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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (49476)	5/24/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Very well. You would do better to spell it out. Show us how this objective essence of yours that “just is” and that judges all things meaningfully works.>> Ah, here is where we struggle with one another friend. I never claimed that Right judges all things meaningfully. I in fact have gone to great lengths to form the notion that, what is right, is isolated from what may or may not take place in reality. One plus one was equal to two prior to any act that manifested a numerical system in the world to make powerful use of the concept. It would be right whether our number system acknowledged it or not. Judgement of any sort must measure the actions based on some objective measure that exists prior to and is held up against the action. <<Again, and do not run this time – Who or What is this authority in nature that judges every moral transaction?>> Moral transaction? Your definition leaves no room for judgements of good verses evil. By what authority do you limit nature to the simple issue of survival of the fittest. If you do this then you may apply the simple theorem that the strongest will survive. Your application of the measurement will be judged right, not the strong beast because it is you who have applied the measurement of what is right. The beast is mighty in and of itself with no consideration of morality. You would be judged by a sufficiently intelligent being as Right on this issue. By what authority in this pretend Universe are you allowed us to dismiss all other attributes of Cosmic integrity? <<If it does not exist, then any entity possessing Might enough to exact its will without retribution can decree his rightness, and because this entity is the most relevant thing going, it is right. Remember, it is most relevant. All judgements against it ain't.>> Yes in this limited universe Judgements against it are not relevant. In addition, judgements "for it" are not relevant. We are left with a simple definition again of survival of the fittest is a rule which is unbreakable and singular in your universe. Its actions can not be judged right, if right cannot be judged against what is wrong. It is you who have declared Might makes Right. Now you ask me to Judge a variety of circumstances based on the presence of what is right. Well first we have to establish agreement that right essentially exists. You say that you can declare its existence but you discount it in your universe as subordinate to or even inconsequential in the presence of Might. Second, we must establish a basis of agreement that what is Right is measurable. As I have said before if you want to use right as a synonym of Might, OK. In fact I could end the discussion on that note. On the other hand, so far you have demanded that Right is dependant on Might. So, I'll continue with a question. How do you discern what is Right? Well if you had not taken God out of the equation you could declare that God reveals Right. So, I want to go back to 1 plus 1 equals two. If God were still in the picture you might agree that what is Right, is Right whether you have received revelation or not. With out reference to God the existence of what is Right, is Right does not go away. Third in order to make a judgement on an action (which has nothing to do with this argument) there most be an objective measure. Righteousness is an objective measure that stands alone, apart from the willingness to apply it to actions. It just is (whoops, I know how that annoys you). Example time: We have gone into prisons and asked the worst Robbing, Murdering, Raping criminals if they thought what they did was bad. Of course they look at us like we are some proseletizing preachers from the street corner looking down on their audience. The answer of course "yes it is bad." If you could get out would you do this kind of stuff again. The answer, "Yes." Why? "Yo, because I am bad." Why, is that the answer? Because the judge of the court told them they are bad, because I did, because there are laws against such things, because they believe what they heard from a religion? Or is it because, "of course it's a chair and we all know it." <<There is no God, brees. The natural sense is all there is.>> Well you said take God out of it from the beginning but I never agreed to this simple definition of the universe. << In other words, if the person refuting Might cannot do so with authority, then he is irrelevant, just as you have admitted. So then whose declaration matters? Might's does, because its ability to actually implement its will makes it the most relevant thing going. Should it claim it is right, then it is. Its declarations are the most relevant. They have more meaning than anything else.>> It seems judgement is the real issue here not what causes something to be right or wrong. We are not the same beings as beasts and plants. If you would have said take God, humans, and other purported forces in the universe out of nature I would not have engaged in this debate at all. I am arguing for the existence of Righteousness, which can be identified apart from or at least not subservient to the existence of forces in the universe. I consider it to be present whether my attention is on it or whether I do not perceive it in any way. In fact I consider consciousness of it to be a basic element of human existence that is beyond or at least an enhancement of our animal characteristics. << How does it judge abortion for example? Let me be more specific. A woman finds she has conceived a girl. She wants a boy. She has the girl killed at six months gestation. She honestly believes the child was not a human. The abortionist believes likewise. She and the abortionist both go on to live and prosper. They eventually die. Now how does this “essence” that “just is” fit in here?>> Righteousness is not a judge it is a measure by which to judge what may or may not happen. << I see. Back to this “essence” that “Just is.” This essence of yours, does it have anything to say about homosexuality or abortion or bestiality? Yes? Tell us what it says and how it says it. And how does this “essence” that “Just is” reference the authority it needs to make its declarations relevant?>> You are asking me how this, "just is right," essence applies. Yep, it applies at the soul. You said take God out, you didn't say eliminate soul. I have no window to the soul of another. You are asking about judgement of observable acts. That is off topic.