Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Solutions for the new article Oncology

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 04:41:22 AM
This social point of view is problematic. Yes, social order follows from the commandments, but the commandments do not follow from a human wish for order in groups. The commandments did not "evolve", they were handed down by God. I know of no sound alternative to this.

But, now we have additional layers atop those. There are constitutions, at least in our part of the world, and atop these are laws. Each of these layers had better interface perfectly with the one above it all the way to God, else error is introduced. Adding layers has not kept the prisons from overflowing from all the instances of criminality and stupidity taking place in our time.

So, it seems to me that we agree: the religious commandments convey a moral realism which we should return to (first of all, personally).

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 04:57:24 AM
Removing these interface layers is a return to Nature. By happy chance I surfed across something related to what i'm driving at. Others out there believe this to be the case as well:

"Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races"

I think we can break the presented argument down to this:

1. Man is normally either moral or amoral.
2. Man is normally amoral.
-------------------------------------------------
3. Therefore, man is normally amoral.

This is begging the question; you need a better argument. Do you have one?

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 02:25:12 PM
Your use of normally implies equality. That's an error.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 02:58:18 PM
That would be an equality I did not think of. Please explain, what do I equate?

"Normally" implies a norm, and all men that conform to the norm are more similar in respect to that norm than those who do not conform. That I grant; and I would in turn you granted this: that moral and amoral are exclusive in one man.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 04, 2010, 06:05:49 PM
I'll grant that a man is part of and not the whole of reality, so a standard for what is moral, if moral is taken to mean, "actions and beliefs that consistently function correctly", essentially lie outside a given man's being and his time. What works in reality was there before him, and after him, and remains so with or without his presence. What works in our interactions as physics and these interactions as emergent effects over time is therefore a universal.

The problem with a man is his own ability to interface with reality; how accurately and consistently, as frequency and volume, he does so in life. It goes without saying that some people are more perceptive and some less so. Others value trustworthiness and altruism, but many care for neither. These characteristics and others are gradients, not binary categories. In addition, they may change over time from a multitude of factors: genes, nutrition, rest, injury, pity or jadedness that comes from experiences in a given context. The gradients dynamically shift in tone as it were from instance to instance for each man. Referring again to the Moral Existence clause, "frequency of actions and beliefs that consistently function correctly", this is effectively perfect inequality between men.

I'll also grant that we may be working with different interpretations for what is moral, which would be unfortunate since if we were, then one of us is off topic.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 06, 2010, 05:14:55 AM
I have tried to re-word your arguments in order to understand them better: and if you disagreed with one my re-wordings, we would already be a little nearer to understanding.

1. Reality is perfectly good.
2. One human being can not be as good as Reality, at least as long as he remains a human being.
3. Man can learn about Reality, and by his will can improve: but not every human being can do this equally, because they differ in knowledge and will (and many other things). Therefore, we have inequality among human beings; some will necessarily be more virtous than others. And even one human being can change in time: virtue may improve or deteriorate.
4. From this follows that there is perfect inequality between human beings.

I agree with all these arguments.

Conclusion: I do not see where we could really disagree. From none of the above follows that there were no Moral Realism, nor that inequality between men could in any way conflict with it. In fact, we need Moral Realism so we can tell where and why human beings are inequal.

Re: Solutions for the new article Oncology
February 06, 2010, 08:43:24 PM
Conclusion: I do not see where we could really disagree.

I never saw any disagreement.