SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (82176)1/16/2010 2:53:17 AM
From: one_less1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
"How in the Hell is anyone to respond rationally to "How do you get from what is to what out to be?"

>>My answer: DEFINE WHAT IS. DEFINE WHAT OUGHT TO BE (you will need to provide a rationale)...and so forth...sigh


Well then you agree with me and lets face it, we all have a sense of what ought to be even if we can't define every particular for every circumstance a priori, each circumstance having some unique aspects more or less. We know what it is when we are in the midst of it.

It seems I am doing a lot of back tracking but I don't mind if it serves to further clarify the issue.

The question was Greg's and I admit it requires a stretch of the imagination to deal with it but I don't like to just leave a good question lying flat, so I picked up the challenge. I presume Greg was waiting to show me how the question is only answerable via scriptural dogma. I don't doubt there are scholarly answers in scripture but that didn't seem to be the nature of his challenge to me.

My answer defined what is. What is, is nature ... which is fixed (unchangeable). What ought to be is a moral question and since human nature is bound to the morality of right and wrong I provided the rational of going from what is (nature) to what ought to be (which is a human choosing of right).

As I defined it for Greg: (what is)"Nature is SET, as far as I know, for each type of creature and the Universe at large; while there is nothing to do about nature except to live out our time and adapt to circumstances as best we can. (Ought)The nature of Human Beings is bound in the morality of right and wrong and so there is an 'ought to' aspect of what we choose to do."

This is so basic, it is an actual 'duh, no kidding.' The answer is not even that interesting or profound. It is central and basic to the human condition. So what? The discussion from there, however, can take off in many interesting directions...issues of free will, conscience, choosing what ought be in the midst of conflict etc which is far more interesting and much more complicated.

I give Greg credit for presenting a fantastic question... oddly he didn't have a clue about what a jewel it is, as he left it like so much garbage by the side of the road, to hammer on the insufferable inanity of 'who's worldview club are you in' for two months.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext