me pleasure; I'm a hedonist through and through and, though you don't know it, so are you!

However, in all seriousness, I will never, on my most solemn oath, ever claim a right to anything. That would smack of cowardice, lack of confidence; why should I need to justify my acts with a 'right'?

Do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "right" in the dictionary--especially the Oxford English Dictionary. Then maybe you would quit going on about what you think you know but do not understand.

Brightnoon,

I'm not a hedonist, nor an ascetic - I take pleasure in life, but reject the extreme in all its forms: the ideal, superlative, the absolute, and instead embrace the moderate. I take pleasure in the little things in life most people take for granted, such as the fact of my existence and the ability to think, feel and know. I live modestly, but well. I like to cook, read and write. These are not hedonistic pursuits.



The distinction you make here is semantic - and contradicts your claim to be a hedonist. The hedonist believes in and acts on the idea that hedonism is the ultimate conception of the good. They do not feel obliged to do anything but persue pleasure because the pursuit of pleasure is considered the ultimate good. On principle, obligation is rejected as unhedonistic - a potential obstacle to the pursuit of pleasure.

As you have intially rejected the concept of obligation and then come to acknowleddge that you may feel obliged under certain circumstances, I suspect that under similar questioning you would come to accept that you have rights and would respect the rights of others. This too is unhedonistic.

Given your general failure comprehend the meaning of these relatively basic philosophical terms, that you throw out and/or dismiss with such insoussiance, given the title of this post, it's ironic that you argue the case of the suicidal moron, for that's exactly how you come across. :flowers:

regards,

iconoclast.

A 'right' to exist? You, nor I, know the reason we're here, so please don't begin applying any moralistic or idealistic values to our existence. His actions could mean absolutely nothing, regardless how he lives. Also, 'wiser' is relative. It could be wiser in his eyes for him to live one way, and wiser in your eyes for him to live another - why? because you have different goals, different reasons (purpose?). Neither notion is inherently better, so don't make that mistake. Our existence could end whenever, so what? Maybe this species means nothing, and maybe we have souls (in which case this flesh would mean little to our existence) , or maybe some of the newer theories on consciousness are correct (in which case, we really aren't anything 'special', and are no different than decaying matter).

Consider taking humans off the pedestal is all I'm saying. And don't be fooled - I'm not being sarcastic, I actually mean CONSIDER, not in a derogatory or pushy, imperative manner.

Iconoclast,

I'd have enjoyed this writing more if I shared your sentiments regarding our existence. It was very nicely done, though (I've put myself in the shoes of one that does value this existence and the existence of future generations, and it really did strike me). Nice work.