Is truth worth it?

Is Asherman intolerant? I don't think so, but apparently it seems so to some. I remain human and must still be diligent in pulling weeds from my garden. I already know that, and I work on it everyday. How successful am I? Not nearly as successful as one would wish. I still feel pain and disappointment. I still worry over huge medical debts. Death whispers to me, intruding upon the silences of my deafness. I make daily mistakes that just a little more diligence might have avoided. Mia culpa, mia maxima culpa.

A disagrees with B ... is that intolerance?
A dislikes B ... is that intolerance?
A hates B ... is that intolerance?

In each of these cases A has formed a value judgement about B (which might variously be a sentient being, an idea, or thing. Is there a qualitative difference between disagreement and hatred, or is it just a matter of degree? Disagreement exists when two people come to different conclusions from the same evidence. Set and I generally accept in large measure the written history of the world, yet our interpretations make me a Republican conservative, and Set a liberal Democrat. We respect one another's person and opinions, but are unpersuaded by the other's arguments.

I dislike the Abrahamic religions for a multitude of reasons, but haven't advocated in any form that action be taken against either those religions in general, or their adherents as individuals. I do try to persuade the world that other religious forms are "better" than the Abrahamics, and I'm open to free discussions with the followers of the Abrahamic faiths. Can you cite any non-Abrahamic religion with even a vaguely similar history of intolerance and coersion during the past 1000 years? Almost any religious missionary is welcome at Corazon, so long as equal time is given to the discussion of religious alternatives. It drives Natalie crazy when I spend an hour or so with Seventh Day Adventists, Mormans, and etc. This, it seems to me, is not only tolerant, but a necessary prerequisit for exploring the relative values of religious commitments.

In the case where A hates B, one could argue that "hate" alone might be intolerance even in the absence of words or actions intended to harm B in some manner. When does dislike become hatred? Hatred is a term denoting prejudices so strong that the individual holding that emotion can no longer rationally process information that might mitigate their hatreds. When the hater stands in Hyde Park and denounces a Zionist Conspiracy, or breaks a Jewish head, their intolerance is open for all to see. When instead the individual harbors their hatred in secret with only the occasional sly expression of prejudice, we call them bigots.

We all make value judgements everyday, and they make up a good part of what and who we are. Everyone forms opinions comparing differences between elements of the perceptual world. I prefer chili's grown in Hatch N.M., over those grown someplace else. That is literally a matter of taste, but when I do analysis there are both rational and emotional factors that lead me to prefer one alternative to another. That is how folks came to invent agriculture and the wheel. The Perceptual World, a world of multiplicity, is primarily dealt with by making value judgements derived from comparing and contrasting one thing with another. In this world, to assign equal value to opposits can appear an aweful lot like insanity. Was Mother Theresa intolerant like Pol Pot? Is an Islamic terrorist the same as the young Mother murdered in the blast of a suicide bomb? Are both the murderer and the victim equally intolerant because they stand on drastically different sides of the issue?

One of the fundamental doctrines I hold is that the Perceptual World of multiplicity is false and illusory. Underlying multiplicity is an undifferentiated, unhewen, totality that is the only Reality. In Ultimate Reality there is no Time, no Space, no Consciousness. Our world, the Perceptual World, is a dream without a dreamer. In discriminating between phantoms we form attachments, and attachment to illusion is a perscription for suffering. We will always be disappointed. We want what is not available to us, and mourn the loss of the intangible substances of the dream. Understanding the nature of the two realities has a certain power of liberation, but so long as we are tied to the Illusory World our suffering will continue. Breaking the chains illusion is difficult, especially outside the monastic life where meditation and unvarying routine minimize comparison and attachment. The layman must live in the world of illusion and work within that reality. Laypersons suffer for their attachments, but they also have it within their power to mitigate the suffering of others; to reduce the sum of all suffering, and this is one of the great virtues of Mahayana.

How can one best relieve suffering? Most important is to understand the differences between Ultimate Reality and Perceptual Reality. Understanding those differences will reduce our personal suffering, or at least enhance our ability to endure suffering with some equinimity. As the power of suffering diminishes with the dismissal of attachments, we are able to see and reason more clearly (I believe that, and certainly hope so). The Ego and Self should become less dominent, and the practitioner becomes less chauvinistic and prejudiced about small and unimportant things. This does not mean that the practitioner will no longer make value judgements or hold strong opinions, but it should lead to more toleration of differences.

Right you are; tolerance (in this context) does not mean acceptance of all things at all times on an equal basis irrelative of merit or lack thereof.

Tolerance is just another PC catchword to further impose egalitarian bullshit on everyone. Everyone is NOT equal. Everyone is NOT of equal merit/value
Everyone is not of equal value to society. Why should everything and everyone be tolerated, regardless of their actual merit/value?
Why should things like religious fanaticism be tolerated, rather than extinguished for the good of society?
On what authority did this become dogma, anyway?

Ok back to the thread topic. If God was proved to not exist (in the latest edition of new scientist, it has some speculations on free will; if it did not exist, surely we would not be judged for our sins?) this would only bind extremists more to there goal of destruction. And we hardly have witch burnings anymore.

Because they are people, and as such, their being is of equal value in-itself. Every person ought to be considered, respected, and treated equally. I may not agree or respect a person's character, actions, or opinions, but I do respect their being, and their rights.

It is important to understand that other people are as real as any other person. This is the basis of equality and of most moral systems. We are often indulged in an egocentric predicament and because of that some may find themselves neglecting the reality of other's existence. Is this neglect justified? The only person who will ever find it justifiable is the person who neglects. In terms of soundness and of the opinions of any others, it is never justified.

The lack of randomness in an event does not dismiss responsibility. You are always responsible for your action. There may or may not be a judge to impose punishments on your "sins," but I believe that a wrong act is a wrong act nevertheless.



And so we just accept whatever someone tells us is true? If a person tells me to go and fight an unjust war, must I go and fight because that person tells me that he is a god? It's a can of worms either way, so I don't buy your argument. Furthermore, ignorance create an opportunity to be manipulated.

Hey Ray, (I always wanted to say that)

I will take exception to your idealization that "This is the basis of equality and of most moral systems". Why? Because I suggest the basis of moral systems are the biological imperatives for the need to maintain social groupings, thus the philosophical / theological structures are simply manifestations and rationalizations of that primate biologic impetus.

I will take exception to your idealization that "The only person who will ever find it justifiable is the person who neglects." Why? Because there are millions of well documented cases where one individual or group sacrifices/neglects themselves for another individual and/or group. And very often the sacrificed/neglected ones do not freely choose this fate but and yet do accept it.

On what authority is human life sacrosanct?
What makes human life superior to all other forms of life? (many of which I'm quite sure you are fine with exterminating)

Think about it. Your very existance depends on other life being destroyed so that yours may continue. (unless of course, you spend your entire life being drip-fed by an IV)
To me, life is life. I am no less or more alive than my cats, or a cow, or a tree.
The nature of things is that life thrives at the expense of other life.

Chumly, there are no such things as "biological imperatives." It may have started out as a collective need to form a group, but there is no reason to suggest why this cannot coincide with any rational basis outside of this.

Moral progress had been made, not becauseof people sticking to societal traditions, but because some people questioned those beliefs.



Because they believe it to be a right action. Yet, some may challenge that belief, and that will almost always occur in one form or another. What I was talking about, was how a person, at at least one point in his or her life, cannot fully believe another person's claim that they are inhuman or something not deserving of respect. When you were a kid, haven't you ever had complaints about something being "unfair" to you?
Some may accept it as a way that they are viewed, but I don't think that they ever truly believe themselves to be void of value.



As of the moment, the general consensus is satisfied that humans are sentient beings, or capable of rationality(we are capable of higher order activities), unlike many other species of animals. It is a delicate issue, not only because people have grown accustomed to having lesser animals used to fill certain necessities, but also because it is hard to determine whether an animal is sentient/rational because we cannot fully comprehend an animal's experiences as of yet.

This is another issue that you might want to take to the philosophy & debate forum.



Of course you are not more alive than your cat. This is not a question of what is living and what is not. This is about phenomenal existence. A cat may purely act on instincts, whereas people contemplate about the world, and about their own existence. We do know for certain, that cats do feel, and that is a reason why we should not treat animals cruelly.

Empathy toward another person is based on the understanding that this existence that you are, is also a present and real property in another human being.

Yes, so we, as humans, can empathize what it is like to be another human, and imagine the sufferings of other humans, better than we could for say..a cat or a dog.
That in and of itself is a wholly unconvincing argument for human life being inherently more valuable than other types, muchless sacred.
In fact, when viewed from a global perspective..which species is doing the most damage to the earth do you figure?

Our advanced cognitive abilities also do not seem to be a convincing marker to set the line between 'us and them'. It seems kind of arbitrary. If fleas were the dominant species, for instance, they might scoff at 'lesser creatures' that could not jump even a fraction of the proportional distance as them.

It's all relative. The line drawn between the human animal and the rest is mostly from the abrahamic religious tradition and in my opinion quite erroneous.
Here is a test for you
Do you have a pet?
If so..
Would you sacrifice that pet's life so that a terrorist in afganistan might live?
Think about it.

Asherman,

I don't undestand what Buddhism serves you. You state you fell asleep instead of meditating in your youth, then hardly mention anything in your adulthood about the subject.

Why not let go of those Abrahamic religions AND that one you have?

All other arguments aside, what is your rationale for:

a) "there are no such things as biological imperatives".

b) said biological imperatives cannot be the impetus for the basis of "moral systems".

c) the philosophical / theological structures are not manifestations and rationalizations of that primate biologic impetus but the underlying impetus is because "some people questioned those beliefs" for causation you Ray have yet to specify.

Note: you seem to have be inferred that I have made a definitive causation between the biological imperative and "societal traditions", but I demonstrably have not. Nor do I necessarily see "societal traditions" as an impetus to, or an impediment for, "moral systems" per se, I would argue it's circumstance specific and circumstance dependent.

Tycoon,

With practice, everything becomes meditation. We still fall asleep. We waver and fidget. Discipline isn't easy, but it is important ... even necessary.

Buddhism describes the world we all experience quite well. It recognizes and defines the fundmental problem of sentient existence, and gives a credible reason for suffering. Buddhism provides a course of treatment to mitigate the problem of suffering. With suffering as a yard-stick, we have in Buddhism a rational (though difficult) foundation on which to order our thoughts, words and actions. Buddhism has great appeal to the intellect, yet is so simple and straight forward that any simpleton can excell at it. Buddhism does not ask its followers to abandon reason, or to blind themselves to self-evident facts. Buddhism with a history of thousands of years is more in-touch with modern theoretical mathematics and physics than other religions. Buddhism as an existing religion is a fine workbench to work from in trying to allieviate suffering.

Point toward a better religion, and I'll go take it for a spin. Buddhism has worked very, very well for me. I believe that it can and will work well for almost anyone who seriously practices the doctrines of the Buddha.

Dok, in your test, if everyone were to answer, how different do you think the responses would actually be even if you swapped terrorist for just a stranger on the street? There are some pretty close relationships between pets and people. The further you take the question the more interesting it becomes...

I did not base the value of humans on the ability to empathise, I was stating that since we understand the value of our own existence, and that we can empathise, we can understand the value of another human being. As to what makes a human being a creature of "value," it is because of our sentient or rational nature.



You can't conclude that the drawing of the line is because of Abrahamic religion. For example, Aristotle was not Abrahamic and he concluded on a similar proposition. You think that it is erroneous to draw that line, fine, but I think for the most part it is not erroneous, except if it is drawn for certain animals who happen to be sentient.



I would.



The "biological imperatives" you talk of, if it means a natural law to survive (if that is what you are saying), do not exist because there exist counterexamples in the form of those who choose to not survive. It's troubling to set up biological laws, because biological behaviours arose from physical laws, which depending on how matter interact, may change biological properties.

Moral systems cannot be formed solely because of a person's need to socialize. For what personal advantage is it, for a man such as Mill to advocate women's rights? For what personal advantage is it, for Locke to oppose the oppresive government during the English civil war? For those who have changed, or accepted change proposed to, a set of unfair norms, they may not be doing it out of any need, but are doing it for the sole reason that they find something to be wrong.

I see that as seriously fecked up. Even a little disturbing.

Yeah? I assumed that you mean if a non-sentient animal is sacrificed to save a person's life, would I do it? Maybe I would. It's not like I think the animal being killed is pleasurable or something. Would it make it less "sick" if it were sacrificed for someone you care about Dok?

Well, no...
What I see as messed up is that you would sacrifice a lifeform you care about for one you don't, based soley on racial criteria.

Pfh. Racial criteria? Nice tactic of using negative connotations Dok.

You're basing your decision on your personal feeling, I'm basing mine on what I think I ought to do. Who's to say I don't care about people anyway? So what if I don't know them, does that mean I don't care about the person, or that I ought to not care about the person?

Maybe I did jump the gun a bit in my decision, I probably do need to think about this more, but I intend to not base my decision on whether or not I know the person. If I think that it's wrong to sacrifice the animal, it would be because of something else.