Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (78867)	11/10/2003 10:30:04 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

”The highest good I know is serving the growth and happiness of humanity--in particular my own and those I value highest. But I was not speaking in terms of "higher good". You introduced it in a conditional clause and I questioned what it would mean to a humanist: "higher than what"--good to whom?” By “higher good,” I simply meant that a cause that you are sacrificing yourself for is good and the value of goodness you place on that cause is greater than whatever you value for yourself that is being sacrificed. We were talking (Karen, You, and Myself as a tangent from the suicide/assisted suicide topic) about a couple of things. A fate worse than death, for which one might sacrifice one’s own life. We did not agree on a particular issue that one would make such a choice but the conversation between you and I has developed into one in which you would be willing to die for some (undefined) cause. I think we are in agreement that there is a justification for that. So, you identify “the highest good” that you can imagine. Most people would agree that the benefit of humanity is a good cause to value and stand up for in principle and conduct. ”I also consider that preventing the suffering of other living creatures is doing good, but the highest good I know of is any good associated with humanity." I agree. ”When one sacrifices, one does good to someone in some way--one serves the interests of another. Of course, I accept that this also serves ones own interests in that the happiness of whom one loves or values is an essential adjunct to ones own happiness." Well said. ”I don't think I introduced the issue of "noble cause", but my small point to you was that the "nobility" of the sacrifice may be assessed somewhat by the value of what one gives up to serve the other. For instance, it is no big deal if I give someone I love all my water in the desert when I know there is a water hole 100 yards across the next sand dune. However, If It is all the water I will ever have, then it is more praiseworthy an act." Very good illustration. ”Pretend a soldier sacrifices his life. If he feels compelled by God to fight a certain "enemy", then he might indeed be trying to serve the "good" of obedience to a God. A humanist soldier might be trying to preserve the freedom of people he loves. They are both willing to die in order that they "do good"--one to live again in some spiritual realm, and one to return to the universal energy." By your description here, I can identify with the humanist perspective to some extent. And so, the apparent conflict you represent doesn’t exist for me. ”The sacrifice is not a non-issue. In the case of the one the issue is the value of obedience to a God. In the case of the other the issue is the preservation of certain human values such as the safety and the way of life of his loved ones, his community, and his fellow citizens." In the case of obedience to God, it involves protecting the innocent against the brutally corrupt who would do them harm (standing against an injustice). This is both humanitarian and serving God. We are specifically talking about deciding to sacrifice one’s life for a humanitarian cause. We have already agreed (I think) that serving doctrine that cannot be applied to such a circumstance with valor and virtue is inapplicable and that following an oligarchy that did not uphold humanitarian consideration would be misdirected (Not serving God). It would be more of an act of serving God to turn your back on the doctrine and the oligarchy to do the right thing, as the confused Huckleberry did. Of course, people can make the claim that “God is on my side” but that does not automatically speak for God. Declarations of Gods will are pretty empty, even when backed by a religious scholar’s recommendations (since they often disagree). You can declare my agreement or allegiance to you, that doesn’t make it so.