On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:57:33 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:14:26 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
>> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >Would I break the law and steal bread to feed my
>> >starving kids?... maybe. Do I think I'd be morally
>> >right in doing so?... no.
>>
>> Sure you would! The morality of feeding a starving child trumps the
>> Absolute Morality of not stealing -- every time. And well it should.
>
>Absolute Morality is 'trump' proof.
No -- the Kid is trump proof. While philosophers sit around
navel-gazing and discussing the Absolute Morality of the act, the kid
needs to be fed.
>> >> Same problem. Would you look the guy in the eyes and tell him he was
>> >> dying?
>> >
>> >My original answer stands, (below).
>>
>> And your original answer continues to lack Human Compassion.
>
>Define "Human Compassion".
No. The timer is going on the oven, and I'm not going to wander into
a meaningless discussion.
But if you're there and you can comprehend the situation, you'll know
what it is. And isn't.
>> >The prohibition is not against lying in general but against
>> >giving false testimony against one's neighbor.
>>
>> So it's OK to lie, because you construe the Commandment differently
>> than most?
>
>No. Lying is a given of cognizance. Humans lie to others and
>to themselves, as a matter of course. For instance: telling
>yourself that 'compassion trumps morality' is an internal lie that
>you accept as truth. Reason is not what it would have us
>believe... "Reason lies, with good reason.'
What utter sophistry.
>> Morality is invented by Humans to serve Human ends. Occasionally even
>> Humane ends.
>>
>> But it's Always comparative in its application.
>>
>> The rest of that futzing around is mere Philosophy and navel-gazing.
>
>The problem with human morals fiddling is that we invariably
>either intentionally or unintentionally get it wrong. Without
>Absolute Morality, choosing between right and wrong is a
>crap shoot in moral relativism at best.
Nah. While philosophers waste time discussing the fine points of it,
there are Real Folks out there to deal with.
It's a judgement call on how to do it, and given Bounded Rationality,
sometimes people can get it wrong. That's just the Human Condition.
But there is no Absolute set of laws to govern all circumstances.
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:57:33 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don Homuth wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:14:26 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
> >> <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Would I break the law and steal bread to feed my
> >> >starving kids?... maybe. Do I think I'd be morally
> >> >right in doing so?... no.
> >>
> >> Sure you would! The morality of feeding a starving child trumps the
> >> Absolute Morality of not stealing -- every time. And well it should.
> >
> >Absolute Morality is 'trump' proof.
>
> No -- the Kid is trump proof. While philosophers sit around
> navel-gazing and discussing the Absolute Morality of the act, the kid
> needs to be fed.
The kid is transient... here today, gone tomorrow. Don't you
think its time you got a handle on the meaning of "absolute"?
>
>
> >> >> Same problem. Would you look the guy in the eyes and tell him he was
> >> >> dying?
> >> >
> >> >My original answer stands, (below).
> >>
> >> And your original answer continues to lack Human Compassion.
> >
> >Define "Human Compassion".
>
> No. The timer is going on the oven, and I'm not going to wander into
> a meaningless discussion.
Sorry to see you dodge what is a central part of this
discussion, one (compassion), you yourself raised.
>
>
> But if you're there and you can comprehend the situation, you'll know
> what it is. And isn't.
Now, what in the world does this mean?
>
>
> >> >The prohibition is not against lying in general but against
> >> >giving false testimony against one's neighbor.
> >>
> >> So it's OK to lie, because you construe the Commandment differently
> >> than most?
> >
> >No. Lying is a given of cognizance. Humans lie to others and
> >to themselves, as a matter of course. For instance: telling
> >yourself that 'compassion trumps morality' is an internal lie that
> >you accept as truth. Reason is not what it would have us
> >believe... "Reason lies, with good reason.'
>
> What utter sophistry.
If you think my argument is a weak stand in for an assertion
I can't support, you're free to refute either one, the argument
or the original assertion, Your use of the term "sophistry" is
in itself sophistry.
>
>
> >> Morality is invented by Humans to serve Human ends. Occasionally even
> >> Humane ends.
> >>
> >> But it's Always comparative in its application.
> >>
> >> The rest of that futzing around is mere Philosophy and navel-gazing.
> >
> >The problem with human morals fiddling is that we invariably
> >either intentionally or unintentionally get it wrong. Without
> >Absolute Morality, choosing between right and wrong is a
> >crap shoot in moral relativism at best.
>
> Nah. While philosophers waste time discussing the fine points of it,
> there are Real Folks out there to deal with.
Sad to say, your "Real Folks" is an irrelevant straw man.
When one is involved in a philosophical discussion
that one wants out of, one leaves.
>
>
> It's a judgement call on how to do it, and given Bounded Rationality,
> sometimes people can get it wrong. That's just the Human Condition.
>
> But there is no Absolute set of laws to govern all circumstances.
You might wish to look up the meaning of "absolute".
Without Absolute Morality, cognizance has no purpose.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
