The nature of "individuality": Debating an article

[butterfly]

You STILL crack me up

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Dante B.
I'll get back to this all either later tonight, or at some point tomorrow. And it's not because I'll be getting a quickie either. Well, putting aside the love I freely offer to myself.

Rest assured, though: If I did get laid more often, I'd disappear from the boards (setting aside whatever's necessary for business)

I blame it on God.

As will I. I had started on a response to egg's response, but something has caught my mind's eye, and I may be occupied for the rest of the night

 

[Eggs]

Hmmm, pray tell what caught your minds eye S8? You better not have stopped your response for porn

Just messing, no doubt it was intellectually stimulating enough to break your thought process, or at least get it to change gears.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
So we existed along with the dinosaurs, and along with prehistoric man. Why isn't there evidence of man, as he is now, that rests along the time-line of the dinosaurs.

Your guess is as good as mine. A fact that might be explained by the flood though. As our bodies are composed differently. I havent studied the earths layers enough to be able to intelligently defend either position in that regards. I do know that dinosaurs have been found in strata in which they were not expected to be in... as I attended a seminar by a scientist a while back on it. However, I must admit that I cared as little then as I do now about the dinosaurs. Except that I'd really like to try a triceratops steak.

But why would any of this matter. So long as a person adhered to the concept of an initial and ultimate cause, faith is all the need to guide them the rest of the way.

You're stating that all religions are created equally, to which I quote you "All beliefs are not equal". How then are all religions equal? We've been into the faith aspect... you go on faith every time you put your key in the ignition to start your car. You certainly have faith when you believe in evolution. There are pieces missing to every puzzle on the board, not just to the religion one. To make a statement that your beliefs are more true than any other you have to present evidence. There has been no evidence, instead you have attempted to logically prove that yours makes sense based upon conditions that are present today. We are neither at the end or the beginning of existence, and have no factual indication of where we are from or where we are going. We have things that suggest, but we have nothing more thant these suggestions... these hints at something. You are trying to look at a computer and tell how it was made without realizing that yours is one possibility out of many... was the case handmade or machine made, how were the silicon pieces fabricated? This is as much an indictment of myself as you, for I assume everything in my faith. Just as you do. Perhaps it will make an ass of me in the end, but if that is so then there is a good chance that you will be joining me there. I owe you a beer in that case.

Really, how it it out of context.

Perhaps it is out of context to aver that the Bible stated that the earth, was indeed "round."

To start with, Bible scholars are just as much people that dont believe in the Bible as do believe in it. Others wish to change it to suit their means. Tell me, would you ask Hitler if it were ethically wrong to kill Jews? Prepare yourself for a biased answer; just as you have accepted willingly these "bible scholar" statements. Dont you think that using a book called
"The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible" might indeed be somone opinion of what they see, and not necessarily truth? I could write a book about nearly anything and criticise something unfairly... it takes no talent or understanding.

Try this one on for size - "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

Must be speaking of a flat world! Umm, no... I rather believe he is speaking metaphorically of the tree of life... a tree that doesnt truly exist, so why shouldnt the vision be romanticised slightly. So in reality this guy is picking on the wordage used, and not really so much the actual meaning of what is being said. Oh, and regarding the tree of life... I'm pretty sure there are people in every part of the earth. Thus the tree can be seen can it not?

I see alot of writing on your Biblical sceptics page, but very little in which he proves anything without use of a singular book that he thinks everyone should believe.

Lastly, even if all that were true... many applications exist in the Bible that were very much relevant to the times. For instance, eating pork was unlawful. Is pork in its own way wrong? No, but the true purpose of it was that if not cooked thoroughly, etc there was chance of disease. Along with this the diet of the Israelites was strict to keep them seperated from other groups. So there were purposes behind many of the things that people dont understand the reasoning for today.

I'm rather tired of that subject, the link you had is a web site just like a million others on the web, its not even an scholastic web site... and the writer is obvious in his little venting spurts that he has a bias. If you want to convince me of falsity in the bible, you're going to have to provide a source that can at least attempt to present an unbiased research paper.

I'm going to post this seperately as I'd like to keep any religious material seperate from our conversation on ethics so we can present our arguments in an unbiased fashion.

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
Your guess is as good as mine. A fact that might be explained by the flood though. As our bodies are composed differently. I havent studied the earths layers enough to be able to intelligently defend either position in that regards. I do know that dinosaurs have been found in strata in which they were not expected to be in... as I attended a seminar by a scientist a while back on it. However, I must admit that I cared as little then as I do now about the dinosaurs. Except that I'd really like to try a triceratops steak.

So man, at that state of time and development, would have been able to live side by side with the dinosaurs?

You're stating that all religions are created equally, to which I quote you "All beliefs are not equal". How then are all religions equal? We've been into the faith aspect... you go on faith every time you put your key in the ignition to start your car. You certainly have faith when you believe in evolution. There are pieces missing to every puzzle on the board, not just to the religion one. To make a statement that your beliefs are more true than any other you have to present evidence. There has been no evidence, instead you have attempted to logically prove that yours makes sense based upon conditions that are present today. We are neither at the end or the beginning of existence, and have no factual indication of where we are from or where we are going. We have things that suggest, but we have nothing more thant these suggestions... these hints at something. You are trying to look at a computer and tell how it was made without realizing that yours is one possibility out of many... was the case handmade or machine made, how were the silicon pieces fabricated? This is as much an indictment of myself as you, for I assume everything in my faith. Just as you do. Perhaps it will make an ass of me in the end, but if that is so then there is a good chance that you will be joining me there. I owe you a beer in that case.

And again, what is a logical leap, and what is a leap based only on faith. Not all beliefs are equal to mean: faith isn't faith.

All religions rely on evidence, which is evidence in itself, but not in a religious sense.

As for "we don't know where we're going," again, you don't merely believe in a God, you believe in an entire religion. But whatever you wish to think, you will, regarding the lack of "evidence." If this leads you to take the Bible and Christianity at face-value, as though it's not a jump of faith, that's your deal.

As I said, if I believed in God, as one can make quite a reasonable argument for the existence of one, it wouldn't be as a Christian.

To start with, Bible scholars are just as much people that dont believe in the Bible as do believe in it. Others wish to change it to suit their means. Tell me, would you ask Hitler if it were ethically wrong to kill Jews? Prepare yourself for a biased answer; just as you have accepted willingly these "bible scholar" statements. Dont you think that using a book called
"The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible" might indeed be somone interpretation of what they see, and not necessarily truth? I could write a book about nearly anything and criticise something unfairly... it takes no talent or understanding.

Try this one on for size - "I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth."

Must be speaking of a flat world! Umm, no... I rather believe he is speaking metaphorically of the tree of life... a tree that doesnt truly exist, so why should the vision be romanticised slightly. So in reality this guy is picking on the wordage used, and not really so much the actual meaning of what is being said.

Interesting how this doesn't apply to your argument. Speaking in metaphors, taking them as literal statements.

Your sword cuts both ways.

Lastly, even if all that were true... many applications exist in the Bible that were very much relevant to the times. For instance, eat pork was unlawful. Is pork in its own way wrong? No, but the true purpose of it was that if not cooked thoroughly, etc there was chance of disease. Along with this the diet of the Israelites was strict to keep them seperated from other groups. So there were purposes behind many of the things that people dont understand the reasoning for today.

The point being?

If it's the true word of God, it is wisdom from the past, present and future. Not the wisdom of the present (or rather, past) circumstances.

I'm rather tired of that subject, the link you had is a web site just like a million others on the web, its not even an scholastic web site... and the writer is obvious in his little venting spurts that he has a bias. If you want to convince me of falsity in the bible, you're going to have to provide a source that can at least attempt to present an unbiased research paper.

And what is "unbiased." Again, it cuts both ways. Even the "scholastics" aren't without bias, nor are they omniscient. I'm arguing from essentials, not from particulars. In order to argue particulars (details), it must have a reference to the essentials (the nature of God, the possibility, is it truly based only on faith, not logic, etc).

In truth, though, I really don't care to discuss your Bible. I don't care at all about the Good Book. I care to discuss things on fundamental terms (religion at its base).

It is useless for me to mire myself in details that are divorced from essentials.

I'm going to post this seperately as I'd like to keep any religious material seperate from our conversation on ethics so we can present our arguments in an unbiased fashion.

It is impossible to be unbiased, in any argument I only care to discuss religion on the context of discussing the essenetials of the individual, and our world (how we know things, by what means, is there a right and a wrong---how do we apprehend this, and so on).

I don't care to discuss religion itself, in terms of particulars (that is, Christianity, etc, separated from the roots). If we wish to discuss religion at its roots, and how we come to "know" (or rather, assume) certain things as being true, I'm game.

Apart from that, I don't care to talk about your religion.

 

[Eggs]

Then we assume that human life is essential? Essential to what? and why?

There is no reason for human life... therefore how can it ever be essential? We have no purpose outside of that which we create ourselves, therefore we are only essential to ourselves. If we are only essential to ourselves, then everything you do now makes no difference. Nada, zip. You can make no contribution that is everlastingly essential. No thought that could not be thought of by someone else. There is no function that you fulfill that another cannot do so, and many can do better. Your are inessential, as am I. The only place that either of us matters is in our heads, outside of that we have no meaning.

You say there are those who love you. Oh, but you are wrong. You are merely an aspect of their worldview. You fulfill a function in their life that any other could fulfill given the opportunity that you were. If your mother had born a different son she would not have missed you and felt love for that son rather than you. She feels love not because of who you are, but because it is essential to feel love... to herself. No thought exists but that which is a selfish one. The mother that saves her baby and sacrifices her life, she does it because it suits her and psychologically she needs to do that. She is trained, like a rat is trained to press a button and retreive a candy.

And so it goes, until you die. Then you no longer exist, and there is nothing essential about you anymore, even to yourself. What you created and what you accomplished has only meaning to those whome it benefits, and the rest toss it away because it is not essential to them. In time however what you said will be lost... your thoughts forgotten.

Ethics? What ethics? We do as pleases us. We see consequences for our actions and perform nothing without thinking of reward to cost. Will the reward be greater than the cost? People treat others only as they have to. Every person is a murderer and a thief if the opportunity presents itself, if the reward suits them. At least it is so if it were not for conditioning. Conditiong... now that is your ethics and morals. We are all machines working on the assembly line that is our lives. None of our actions are from free thought. You are merely genetics and conditioning. Free will? That which you are thinking right now is the exact result of of your conditioning and genetics. Any thought you might have that you consider original. It is not your own, it is the imprint upon your coginitive functions by the world around it.

Ethics? We have no ethics. There isnt a survival ethic. There isnt a society based ethic. There is a "I'll do whatever I fancy I can get away with ethic." Be thankful that it is possible to condition that machine that you call a brain, for if it werent life would self destruct.

Evolution? Please... things fall apart, not together. The truth is that our existence is unavoidably meaningless. We can play games and say that there should be bones here and not there, wings on that creature because it jumped high fifty times then touched its heels together 3 times and out they popped... the radiation hit them just right for it to happen. Lets not try to piece together what we cannot, and lets not make logical jumps like were kangaroos. We are utterly meaningless... the universe and life make no sense and should not exist.

The most meaningful thing in life is pleasure, because nothing is essential and nothing has meaning, so why contimplate life when it brings us nothing but a headache. Pleasure is all much better, I say we all head down to Hedonism and have a party. My personal inconsequential meaningless life could use some sun and sand.

 

[Dante B.]

I'll present this another way, speaking of faith:

Someone states, "we don't know everything, there are too many gaps."

We'll say: Yes, quite true.

We'll live by the details and understanding that is presently available to us.

However, to state, "we don't know everything, therefore, Christianity is true (or possible)," is purely a matter of faith.

Logic, can lead one to conclude: There was an ultimate cause, a being, which I will call God---but cannot define in terms of His will and purpose.

Not all beliefs are equal, as I said; and as I'll say again, an argument for a specific religion will ultimately crumble until you are left with the foundation upon which the entire argument is built:

Faith.


But faith is not faith, in terms of what we consider faith. If someone said, "This world is just like the Matrix," they must present evidence. Until that is proven, we live by what is known to us. That is not pure faith, as though it is blind faith.

I have no reason to believe, as I don't see any evidence supporting a Matrix-like existence that we call "reality."

"But that is faith, just like my faith in Christianity." No, for what reasons I mentioned.

This is also what I meant regarding the essentials---all religious discussions amount to this, in the end, if one cares to argue from a fundamental standpoint (the only one which I care to argue from). I apologize if I was a bit caustic with my last response.

 

[Eggs]

Ahh, its all good... so was I. But I do think some sand and sun are a good idea

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
Then we assume that human life is essential? Essential to what? and why?

What? I don't understand what this argument came out of.

There is no reason for human life... therefore how can it ever be essential? We have no purpose outside of that which we create ourselves, therefore we are only essential to ourselves. If we are only essential to ourselves, then everything you do now makes no difference. Nada, zip. You can make no contribution that is everlastingly essential. No thought that could not be thought of by someone else. There is no function that you fulfill that another cannot do so, and many can do better. Your are inessential, as am I. The only place that either of us matters is in our heads, outside of that we have no meaning.

We are here, there is a world that has identity. That's all that matters. There is no "reason," for us to continue to exist. But the fact remains, we do, and we can either ride along or leave the bus.

I experience pleasure, as well as pain, by living. The pleasure gives my life meaning. Thoughts of an afterlife (that I don't believe in, at least in terms of the typical presentation of one) does not concern just as it does not motivate me.

Like a sex addict, I exist to experience an orgasm, and like a drug fiend, I exist to find my next high.

You say there are those who love you. Oh, but you are wrong. You are merely an aspect of their worldview. You fulfill a function in their life that any other could fulfill given the opportunity that you were. If your mother had born a different son she would not have missed you and felt love for that son rather than you. She feels love not because of who you are, but because it is essential to feel love... to herself. No thought exists but that which is a selfish one. The mother that saves her baby and sacrifices her life, she does it because it suits her and psychologically she needs to do that. She is trained, like a rat is trained to press a button and retreive a candy.

So all relationships are like that of a mother to a child. She didn't choose her children, but she choose her mate.

That is a hopelessly flawed understanding of love.

And so it goes, until you die. Then you no longer exist, and there is nothing essential about you anymore, even to yourself. What you created and what you accomplished has only meaning to those whome it benefits, and the rest toss it away because it is not essential to them. In time however what you said will be lost... your thoughts forgotten.

"All is ephemeral, all those who remember, and those who are remembered."

So be it. Be that as it may, I exist and I experience, or can experience pleasure. That is the meaning.

Ethics? What ethics? We do as pleases us. We see consequences for our actions and perform nothing without thinking of reward to cost. Will the reward be greater than the cost? People treat others only as they have to. Every person is a murderer and a thief if the opportunity presents itself, if the reward suits them. At least it is so if it were not for conditioning. Conditiong... now that is your ethics and morals. We are all machines working on the assembly line that is our lives. None of our actions are from free thought. You are merely genetics and conditioning. Free will? That which you are thinking right now is the exact result of of your conditioning and genetics. Any thought you might have that you consider original. It is not your own, it is the imprint upon your coginitive functions by the world around it.

?

Ethics? We have no ethics. There isnt a survival ethic. There isnt a society based ethic. There is a "I'll do whatever I fancy I can get away with ethic." Be thankful that it is possible to condition that machine that you call a brain, for if it werent life would self destruct.

And who does the conditioning. Don't say "society," or "someone," as someone, somewhere, must have had the first thought which wasn't an innate idea.

Evolution? Please... things fall apart, not together. The truth is that our existence is unavoidably meaningless. We can play games and say that there should be bones here and not there, wings on that creature because it jumped high fifty times then touched its heels together 3 times and out they popped... the radiation hit them just right for it to happen. Lets not try to piece together what we cannot, and lets not make logical jumps like were kangaroos. We are utterly meaningless... the universe and life make no sense and should not exist.

I find meaning in the orgasmic release, nothing more, nothing less.

The most meaningful thing in life is pleasure, because nothing is essential and nothing has meaning, so why contimplate life when it brings us nothing but a headache. Pleasure is all much better, I say we all head down to Hedonism and have a party. My personal inconsequential meaningless life could use some sun and sand.

I'll let you buy me a drink

 

[Dante B.]

Originally posted by Eggs
Ahh, its all good... so was I. But I do think some sand and sun are a good idea

I agree

I'm done for now, although I may be around later.

Regardless, take care.

 

[Eggs]

You too.

And I think it would be beneficial next time if we agree to a definition first of that which we are arguing. I think thats where the frustration existed, that we didnt agree on a definition and if we couldnt do that then we couldnt make any head way in discussing it.

Anyhow, have a good Friday night.

 

[Eggs]

In a world where orgasmic realease is the only ethic, the only sin is in impotence

 

[Eggs]

Okay, given that humanity is the measure of all things:

The most important essential component to humanity is life. Thus the primary contributor to our ethical standards must be life and those things which affect it. Now these things are found in degrees... the removal of life being the most unethical, and those things that cause lesser impact play a lesser role.

Life is the most important contributor to ethics because it is the most vital. A persons life is the sum total of what they have. One might say "wait, but what about the value of their family members, etc". It is true they have value, and this value must be included in ethics. However, loosing your life removes you from the equation completely so it must be considered a total value. Where as the loss of a loved one, while a considerable loss of value will not remove you from the equation. That of course isnt about ethics, its about value. However, our values help us determine our ethics in life. I'm kinda rambling with this though so I'll get back to what I was originally talking about.

Being that life has ethical ramifications to us one could have a list such as the following (brief one) that goes from most unethical to not-unethical.

Murder (loss of life)
Permanent bodily harm (loss of human attributes and potential)
Impeding potential via force (though not physically damaging)
Loss of property (lifes work)
etc

Thinking along the lines of human potential, what role does potential have in determining ethics? Human potential is one of the most important components of humanity... and in it resides the future of the human race. Because of the importance of potential and the impact that it can have on all people, is a life of potential worth more than one with less potential?

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
Life is the most important contributor to ethics because it is the most vital. A persons life is the sum total of what they have. One might say "wait, but what about the value of their family members, etc". It is true they have value, and this value must be included in ethics. However, loosing your life removes you from the equation completely so it must be considered a total value. Where as the loss of a loved one, while a considerable loss of value will not remove you from the equation. That of course isnt about ethics, its about value. However, our values help us determine our ethics in life. I'm kinda rambling with this though so I'll get back to what I was originally talking about.

Being that life has ethical ramifications to us one could have a list such as the following (brief one) that goes from most unethical to not-unethical.

Murder (loss of life)
Permanent bodily harm (loss of human attributes and potential)
Impeding potential via force (though not physically damaging)
Loss of property (lifes work)
etc

Thinking along the lines of human potential, what role does potential have in determining ethics? Human potential is one of the most important components of humanity... and in it resides the future of the human race. Because of the importance of potential and the impact that it can have on all people, is a life of potential worth more than one with less potential?

First of all, what standard do you suppose we should measure "potential" against?

Second, worth, relative to whom? Relative to ourselves? Relative to "society"?

One man's Hitler is another man's Christ; who gets to play Pilate?

 

[Eggs]

you cant answer questions by asking questions

Well, I suppose you can... but it kinda makes the conversation drag when everyone is asking questions and no one expounds.

 

[Eggs]

As to the measurement of potential... the more beneficial it is to society as a whole as compared to in a specific group.

For instance, TJ invented the light bulb... the impact it has had on humanity for exceeds the impact of the person who made the first coconut frond push toy in a village in the South pacific. While the coconut toy obviously brought pleasure to many kids in that area, the actual impact and benefit to society in the scheme of things has been very little.

Its obviously not an easy line to distinguish, but if it were we wouldnt be debating it.

Oh yes, and not necessarily relevant to society, but to humanity.

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
it kinda makes the conversation drag when everyone is asking questions and no one expounds.

The conversation would be even more of a drag if we were discussing in different languages Just making sure I understood you correctly before replying.

As to the measurement of potential... the more beneficial it is to society as a whole as compared to in a specific group.

For instance, TJ invented the light bulb... the impact it has had on humanity for exceeds the impact of the person who made the first coconut frond push toy in a village in the South pacific. While the coconut toy obviously brought pleasure to many kids in that area, the actual impact and benefit to society in the scheme of things has been very little.

Its obviously not an easy line to distinguish, but if it were we wouldnt be debating it.

Oh yes, and not necessarily relevant to society, but to humanity.

Well...if we are discussing the use of some ethical meter for determining a correct course of action, I don't really believe we can include your concept of human potential. Retrospectively, we can easily acknowledge the inventions of the past as being beneficial to (someone). How can we apply that looking forward? You can't very well *know* someone's potential before that potential is made tangible...who gets to extrapolate potential? Are we speaking of life-and-death situations here, or situations with less consequence?

 

[Jenny]

Honey, I'm happy to see you're having fun, but you're giving me a headache

And I don't like this part "You fulfill a function in their life that any other could fulfill given the opportunity that you were"

 

[Eggs]

Gotcha S8, yeah... communicating true meaning is definitely important. Wouldnt want to be speaking Sanskrit when you're speaking Latin.

btw, I was just kinda throwing that potential thing in there. To attempt to subjectively measure potential before it happens would turn us into a Hitler. Well, not quite, but similar enough. So potential cannot be a measure of worth.

Hrm, would life and death situations have any impact on potential? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here... do you mean choosing which of two individuals live? or something else...

 

[Eggs]

Didnt like that part honey?

I was just being facetious

 

[Dante B.]

Why isn't anyone calling me honey?

To hell with all of you. I'll get back to all of this later, damn bastards

And with a red streak of malicious intent, my response will be so incredibly boring that your eyes will dry out, and shatter.

So there.

 

[Eggs]

Ahhh, that is indeed a slippery slope to embark upon Dante. You start with an innocent honey... then it quickly changes to sniggle bottom and pooh bear. Frightening? Indeed.

So you're saying I should have my clear eyes ready for the next posting huh? Righteo!

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
btw, I was just kinda throwing that potential thing in there. To attempt to subjectively measure potential before it happens would turn us into a Hitler. Well, not quite, but similar enough. So potential cannot be a measure of worth.

Hrm, would life and death situations have any impact on potential? I'm not sure exactly what you mean here... do you mean choosing which of two individuals live? or something else...

Much of my qualm with "ethics" isn't that I expect too much of it, but that I don't think too much ought to be expected of it.

I often run into this problem when debating public policy matters with students of ethical philosophy. I find that many of them are prone to standing upon some ethical base or another that extends absolutist ethical thought into every aspect of conjecture (utilitarianism being a prime example). In doing so, they wind up forsaking "common sense" in order to maintain consistency (or, if you wish, in order to prevent having to actually think of issues on a complex level). One of their favorite techniques is to extrapolate nonsensical ethical absolutes from whichever policy I suggest (the ethical "essence" of my suggestion, so to speak) and then apply that absolute to some contrived situation - life or death being their favorite - in an attempt to show my ethos as inconsistent.

IMO the "tree theory" of ethics, as having a trunk, fundamental branches, smaller branches, etc., is a bastardization of ethics, and an entirely faulty manner of thinking. My view of ethical theory is that all ethical theory ought to be considered as being part of a lateral emergent system, with some connections between nodes, but very little interdependency. At the foundational level you have a sort of metaethics, postulates that are needed to bring the system coherent functionality. From those postulates various conclusions can be drawn regagarding many different ethical issues - personal ethics, interpersonal ethics, group ethics, state ethics, etc. - but that these do not function as step-wise entities.

That brings up an interesting thought. Perhaps the most debated public policy matter is that of economic policy; how much should people be taxed? - should different income groups be taxed differently? - should income be taxed at all? - how should taxes be spent? and so on and so forth. In my opinion, ethics should rightfully play a larger role in economic public policy than it currently does. I'm more or less game to debating any matter of economic public policy, as viewed through an ethical lens; any ideas?

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
Hmmm, pray tell what caught your minds eye S8? You better not have stopped your response for porn

Just messing, no doubt it was intellectually stimulating enough to break your thought process, or at least get it to change gears.

It was an anthropological survey of a site buried in the jungles of Costa Rica. The explorer utilized a new technology that compiles 3D wireframe profiles by comparing electromagnetic signals that emanate from the ground. They found three large rectangular chambers buried beneath a 40 ton slab of rock. The ruins are a few thousand years old, and nobody knows how they got there; they could tell that the chambers were man-made. Whatever is contained in those chambers has been preserved under 40 tons of solid rock since the site was built. I am very intrigued by lost civilizations. The 2000+ years old writings of Plato, Aristotle, and others still influences theory today; we still use Euclid's system of geometry for most things. Any civilization that had the ability to hew and move an 80,000 lb slab of rock had to utilize a fair amount of engineering capability to do so. I wonder what was so important that they buried it under 40 tons of rock; are they burial chambers? Philosophical/religious texts? Historical accounts?

To make the whole thing more bizarre, a few miles away from the site, deeper into the jungle, there are a whole bunch of large spherical stone monoliths half-buried in the ground. The position of the monoliths themselves seem to form an astrological chart of sorts. What's really intriguing, is that three of them line up in such a manner that if a line is drawn through their positions and shot over a world map, it directly intersects with the exact position of the Great Pyramid in Giza. The monoliths themselves are almost identical to the gigantic spherical stones used by the ancient Greeks to teach Astronomy...

I often wonder how much knowledge from the past has been lost to us for whatever reason. I find stuff like this very interesting

 

[Eggs]

Good post. I think that ethics is a buzz word these days that is wrongly used in application to a wide range of things that it shouldnt necessarily be applied to. But anyways.

So ethics perhaps makes more sense as almost a cell theory... with one central cell and the rest encompasing it and connecting as needed to provide a coherent system? I think there is some dependency, but as you stated not so much necessarily. When viewing ethics just as a theory there will most likely be quite a few interconnections... however a practical ethics will have quite a few less connections between these nodes.

The hard part about saying that ethics should play a larger role in public economic policy is that as we've agreed, ethics are relative. If you want we could try to look at it objectively and see what we can come up with.

People should be taxed what they require from the government. No more, no less. The government should operate effeciently to provide its services to the people. It should not try to scam them for money to overstep its bounds or waste, and yet it should require the money from us necessary to fulfill the function that is set before it. If we do not want to pay taxes, we should not expect the government to operate to fulfill our desires. Which are protection, ability to travel, etc.

So stating thus that we should be taxed if we want the service that the goverment provides, I do not believe it is ethical to tax according to income. The problem in this occurs in that it assumes that the person earning more somehow owes more to the government and society than joe shmo does. In placing a greater burden on the higher income individual the government is unfairly telling him that because of his/her hard work and intelligene that they will be punished more. Because thats what it is, its punishment. Along with these things, the higher taxed individual is already benifiting socity by employing, purchasing, etc. They are already paying any imaginary debt that they might have by disbursing their income freely.

Income based taxing is nothing more than socialism slipping into the cracks of society. It says "You have earned more than your due, so we are going to take as much away as we can get away with and dispurse it to people who arent trying to rise above their place." The government is hypocritical in stating that all men are equal, but that some owe a larger share that others.

** Note: When I stated that the government should not task according to income, I meant on an incremental scale rather than a fixed percentage.

 

[Eggs]

That is interesting... do you have a link?

 

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
So ethics perhaps makes more sense as almost a cell theory... with one central cell and the rest encompasing it and connecting as needed to provide a coherent system? I think there is some dependency, but as you stated not so much necessarily. When viewing ethics just as a theory there will most likely be quite a few interconnections... however a practical ethics will have quite a few less connections between these nodes.

The hard part about saying that ethics should play a larger role in public economic policy is that as we've agreed, ethics are relative. If you want we could try to look at it objectively and see what we can come up with.

So stating thus that we should be taxed if we want the service that the goverment provides, I do not believe it is ethical to tax according to income. The problem in this occurs in that it assumes that the person earning more somehow owes more to the government and society than joe shmo does. In placing a greater burden on the higher income individual the government is unfairly telling him that because of his/her hard work and intelligene that they will be punished more. Because thats what it is, its punishment. Along with these things, the higher taxed individual is already benifiting socity by employing, purchasing, etc. They are already paying any imaginary debt that they might have by disbursing their income freely.

Income based taxing is nothing more than socialism slipping into the cracks of society. It says "You have earned more than your due, so we are going to take as much away as we can get away with and dispurse it to people who arent trying to rise above their place." The government is hypocritical in stating that all men are equal, but that some owe a larger share that others.

** Note: When I stated that the government should not task according to income, I meant on an incremental scale rather than a fixed percentage.

Certain things - that human life has an intrinsic value for instance - are absolute in almost all circumstances, but need to be taken out of context in extenuating circumstances. So yes, a cell theory would be a pretty good representation of ethics, especially since it decentralizes the center to an extent.

Fundamentally, I agree with what you have to say about taxes; but I also feel that this is an area that has to be viewed as conditionally dependent upon the essentials. I think people should be taxed differently per income, but not for to the same extent or for the same reasons that they are today.

And, I don't think that practical ethics are subjective in the least. Perhaps, at its most fundamental (binary) level, but not in any real application.

Unfortunately I am swamped with work right now and don't have time to properly explain myself, but I will elaborate later. For now, I'll settle with an example that touches on your "citizen potential" line of thought.

A girl wants to teach in a public school. Both of her parents are deadbeats, and can't and won't put her through college. She could continue to live with her parents and work to jobs to attend a community college. But the girl has passion. She lives to improve her understanding of people and the world, and to improve her knowledge of teaching methods. She busts her ass in every class she takes, and consequently has a very high GPA for her efforts. She wants to attend a high-quality university, but can't reasonably afford it. If she had a little bit of financial help, she could afford it...if she were to also work two jobs in her "spare" time. Under those conditions, all of the time that she would have spent studying would be spent working to pay her bills.

What should we, as a society, do? In my example, we would really have to stretch to make the claim that the girl wishes to attend the university for "selfish" reasons. We need more teachers who are motivated to both continuously learn and learn how to better teach; I doubt you disagree with me on that. In order to fulfill her potential, she would require substantial financial assistence from the government. Per your statement, she would need to repay that money at a later time. On the other hand, she wants the money so that she can provide a much needed asset to society. Do the "well off" individuals have an obligation to support people like her in their endeavors? If not, do we as a society? Should she have to pay the money back? What do you think should be done?

And no, I don't have a link to the survey; it was shown as part of a documentary that was on TV.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Section 8
Fundamentally, I agree with what you have to say about taxes; but I also feel that this is an area that has to be viewed as conditionally dependent upon the essentials. I think people should be taxed differently per income, but not for to the same extent or for the same reasons that they are today.

The problem with charging people on a variable tax scale is that as I said before, the government should only give you what you put into it, and take what you give it. In return the people get something back from it, and truly we should get back out of it a measure of what we put into it. But those who put more into it do not get more out of it. Its nothing more than sanctioned theft then. Because a value is not returned equal to one invested.

A girl wants to teach in a public school. Both of her parents are deadbeats, and can't and won't put her through college. She could continue to live with her parents and work to jobs to attend a community college. But the girl has passion. She lives to improve her understanding of people and the world, and to improve her knowledge of teaching methods. She busts her ass in every class she takes, and consequently has a very high GPA for her efforts. She wants to attend a high-quality university, but can't reasonably afford it. If she had a little bit of financial help, she could afford it...if she were to also work two jobs in her "spare" time. Under those conditions, all of the time that she would have spent studying would be spent working to pay her bills.

It does sound like she could use a hand.

What should we, as a society, do? In my example, we would really have to stretch to make the claim that the girl wishes to attend the university for "selfish" reasons. We need more teachers who are motivated to both continuously learn and learn how to better teach; I doubt you disagree with me on that. In order to fulfill her potential, she would require substantial financial assistence from the government. Per your statement, she would need to repay that money at a later time. On the other hand, she wants the money so that she can provide a much needed asset to society. Do the "well off" individuals have an obligation to support people like her in their endeavors? If not, do we as a society? Should she have to pay the money back? What do you think should be done?

This is a simple thing...

The government should help fund her education because in turn it will receive something of value from her. She is an investment.

On the other hand, the "well off" individuals have no more obligation to support her or those like her than anybody else. Why should they? Because she is a charity case? Hardly... the service that she will provide and the reason that the government should help fund her is that she is going to provide a service to all people equally. She isnt necessarily going to work for the high school in town where all the rich kids go, so why should their parents have some obligation to her? They really dont. The people do, but no specific individual.

However, what one owes society and what one charitably gives to society are two different things. By requiring the rich to pay they do them a disservice by taking away their opportunity to give freely. Some would not, but many would still. Look at all the University/Colleges that receive monies from alumni. Obviously then giving isnt the problem. Once you begin to take without asking, however, you leave a bad taste in the persons mouth for charity.

It depend if she should pay that money back. If she stays employed by the school system long enough to return an equal value to them I do not believe so. If she doesnt then she should.

This is all based on the premis that man is equal. Variable taxes and similar punishments for those who make money say that man isnt. Ethically, and truly in a Democracy, we must recognize the equality of man.

 

[Dante B.]

I apologize for being late. I'm out of it, but I don't want to have a great deal of catching up to do.

Will make my responses succinct.

The most important essential component to humanity is life. Thus the primary contributor to our ethical standards must be life and those things which affect it. Now these things are found in degrees... the removal of life being the most unethical, and those things that cause lesser impact play a lesser role.

Life is the most important contributor to ethics because it is the most vital. A persons life is the sum total of what they have. One might say "wait, but what about the value of their family members, etc". It is true they have value, and this value must be included in ethics. However, loosing your life removes you from the equation completely so it must be considered a total value. Where as the loss of a loved one, while a considerable loss of value will not remove you from the equation. That of course isnt about ethics, its about value. However, our values help us determine our ethics in life. I'm kinda rambling with this though so I'll get back to what I was originally talking about.

Being that life has ethical ramifications to us one could have a list such as the following (brief one) that goes from most unethical to not-unethical.

Murder (loss of life)
Permanent bodily harm (loss of human attributes and potential)
Impeding potential via force (though not physically damaging)
Loss of property (lifes work)
etc

Thinking along the lines of human potential, what role does potential have in determining ethics? Human potential is one of the most important components of humanity... and in it resides the future of the human race. Because of the importance of potential and the impact that it can have on all people, is a life of potential worth more than one with less potential?

As said, potential as it relates to what, or rather, whom.

As to the measurement of potential... the more beneficial it is to society as a whole as compared to in a specific group.

For instance, TJ invented the light bulb... the impact it has had on humanity for exceeds the impact of the person who made the first coconut frond push toy in a village in the South pacific. While the coconut toy obviously brought pleasure to many kids in that area, the actual impact and benefit to society in the scheme of things has been very little.

Its obviously not an easy line to distinguish, but if it were we wouldnt be debating it.

Oh yes, and not necessarily relevant to society, but to humanity.

Given that nothing had to be the way it is, one cannot measure the impact on humanity beforehand (as S8 stated).

If we preferred to live in darkness, would we value the man who said he can bring light to us, over the man who said he could build a better bed.

The hard part about saying that ethics should play a larger role in public economic policy is that as we've agreed, ethics are relative. If you want we could try to look at it objectively and see what we can come up with.

People should be taxed what they require from the government. No more, no less. The government should operate effeciently to provide its services to the people. It should not try to scam them for money to overstep its bounds or waste, and yet it should require the money from us necessary to fulfill the function that is set before it. If we do not want to pay taxes, we should not expect the government to operate to fulfill our desires. Which are protection, ability to travel, etc.

So stating thus that we should be taxed if we want the service that the goverment provides, I do not believe it is ethical to tax according to income. The problem in this occurs in that it assumes that the person earning more somehow owes more to the government and society than joe shmo does. In placing a greater burden on the higher income individual the government is unfairly telling him that because of his/her hard work and intelligene that they will be punished more. Because thats what it is, its punishment. Along with these things, the higher taxed individual is already benifiting socity by employing, purchasing, etc. They are already paying any imaginary debt that they might have by disbursing their income freely.

Income based taxing is nothing more than socialism slipping into the cracks of society. It says "You have earned more than your due, so we are going to take as much away as we can get away with and dispurse it to people who arent trying to rise above their place." The government is hypocritical in stating that all men are equal, but that some owe a larger share that others.

** Note: When I stated that the government should not task according to income, I meant on an incremental scale rather than a fixed percentage.

"Ethics are relative."

Again, the question is: will such modes of operation, as established by the government, actually achieve whatever goals we're seeking.

What should we, as a society, do? In my example, we would really have to stretch to make the claim that the girl wishes to attend the university for "selfish" reasons. We need more teachers who are motivated to both continuously learn and learn how to better teach; I doubt you disagree with me on that. In order to fulfill her potential, she would require substantial financial assistence from the government. Per your statement, she would need to repay that money at a later time. On the other hand, she wants the money so that she can provide a much needed asset to society. Do the "well off" individuals have an obligation to support people like her in their endeavors? If not, do we as a society? Should she have to pay the money back? What do you think should be done?

Of course, in order to discuss any of this, we have to see why the "rich" person is rich, why the "poor" man is poor, and so on. If the government enacts policies that truly, distort the market to such an extent that some benefit (unjustly) and some suffer (unfairly), it makes no sense to jump into the middle of the fight without knowing what was the beginning and the end of the rope that's strangling the neck in between.

If people see a value in a certain product (person, in this case), they can invest it in. A system of taxation and government mediation ensures that the will of the person holding the money will never be met. Instead, they end up arbitrarily determining what is "worthy" of an investment. Even the taxpayer, ends up voting with the money of others.

Unless each person is determining where their money is best spent (not voting with the dollars of others), no one can ever truly tell what or whom is worthy, apart from one's subjective desires.

The problem with charging people on a variable tax scale is that as I said before, the government should only give you what you put into it, and take what you give it. In return the people get something back from it, and truly we should get back out of it a measure of what we put into it. But those who put more into it do not get more out of it. Its nothing more than sanctioned theft then. Because a value is not returned equal to one invested.

Perhaps it's impossible to determine equal values when the system grows so large, that so many subjective factors are entered into the equation.


Anything beyond a small, efficient government that acts only to enforced laws and protect private property----there is no way to build a system that produces an output that will satisfy the majority of people.

Special interest groups become the norm.

This is a simple thing...

The government should help fund her education because in turn it will receive something of value from her. She is an investment

And a simply grotesque error. Who determines what is an "Investment." Is a person who voluntarily parts with their money a better judge as to what is a worthwhile investment, based on their system of values.

How does the government know what is valuable, and what is not. How do we know if their assessment of "value," is according to our will, or theirs.

Then again, in order to argue any of this, we should first start from a point where we're discussing why taxes are necessary (if at all), and where the line should be drawn in order to separate an essential function from a societal burden.

I refuse to argue from the middle.

On the other hand, the "well off" individuals have no more obligation to support her or those like her than anybody else. Why should they? Because she is a charity case? Hardly... the service that she will provide and the reason that the government should help fund her is that she is going to provide a service to all people equally. She isnt necessarily going to work for the high school in town where all the rich kids go, so why should their parents have some obligation to her? They really dont. The people do, but no specific individual.

So all people see the value in her education, right. Therefore, one can conclude that she is going to provide a service to "all people equally."

How is it that the free market process that determines which companies stay in business, or go out of it, isn't applied to the same subjective valuation of products/goods in all other cases (education, etc).

Perhaps that's something we should discuss--the free market, on all levels.

However, what one owes society and what one charitably gives to society are two different things. By requiring the rich to pay they do them a disservice by taking away their opportunity to give freely. Some would not, but many would still. Look at all the University/Colleges that receive monies from alumni. Obviously then giving isnt the problem. Once you begin to take without asking, however, you leave a bad taste in the persons mouth for charity.

More than that, by taking, you product a situation where your money isn't necessarily being spent on those programs that you'd freely fund. This isn't a small-case example either. When people speak of the government as though it's an "us versus them" situation (we the people versus the government), they would do well to remember how it is that a government can enact laws and erect institutions that are beyond our will.

And the more money that is taken from us, by force, is the less money with which we can actually fund those ideas/programs that we actually, personally value.

In other words, market and value distortion.

It depend if she should pay that money back. If she stays employed by the school system long enough to return an equal value to them I do not believe so. If she doesnt then she should.

This is all based on the premis that man is equal. Variable taxes and similar punishments for those who make money say that man isnt. Ethically, and truly in a Democracy, we must recognize the equality of man.

A true democracy is anything but a system of equality.

Equality under law should be the only goal.(whether or not that has been achieved is a different story for another discussion).

Beyond that, this discussion will get us absolutely nowhere (to where I want it), unless we discuss the free market, the role of subjective valuation in determining market value, and why taxes are necessary-----and in what sense, for what purpose, and to what extent.

Without any of this, everything disintegrates into nonsense.



BTW----I specifically requested that someone call me honey. I'm still waiting.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
Again, the question is: will such modes of operation, as established by the government, actually achieve whatever goals we're seeking.

No, they will never achieve exactly as we wish them to. Partly because of the ability to error, the other portion because in dealing with such a large amount of people not all will be pleased.

Of course, in order to discuss any of this, we have to see why the "rich" person is rich, why the "poor" man is poor, and so on. If the government enacts policies that truly, distort the market to such an extent that some benefit (unjustly) and some suffer (unfairly), it makes no sense to jump into the middle of the fight without knowing what was the beginning and the end of the rope that's strangling the neck in between.

I see no unfair advantage that any person or group has over another these days. A person can make themself rich, or let themself be poor. Thats one of the best aspects of capitalism. Except in very few situations (inheritance, etc), a person becomes rich because of themselves. As to the beginning and end of the rope, what are your thoughts on that?

If people see a value in a certain product (person, in this case), they can invest it in. A system of taxation and government mediation ensures that the will of the person holding the money will never be met. Instead, they end up arbitrarily determining what is "worthy" of an investment. Even the taxpayer, ends up voting with the money of others.

Unless each person is determining where their money is best spent (not voting with the dollars of others), no one can ever truly tell what or whom is worthy, apart from one's subjective desires.

True, so the only way to limit this is through a laissez-faire system. However, then problems arise such as - Should there be copyrights? Should the government infrastructure (roads)? and so on. If so, where do we stop?

Perhaps it's impossible to determine equal values when the system grows so large, that so many subjective factors are entered into the equation.

That is a distinct possibility.

Anything beyond a small, efficient government that acts only to enforced laws and protect private property----there is no way to build a system that produces an output that will satisfy the majority of people.

Agreed. I think that much of the services that the government provides today besides law enforcement, etc could be handled by society effectively. It would have to be, there is money to be made, and there are needs to be filled for it.

And a simply grotesque error. Who determines what is an "Investment." Is a person who voluntarily parts with their money a better judge as to what is a worthwhile investment, based on their system of values.

If a person voluntarily parts with their money then it is up to them to determine the value of their investment. They are not getting a return on their investment, but it could be positively affecting others.

How does the government know what is valuable, and what is not. How do we know if their assessment of "value," is according to our will, or theirs.

We dont, which is why a limited form of government is best. Let us determine what is valuable according to our needs and desires.

Then again, in order to argue any of this, we should first start from a point where we're discussing why taxes are necessary (if at all), and where the line should be drawn in order to separate an essential function from a societal burden.

To be realistic, taxes are only necessary to provide services that if run by non-government entities would put the people of their society at risk. Such as lack of law enforcement.

So all people see the value in her education, right. Therefore, one can conclude that she is going to provide a service to "all people equally."

Right, so if she provides her services equally to all people, all people should then pay equally for them.

How is it that the free market process that determines which companies stay in business, or go out of it, isn't applied to the same subjective valuation of products/goods in all other cases (education, etc).

Perhaps that's something we should discuss--the free market, on all levels.

Supply and Demand. Anyhow, I'm up for discussing the free market.

More than that, by taking, you product a situation where your money isn't necessarily being spent on those programs that you'd freely fund. This isn't a small-case example either. When people speak of the government as though it's an "us versus them" situation (we the people versus the government), they would do well to remember how it is that a government can enact laws and erect institutions that are beyond our will.

And the more money that is taken from us, by force, is the less money with which we can actually fund those ideas/programs that we actually, personally value.

In other words, market and value distortion.

Very true. When we gave power to the government to do mostly as it wants... we gave it the ability to distort the market to suit its own objectives. Which very well might not be to provide us with the services we want, but rather to allow them to do as they please.

A true democracy is anything but a system of equality.

Equality under law should be the only goal.(whether or not that has been achieved is a different story for another discussion).

Beyond that, this discussion will get us absolutely nowhere (to where I want it), unless we discuss the free market, the role of subjective valuation in determining market value, and why taxes are necessary-----and in what sense, for what purpose, and to what extent.

Okay, Democracy isnt truly about equality, its about doing as the most voters want it to. Its merely a majority rules system, and thats where its interests lie. Which is why Presiential candidates usually spend their time in the important big cities instead of hitting all the little towns around. They care about the votes... and it truly doesnt change once they are in office. They are still there to do the will of the majority, even if that is only a 2% difference or whatever it may be.

BTW----I specifically requested that someone call me honey. I'm still waiting.

Righto Honey. Now stop yer bitchin!