Jump to content

Light up th Darkness

Member
  • Content Count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Light up th Darkness

  • Rank
    Novice

Profile Information

  • Playername
    Light up th Darkness
  1. Ah, a topic that I am interested in. It would seem that everyone has different views about objective morality. this is rather ironic. no one is being truly objecive (though Tarquinus, you're coming close). the question is whether there is a right and a wrong, and no gray area. Or is there an area, like the "Big Bang" where all of the rules we currently posess break down? let's assume for the moment that there is no gray area, that there can always be a right and a wrong decided, even if it is ex post facto. based upon this, we can assign truth values, True and False (T and F) to any decision made by anyone or any idea/ideal that may be put forth. Applying this to the idea of equality, we must look at the type of equality. not to oversimplify things, if you look at equality of opportunity, the democratic/partly capitaistic view of things, that would state that every person has the same chance when they are born of being anything that they want to be. this is, of course, false when applied to the larger world. Look at any of the Third World countries. they do not have the same "chance" that others, such as those from First World Countries, do. If one were to apply it just to a single country, such as England or the United States or Spain, it still does not hold true in its most base form. does a beggar on the street have the same opportunities as a person from a rich family? of course not. with hard work and a few lucky breaks that beggar from the street may one day become rich, but did he really have the same chance? to go more into depth, we have to enter the realm of psychology. if we accept that our brains are indeed programmed for survival (which my now should be self-evident), we must then realize that the beggar, unless he has aspirations above and beyond the norm, will do as much as he can to survive and will adapt to his life as a beggar. the person from the rich family needs not worry about their own survival, as they are well taken care of. the beggar will try to find a job (if he chooses to) that will get him the most money he can find. the rich person will try to find a job that they will enjoy. chances are, the rich person's job will make more, thereby widening the gap. Now, it is possible, as in the story of Chris Gardener, for one to overcome such things. but overall the idea of equality of opportunity can be assigned a truth value of F. Equality of outcome, the Socialistic and Communistic view of equality, is already seen by most as ridiculous. forcing everyone to be equal is a paradox. who does the forcing? someone in the government, who is not so noble as to be equal to the rest (taking this from experience... Russia, China, etc). this person, by not sharing their lot with that of their people, is disproving the idea of equality of outcome. At this point I digress and turn to one of Tarquinus' comments. equating selfishness with evil. a grotesque oversimplification, as you say, but taking it from the general meaning that you were trying to imply, this arises. there are many exceptions to your rule, few of which are extreme. Tarquinus, by following this code anyone who asks for anything from you should have it. you bind yourself to slavery, with everyone on earth being your master. You yourself have sold yourself into slavery with no way of getting out. placing a few extreme exceptions in there does you no good. a rose by any other name... pardon my harshness, but it bothers me that selfishness is "evil" and selfless "good" in your morality in general, my friend. I need not leave examples, because you already know most of them, but please consider the above statement with due thought. This next statement may sound jaded or disillusioned, but it becomes ridiculously easy for someone to take advantage of you when you leave the statement as that. I happen to know that you are of better character than that, and that your statement was just worded poorly. rather, objective morality is based upon basic logic. It is not the logic of who needs against who should have. Take the basis of the logic to say that you are alive in the biological sense of the term, and so is the person you are dealing with. Now, and I know you detest objectivism Tarquinus, but bear with me, who is right can be decided upon a set of rules and a lot of thought about them. The rules were presented by an objectivist, but, as the rules are objective, they serve to forward the logical soundness of of the argument. these are the eleven rules known together as "The Wizard's Rules" They require a great deal of thought, but I will do some explaining about them. 1. People are stupid. <...> they will believe a lie either because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be 2. The greatest harm can result from the best intentions 3. Passion rules reason 4. there is magic in sincere forgiveness, the magic to heal. in forgiveness you grant, but more so, in forgiveness you recieve 5. mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie 6. Let reason be your only sovereign 7. life is the future, not the past 8. Deserve Victory 9. A contradiction cannot exist in reality. not in part, nor in whole 10. willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to oneself 11. the wizard's rule unwritten They are a baic method for providing a logical soundness and a moral objectivity to the argument. who is morally right. these rules are not perfect, but they certainly help. a violation of one of the rules means that you made the incorrect decision, and in consequence most probably violated another two or three rules. They are so interconnected that is difficult to violate just the one. Objectively I realize that I am not really being objective anymore, but oh well. Think about the rules for a while, then respond. thought there is something that I should explain. the third and sixth rules. 3. Passion rules Reason. this rule is explaining the difference between logic and reason. reason is logic ruled by passion. your logic must be sound and the decision made also have basis in passion, which is fueled by faith and emotions. before I get jumped, this is faith, not Faith. faith is whatever you happen to believe in, whether that is god or something else entirely. 6. Let Reason be your only Sovereign use the definition of reason given above. also, side note to wynken, Physics has come very close to explaining the beginnings of the universe. right now the models that are being used can predict everything that happens from 10^-5 seconds onwards. and there is even a model that has been proposed by Steven Hawking that suggests that time has no beginning or end, but rather exists independently from space in the areas where space does not exist. it also suggests that time would have no meaning outside of space. therefore, consider this. if time is indeed infinite, and there is actually no need for a singularity (also suggested by Hawkings model), then what is there for God to exist outside of? in trying to answer this question you would have to actually delve into extra dimensions. This is just to provoke thought, so please take no offense.
  2. I'm from Virginia. go eastern seaboard!
  3. I agree with burns. also, if you count the locks on the door, there are five of them anyways.
×
×
  • Create New...