Author Topic: Lying:  (Read 2647 times)

Davin

  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7497
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Lying:
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2020, 01:54:31 PM »
so, is natural "good?"

that is, should we use what is natural as a measure of what we should pursue?
You've asked this question many times now. I don't think that anyone is going to answer the question the way you want them to, so maybe just get to whatever point you're trying to get to.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Bad Penny II

  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Idiot Symmetrician
Re: Lying:
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2020, 02:39:29 PM »
so, is natural "good?"

that is, should we use what is natural as a measure of what we should pursue?

Ye, why not?
Water is better than coke but antibiotics are better than bleeding.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2020, 03:57:54 PM »
so, is natural "good?"

that is, should we use what is natural as a measure of what we should pursue?

Ye, why not?
Water is better than coke but antibiotics are better than bleeding.

i dunno.

infanticide is natural. war is natural. killing off my rivals for mates and territory is natural.

i dont use natural az a meazure.

Lying is natural and a part of nature.

personally i depart from what is natural all the time. eyeglasses, clothing, and i cook my food.

old seer made a comment i was curious about.



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Lying:
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2020, 04:08:16 PM »
so, is natural "good?"

that is, should we use what is natural as a measure of what we should pursue?
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm. Without people or bioforms that reason(cognitive beings) there can't be good and evil. Before cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil. Nature cannot be good or evil by destroying a mountain it created, as a mountain cannot have a mental condition of understanding. Good and evil are only relative to something/one that can understand it. Good and evil can only be a reference that is of people to harm. Good and evil then, is only a reference to a reasoning being and that which causes the harm to the one that reasons.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

Davin

  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7497
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Lying:
« Reply #94 on: January 16, 2020, 07:02:49 PM »
so, is natural "good?"

that is, should we use what is natural as a measure of what we should pursue?

Ye, why not?
Water is better than coke but antibiotics are better than bleeding.

i dunno.

infanticide is natural. war is natural. killing off my rivals for mates and territory is natural.

i dont use natural az a meazure.
Was that so difficult? I mean the way you did it was difficult, but if you skipped to this in the first place it would have been much easier.

If you treat all your measures with an equal amount of scrutiny, you'll likely have to either drop all of them or realize that a single measure in itself it not enough for anything useful.

Quote from: billy rubin
Lying is natural and a part of nature.

personally i depart from what is natural all the time. eyeglasses, clothing, and i cook my food.

old seer made a comment i was curious about.
Do you breath, drink, and eat or are those natural things you also avoid?

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #95 on: January 16, 2020, 07:45:58 PM »
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. . Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm. Without people or bioforms that reason(cognitive beings) there can't be good and evil. Before cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil. Nature cannot be good or evil by destroying a mountain it created, as a mountain cannot have a mental condition of understanding. Good and evil are only relative to something/one that can understand it. Good and evil can only be a reference that is of people to harm. Good and evil then, is only a reference to a reasoning being and that which causes the harm to the one that reasons.

let me see whether i understand you, seer.

i think that you are asserting that good and evil exist only with respect to sentient beings, and not between inanimate entities. but then you say this:

--Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.

--Good and evil then, is only a reference to a reasoning being and that which causes the harm to the one that reasons.


^^^this seems to imply that for an act to be evil, it must be comprehended as such by the affected entity, rather than by the agent. so if i cause pain to a non-reasoning animal simply for the sake of the cruelty, is this a relationship that cannot involve evil?

or do you mean something else?



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #96 on: January 16, 2020, 07:52:36 PM »

If you treat all your measures with an equal amount of scrutiny, you'll likely have to either drop all of them or realize that a single measure in itself it not enough for anything useful.

i have dropped all of them, davin. i don't believe in morality. but what other people believe is interesting to me.

Quote from: davin
Do you breath, drink, and eat or are those natural things you also avoid?

most people don't consider those things to involve moral questions.

what is your reason for bringing them up?



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Lying:
« Reply #97 on: January 16, 2020, 09:59:16 PM »
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. . Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm. Without people or bioforms that reason(cognitive beings) there can't be good and evil. Before cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil. Nature cannot be good or evil by destroying a mountain it created, as a mountain cannot have a mental condition of understanding. Good and evil are only relative to something/one that can understand it. Good and evil can only be a reference that is of people to harm. Good and evil then, is only a reference to a reasoning being and that which causes the harm to the one that reasons.

let me see whether i understand you, seer.

i think that you are asserting that good and evil exist only with respect to sentient beings, and not between inanimate entities. but then you say this:

--Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.

--Good and evil then, is only a reference to a reasoning being and that which causes the harm to the one that reasons.


^^^this seems to imply that for an act to be evil, it must be comprehended as such by the affected entity, rather than by the agent. so if i cause pain to a non-reasoning animal simply for the sake of the cruelty, is this a relationship that cannot involve evil?

or do you mean something else?
The first example --the better word would be a person rather then "what". There has to be someone that can react to harm. A rock has no means to comprehend damages to itself as it has no means of comprehension. There-fore a rock cannot be aware of good and evil, so to the rock there can be no such thing as harm. Good and evil cannot exist in the universe until someone becomes present to experience it.
example 2- Harm must be comprehended in order for it to be an evil. Someone has to be a recipient of the harm and to realize damage from the harm. If no people or animate bio structures are present in the universe then their cannot be evil. Someone has to decide something is evil. IE- from experience you can avoid a rock that's rolling down the hill. The rock has no intent of harm but it is still an evil that will happen to you if you don't move out of the way.  It takes a being to comprehend the consequences of the harm and recognize the rock as a harm whether instinctively or reasoned.   Good and evil is a matter of "person" to recognize the harm, Without "person" in the universe there is no good and evil. Good and evil relates to harm for animate bio structures, with a cognitive means to recognize harm.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2020, 10:46:43 PM »
so if i am an orderly in a hospital and beat sleeping people to death who never wake up, there is no evil, because they cannot realize their pain through reason or instinct? there would be no recognition, no comprehension, merely death. killing them in their sleep would not constitute an evil.

it seems to me that defining evil as only that which can be detected and recognized as such has some holes in it. how would we reconcile that?

unless it actually is not evil?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 11:21:22 PM by billy rubin »



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Lying:
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2020, 12:34:46 AM »
so if i am an orderly in a hospital and beat sleeping people to death who never wake up, there is no evil, because they cannot realize their pain through reason or instinct? there would be no recognition, no comprehension, merely death. killing them in their sleep would not constitute an evil.

it seems to me that defining evil as only that which can be detected and recognized as such has some holes in it. how would we reconcile that?

unless it actually is not evil?
I will agree that to kill an unconscious being may not be an evil as the victim isn't aware that evil is about to occur. But good and evil to beings that's intended (planned) is an intentional evil upon another, especially if the unconscious is to revive.  Today there is withdrawing life support from the brain dead which isn't considered doing an evil, BUT, good and evil have to do also with what is human and what isn't. Human is a good person while inhuman is an evil person. It's natural that good can come from evil and vice versa. There's the saying, no good deed goes unpunished. But that's not absolute. You help a fallen old lady trying to cross the street, so you help her up and proceed to finish your crossing and get hit by a passing car. The good you did delayed your crossing and put you in harm's way when had you crossed without help to the lady you wouldn't have been in the intersection. We all are under the same laws of nature as is the rock. A rock gets smashed by another larger rock and there's no evil. You get killed by a passing car and it's an evil---because it changed your life, but the rock had no life. That's the difference, you're not a rock. The circumstances are the changes to the rock are of no consequences. Your life is something you had so it's a subtraction. The subtraction (loss) is an evil because you had life and the rock did not. So, one cannot do evil to a rock. There is good and evil from nature, and there is good and evil in accordance with what we do or not do to others.
Be aware that the people you killed in the hospital may have many friends. They are capable of the same evils you are. (Wink :-) )
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #100 on: January 17, 2020, 10:57:27 AM »
interesting. your use of the term "evil" is similar to the american use of the legal term "assault." assault is defined as a threat of harm coupled to the ability to carry out the threat. the threat must be apparent to the one threatened. in contrast, "battery" is an actual co ntact.

so if i walk up to you and raize my fist intending to ztrike you, and cause you to fear for yoyr zafety, i have assaulted you. if i do the same thing while your back iz turned so that you are unaware, there iz no assault.

like wise. you seem to zay that if i carry out an act that is to your detriment. but you are unaware, it is not evil. evil can only occur if the recipient recognizes it.

what happens if i perform an act that you do not recognize as harmful until later? does the act begin as neutral and then change to evil at a subsequent time?

for example if i were to set fire to a structure, intending to kill you, but you were not inside and under no threat. later you discover that you are actually trapped close enough to be injured.  burning tbe structure would have no ultimate value of good or evil, but would be one or the other as the situation changed.



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

Bad Penny II

  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1922
  • Idiot Symmetrician
Re: Lying:
« Reply #101 on: January 17, 2020, 12:13:09 PM »
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.
No, I don’t think so, your neighbour asks you to look after her 1, 3 and 5 year old children while she goes to the shop. You say ye and proceed to blind all three with a bodkin. You’ve assaulted my sensibility some but it’s not about what you’ve done to me, it’s what I recognise in you and your actions.

Noun: evil
1. Morally objectionable behaviour
2. That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
3. The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Before cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil.
I hope we’re including other sentient life forms in our definition of people.

Davin

  • Don't Pray in My School, and I Won't Think in Your Church
  • *****
  • Posts: 7497
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: Lying:
« Reply #102 on: January 17, 2020, 02:17:10 PM »

If you treat all your measures with an equal amount of scrutiny, you'll likely have to either drop all of them or realize that a single measure in itself it not enough for anything useful.

i have dropped all of them, davin. i don't believe in morality. but what other people believe is interesting to me.
How do you operate in life? How do you make decisions if you've dropped all measures?

Either you're operating without thinking and making decisions, or you have not in fact dropped all measures. Tough choice to commit to, either you admit to being a thoughtless automaton or your admit that you lied. I suppose the other dishonest option is to ignore and/or otherwise avoid it.

Quote from: billy rubin
Quote from: davin
Do you breath, drink, and eat or are those natural things you also avoid?

most people don't consider those things to involve moral questions.

what is your reason for bringing them up?
Most people do consider those things to be moral questions. Who thinks that feeding the hungry is not a moral issue? That providing clean drinking water to people who otherwise do not have it is not a moral issue? Might want to go back and take a better look at morality. Because those things are very much a part of moral considerations by most people.

Why am I bringing them up? Should be pretty obvious, they are good things that are natural. You only listed bad things that you claim are natural. If your goal is to be rational, then it's important to consider all sides of an issue.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

billy rubin

  • humble azpirant to the throne3 of typos
  • Not Afraid of the Exorcist
  • ***
  • Posts: 676
  • Gender: Male
  • i actually do not know what LætusAtheos means
Re: Lying:
« Reply #103 on: January 17, 2020, 02:49:26 PM »
i make my decizions from a philosophical pozition of absurdity, davin. given an exiztentialist position of ultimate nihilizm, i reject the idea that there is meaning to exiztence. there is neither an ultimate meazure to compare meaning to, nor iz there a zelf-derived meani g to seek out in our exiztenxe.

zo i choose to act in a manner that appearz to be moral, for my own emotional and aezthetic reasons. tbere s no ul timate advantage in doing so, but it doeznt matter what i choose, becauze all choices are equally absurd. i pick one that looks good to me and use it to derive a model for living. but im under no lilusionz that i have chozen something of actual value.

you are equivocating in your exampke of the moral value of breathing, drinking, or eating, unlezz you re an epicurean. theres nothing moral about any of tboze in any society i know of. depriving someone of air, water, or food creates a moral queztion about the justification for depriving others of life. thatz quite different from worrying about whether breathibg is moral.

regardi g good or evil. i chooze examplez in order to illustrate my queztion correctly. what do you consider to be natural and at tbe zame time good? deztroying rivalz in mating increases my genetic reprezentation in subsequent generations . iz that good? seems so. fighting over territory provides more security for my children. that zeems good az well, but you have juzt said that tbey are examplez of what iz bad.

why?



The principle can be established that for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action.

Old Seer

  • Was God's Anointed But Took a Shower
  • *
  • Posts: 248
Re: Lying:
« Reply #104 on: January 17, 2020, 03:21:33 PM »
Nature works both ways. Nature cannot be right or wrong, it only can be good or evil. But good and evil are only relative to people as nature cannot be be good or evil to itself. Good and evil can only be reckoned as to what help or harm happens to what can comprehend the help or harm.
No, I don’t think so, your neighbour asks you to look after her 1, 3 and 5 year old children while she goes to the shop. You say ye and proceed to blind all three with a bodkin. You’ve assaulted my sensibility some but it’s not about what you’ve done to me, it’s what I recognise in you and your actions.

Noun: evil
1. Morally objectionable behaviour
2. That which causes harm, destruction or misfortune
3. The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice

Before cogitation the universe didn't contain good or evil, and good and evil can only come about when there is a being to comprehend it. So, before people there was no good or evil.
I hope we’re including other sentient life forms in our definition of people.
Nature must work both ways. There's plants we can eat and there's plants that are poisonous. Both are a product of nature. The sun is good for somethings and bad for others.
 A mountain goat sees the rock rolling toward it and it instinctively moves out of the way. It has comprehended an evil. But it cannot reason it to be an evil, it merely is aware. It's only the cognitive being that gives evil it's label and the goat has no label. People have a higher ability to reason and there-fore can not only comprehend an evil, the person can devise it. The mountain goats society is static and mostly unchangeable because they cannot reason to change it. The Goat cannot plan an extinction of it's society, but people can. The goat does what it is designed to do and be. People can plan evil making intelligence it's own enemy. People can become knowledgeable of what is harmful or helpful. It's the reasoning being (people) that understands the process of evil compared to the processes of good. Goats don't cognitively plan a garden so it cannot plan it's lot and only move toward where it's safe and life supporting.
Beings , with a few exceptions, are formed with a initial and basic input/output system installed by nature. There are things one does that are inherent. A baby is not taught to reach out and grasp an object. It will do so by inference without thinking. The same is for the goats. But a goat cannot mentally migrate into being a reasoning planner and at a particular point remains mentally static. People go beyond the static and from that can comprehend good from evil cognitively. People do not invent good and evil as it is present in nature, but can recognize good and evil and make choices accordingly. Good and evil can only come into existence when there is something/one to experience it. Notice that good and evil only pertains to beings that can experience the effects and it applies to biological forms. Without the bio forms there can be no good or evil.
The only thing possible the world needs saving from are the ones running it.
Oh lord, save us from those wanting to save us.