-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
> </A> -Cui Bono?-
>
> Nurev Ind Research wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like Christian theology to me.
> > There is no such thing as good or evil in the natural world.
> > It is purely a human construct, and a random one at that.
>
> --
> from:
> "The Moral Maze" by desertrat
> <http://www.geocities.com/golwis/mmaze5.htm>
> --
>
> Part 5. The Deserted Island
> Continuation from #4:
>
> ...You live on a deserted island, let's make it a
> tropical paradise. You have a bunch of jetsom and
> flotsom, gardening and construction tools, fishing
> gear, guns, ammunition and an odd assortment of camping
> gear. Other than this you are completely alone with the
> plants and wild animals. At first, while you're
> preparing to plant your garden, you wander around
> hunting and gathering whatever you can find that's
> edible, robbing the caches of squirrels and birds'
> nests whenever you can find them. Is there anything
> "immoral" about this? While You're out gathering, a
> jaguar attacks you. Is the jaguar acting "immorally?"
> In your own defense, you manage to kill the animal. You
> take advantage of the kill by skinning and tanning the
> hide and preserving the meat for later use as emergency
> food or bait. Is this "good," "bad?" You return to your
> camp and garden and notice that while you were out
> gathering coconuts and killing jaguars that were
> attacking you, a gopher or rabbit and a bunch of damn
> tropical birds have been stealing from your garden.
> Were they behaving "immorally?" You set some traps out
> and try to discourage the birds from robbing you,
> killing a few in the process. Let's say, you could have
> used the dead bodies but just didn't feel like it so
> you threw them away somewhere downwind of your camp for
> some other wild animals to find. Are you a "bad" person
> for wasting the bodies or for polluting the area
> downwind of your camp?
>
====================================================
my commentary
survival index of the human
how do we keep from being too agressive or too
passive
====================================================
> *** Commentary ***
> This is an amoral scenario. There is no moral or
> immoral about any of this. There is only the law of
> survival, the rule of success or failure. Not even the
> cliche "might makes right" applies because there is no
> objective "right" and "wrong." There is only success or
> failure with luck or fate playing a role perhaps larger
> than any of us is willing to imagine. You're lucky you
> didn't wash up on an island inhabited by more fearsome
> predators or more numerous and persistent parasites.
> You might have been eaten by a crocodile or a hungry
> lion, you might have been eaten alive by flies or ants.
> All the moral protests in the world can do nothing to
> save you in an amoral environment. But man has a
> "moral" sense, (morality is at best, an illusion,) so
> he naturally describes things in moral terms regardless
> of its amoral nature. The sunset is "good," the leaking
> roof is "bad," the taste of the coconut is "good,"
> robbing a bird's nest is "good," killing a defenseless
> baby bird is "bad," and so on. All such reasoning is
> subjective, illusory, often delusional. The only guide
> are one's emotions, not one's reason. Happiness, which
> is the highest prize, is, after all, an emotion. What
> makes the individual happy is for him "good." What
> causes unhappiness is for him "bad."
>
====================================================
the bacteria that made us
eats or is eaten
lives because there is a diversity
But some say that we are too evolved for
agression or that they can have monoploly and not
worry about keeping a diversity of animals, plants and
humans. Without the diversity of bacteria that keep us
alive will we live?
====================================================
> *** The Story Continues ***
> One day, there is a new arrival on the island. Another
> human washes up on the beach. When your new companion
> has recovered somewhat from exposure he wanders the
> island and happens upon your camp. He immediately
> demands that you provide him with food and shelter
> since it is apparent that you have more than you need.
> You're a bit surprised by his unfriendly manner and
> refuse telling him to go gather some food the way you
> did and to start his own garden. You aren't entirely
> without compassion. You feel morally compelled to give
> him a coconut or two because he's hungry, this would be
> a very natural thing to do under the circumstances, I
> think. You give him one of the jaguar skins you've
> tanned because he's cold, you have more than you really
> need and you want him to go away and leave you alone.
> Secretly, of course, you're cursing at yourself because
> you've already killed the jaguars that he would likely
> have fallen prey to. He becomes very angry when you
> tell him to go away and he storms off. That night he
> sneaks into your camp and tries to steal some food from
> your garden. Is he acting "immorally?"
>
==================================================
Life is now so easy that you have
too much of what you have aquired.
Parents that decide that their children should not
have to go through the same stuff that they went
through. But how did the parents evolve their way
of thinking? The diversity of ideas that the parents
had and the times that they stummbled helped them evolve.
But they are at a social level that if their children were
to learn like that that the children would bring them down.
======================================================
> *** More Commentary ***
> How is his behavior any different from the behavior of
> the tropical birds and the rodents? Only this, that he
> "ought" to bahave differently, he "ought" to respect
> your possessions. But if he chooses not to, he is only
> "bad" or "immoral" from your subjective point of view.
> >From HIS subjective point of view, he sees nothing
> "wrong" with taking from you what you "should have"
> given to him to begin with. Objectively, that is,
> removing all of the subjective values, looking at what
> "is" as opposed to what "ought to be," the man's
> behavior is no different from the other animals. There
> can be no "morality" between you so long as his
> behavior is amoral. You must deal with him according to
> the rule of success or faliure as you deal with all the
> other animals. If you show him any kindness, it is no
> different from the kindness you show defenseless or
> suffering animals. This morality, this sense of "good"
> and "bad," comes from your emotions.
>
===================================================
Nature or nurture
his conception of success or faliure is different then
yours because of how he is evolving these concepts
==============================================
> *** The Story Continues ***
> You respond in whatever manner you find most
> appropriate, you try to reason with him, you threaten
> him, whatever. He decides it's not worth taking your
> property while you're there to protect it. He sneaks
> back a few nights later and tries to kill you. Surprise
> is on his side, he stabs you while you're sleeping with
> a sharp piece of bone he found in his wanderings. But
> luck is on your side, he can't pull the bone out to
> stab you a second time so while he's yanking on this
> bone that's lodged between your ribs you manage to grab
> a gun blow his head off.
>
=================================================
Bacteria falls from space with every meteror
and wants to survive.
==================================================
> *** Commentary ***
> Did he do anything "immoral?" Did you? How is his
> behavior any different from a jaguar's if it had been a
> jaguar that stole into your cabin while you were
> sleeping and tried to kill you? How is his behavior any
> different from your own behavior when you were hunting
> for food? Where you living "honestly" when you shot
> that bird the other day?
>
> *** The Story Continues ***
> You may have some crazy beliefs regarding humans. If it
> were me, I'd either preserve the body for later use or
> simply dispose of it somewhere downwind for scavengers
> to find. You may wish to bury it with some sort of
> ritual. A few weeks later, another man surfs up to the
> shore riding on the plank of some sunken ship. He
> strolls over to your camp and you have a pleasant
> conversation with him. You invite him to dinner. Over
> dinner he asks you where he could set up a camp of his
> own, where are the best places to gather seeds and
> start a garden, and whether it's safe out in the
> jungle. You offer him some seeds that you've already
> collected. You tell him where he can gather fruits. You
> give him one of your guns and some ammunition just in
> case any other jaguars have started expanding into the
> territories of the one's you've killed and you let him
> borrow some construction and gardening tools so he can
> get started.
>
> *** Commentary ***
> So long as you and this new arrival respect each
> other's person and possessions you are at peace. Though
> morality will always be a form of illusion due to it's
> subjectivity, so long as both of you are allowed to
> behave in accordance with your individual moral
> beliefs, it can be said that your relationship is a
> moral one. It can be said that your morals, though
> still subjective, are not pretense.
>
> *** The Story Resumes ***
> One day your neighbor notices that you are enjoying
> your solitude in a manner inconsistent with his
> personal moral beliefs. (Don't worry, I'm not going to
> elaborate) He confronts you and tells you to stop at
> once or else. "Or else what?" you say. "Or else God
> will punish you severely."
>
> *** Commentary ***
> This is to say, a product of his imagination, this god,
> has devised a code of morals which is objective and
> absolute. "Good" is something defined by this imagined
> third party. He could have tried giving you reasons why
> he believes the behavior is "bad," but you are under no
> obligation to accept his arguments regardless of their
> reasonableness. If you like it, if it makes you happy,
> if it doesn't harm anyone else, if it doesn't damage
> anyone else's possessions, if it doesn't interfere with
> anyone else's behavior, by all means, feel free.
>
> *** Continuing the Story ***
> Later, he actually interrupts you and generally makes
> himself a nuisance.
>
> *** Comment ***
> You see, he believes that it is "good," that is to say,
> that his imagined god wants to convince others that
> this or that moral rule must be followed in order for a
> person to truly live a happy life.
>
> *** Story ***
> His first attempts are benign. He tries to convince you
> that he's right. Frustrated perhaps by his inability to
> argue a convincing case or more likely frustrated with
> your distrust or lack of interest, his next step is a
> bit less benign. He becomes a screaming religious
> fanatic. He badgers you about it whenever he gets the
> opportunity hoping that eventually you will cease out
> of frustration yourself.
>
> *** Comment ***
> It's not uncommon in nature for things to interrupt
> your peace and quiet. The cicada sometimes can create a
> deafening buzz. The same can be said of the great
> tailed grackle when dozens of males congregate in one
> tree competing for the attention of the females. With
> less effort, a fly or a cockroach can completely spoil
> your mood by nothing more than it's presence. The
> difference with your average screaming fanatic is the
> intent. But lest we be inconsistent, we must consider
> such nuisances to be of an amoral nature regardless of
> the human's supposed intelligence. You would think a
> human "should" know better than to make himself a
> nuisance, but all subjectivity aside, nuisances must be
> dealt with amorally, that is, by the rule of success or
> failure. If it's a noise that bothers you, complain to
> the noisemaker, make him/it go away or plug your ears
> and try to ignore it. Try to reason with it, if it
> continues to bother you get up and move, if it follows
> you, as a last resort, you might try shooting. Would
> this be any different from swatting a fly or shooting a
> noisy bird that just won't be discouraged? Personally,
> I'd be reluctant to shoot a bird because I know it's
> intention is not simply to bother me. I'd be reluctant
> to shoot another human only becuase his friends would
> call me a monster and kill me in retribution. And what
> goes for noise goes equally well for sights and smells.
>
> *** Back to the Story ***
> You plead with him not to scream and annoy you. You
> ball up some wax from a nearby beehive and stick it in
> your ears. You tell him to return the items he
> borrowed. He never returns what he borrowed claiming
> that you gave those things to him. You're disappointed
> by the new developments but decide to simply
> discontinue the association and make no more agreements
> with him. Some time later, he notices that one of your
> garden plants produces a drug that you use occasionally
> because it makes you feel good. He thinks this is a sin
> and spends a few days screaming at you about how evil
> it is for you to use the plant that way. You put up
> with it as much as you can sticking the wax in your
> ears again. You wake up one morning to find that having
> become frustrated by your disinterest, your neighbor
> has stolen into your garden and destroyed your plants.
>
> *** Commentary ***
> He obviously believes that his god wants him to do
> this. Is he behaving morally? His behavior is no
> different from the behavior of the tropical birds, the
> rodents and the first human that landed on the island.
> His relationship with you can no longer be said to be
> moral. The morality that justifies his behavior is
> moral pretense. You'd like to call this person
> "immoral" because he's not behaving as he "ought" to
> behave. He has the ability to live morally but chooses
> not to. But immorality is an aspect of morality and has
> no place in an amoral system. Morality and immorality
> don't really exist, they exist only subjectively, in
> the beholder's eye, or more precisely in the beholder's
> brain. When two humans live at peace with one another,
> their relationship can be called a moral one, but this
> is only because they share a certain fundamental,
> though subjective, value, that is, humans should above
> all live at peace with other humans. Although this
> moral sense is still illusion, it is fundamentally
> consistent. When two humans do not share this same
> fundamental value, when the fundamental value of one
> human is that humans should obey the mosaic law, the
> state law or some other law, when the value of humans
> living at peace with one another takes a secondary
> position in the "moral" sense of one human, that
> human's morality is more pretense than illusion.
=========================================================
In a society that has driving and other things
with people that do not have the self control
to know when to use or not use things
a action that normally would only effect that person
can have reprocussions.
Such as Clinton and Monica
=========================================================
> *** The Story Continues ***
>
> You plant some more plants and this time watch them
> carefully making sure that your neighbor doesn't
> destroy them. Just when the plants are about ready to
> harvest, your neighbor stumbles over a line that you've
> hidden which triggers a noise making device that warns
> you of your neighbor's intentions. You run out to the
> garden with your AK-47 and fire a few warning shots
> over your neighbor's head. You tell him not to approach
> the plants, to turn around and go back to his camp. He
> says, "You wouldn't shoot me in cold blood." You ask
> him if he's seen you shoot and kill the birds, gophers
> and other rodents that have tried to destroy your
> plants. "And I respect the rodents more than I respect
> you," you say. "Those rodents haven't the intelligence
> to live morally with other rodents much less with
> humans. They live amorally, but you have the capacity
> to live morally and yet you choose to act amorally
> destroying my plants like those birds, gophers and
> other rodents that I've been destroying. You're
> morality is mere pretense. Go back to your camp and
> leave me in peace or you force me to deal with you as
> I've dealt with all the other wild animals on this
> island." He stares at you with a blank dumbfounded
> expression. He doesn't really comprehend your words
> much less your reasoning, but he feels you're just
> crazy enough to kill him so he backs down, for now.
> Hopefully he'll just move away somewhere and die. After
> several more years of peaceful solitude, the inevitable
> occurs... continued in Re #6: (never completed) Re #6
> would actually have been a rather pessimistic piece, a
> metaphor of my own belief about the present and the
> future. I'm not certain I should share it. I'm not
> certain I should have shared these last five posts. I
> don't imagine it will do anyone any good. I haven't
> really said anything that hasn't been said before....
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
> frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
--
Any person can stand adversity,
The true test is to give a person power.
If you treat a relationship as if you are the only one in it, eventually
you will be.
Atrocities happen when the people about you -
start considering you surplus.
"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of
others to differ from me in opinion"
---- Thomas Jefferson <br><br>
My Grandfather told me there are two kinds of people:
those who do the work and
those who take the credit.
He told me to be in the first group -
there is less competition there. -
Indira Gandhi
http://freeweb.digiweb.com/science_fiction/ThePiedPiper/~index.htm
ICQ 14484977
NEW
http://ThePiedPiper.tripod.com/site_map.htm
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
