knowledge

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
a)we're told that occasionally there are people born who have no inner governor, no check on what they should or should not do... the socieopaths of the world... i'll accept on authority that these people exist, principally because i'm too tired to argue the converse... but if they do exist, doesn't that very existence argue that they're the exception that proves the rule?

​

b)i happen to think that in a properly functioning brain (no defects, iow), God created us so that we already have all the knowledge it's possible to have... whatever we say we know, here and now, hasn't come *in*, it's seeped out... certain experiences in our lives (or the lives of others) triggered this 'knowledge seepage'...

---

a)Bud its only in colloquialisms that exceptions prove rules the rest of the time they are evidence against...b)This is pretty much Descartes thory of innate ideas, as I intimated in my previous post my opinions take after those of Locke in this matter...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
[B][QUOTE]That raises an interesting point, joz... whether or not they are inate, do they exist? in other words, *is* infanticide objectively evil, or is such a thing merely societal preference? furthermore, if one society says cannabilism is not morally evil and another says it is, are both right? is morality, are ethics, a matter of "majority rules" or are they objective entities?

​

If objective evil doesn't exist, there's nothing abhorrant about the torture and murder of a young child.. nothing abhorrant, that is, unless society *tells* you there is... is this your view? or do you think such an act, in and of itself, is objectively evil?[/B][/QUOTE]

​

I happen to have a big problem with infanticide but then again I am a product of a western Judao/Christian based moral upbringing so its hardly an objective test...

​

I don`t have such problems with polygamy, under certain social conditions (i.e high mortality rate in either sex leading to an imbalance) it probably has social mertits...

​

Even canibalism doesn`t disturb me in and of itself, murdering someone to eat them does but if for example a dying friends last wish was for everyone to have a "dinner party" to pay our respects I wouldn`t see anything to wrong with that, a bit odd to be sure but not immoral....

​

(Providing there was no comunicable disease issue that is)...

​

So in answer to your question IMHO infanticide is counter to a moral code that I have chosen and enforce myself, the fact that the vast majority here would agree is not however a fair indication of any sort of inateness to that concept as none of us (I assume) were raised in a situation where infanticide was the cultural norm....

---

i agree that what the majority thinks has nothing to do with it, but your answer is still disturbing... according to your reasoning, infanticide is only wrong because you chose it to be wrong, iow it's only wrong for *you*... but it isn't wrong for another, if that person chooses to... granted, society will exact punishment, but according to your belief that punishment would be unfair in the sense that the person didn't actually do anything wrong, just something against societal mores... is that accurate?

quote:

---

Also infanticide within ones own culture is hardly ever a plus, so most of us are probably memeticaly programmed against it, the same can hardly be said of infanticide external to ones own society. Jonathan Swifts morbid irony during the potatoe famine found a disturbing ammount of assent, I am talking of course of modest proposal that the Irish eat their own babies....

---

yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right? it simply combines infanticide and cannabilism, neither of which are inately evil... in your view, that is... [quote] So ultimately like Locke before me I dissent the notion that some ideas are innate...[/B][/QUOTE]interesting.. i've rarely met someone who believed the torture and murder of a small child isn't inherently evil, that such an act would be ok, even appropriate i suppose, if they so chose... after all, you only refrain from acts such as that because you have chosen a particular moral code... you could just as easily choose another[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
a)we're told that occasionally there are people born who have no inner governor, no check on what they should or should not do... the socieopaths of the world... i'll accept on authority that these people exist, principally because i'm too tired to argue the converse... but if they do exist, doesn't that very existence argue that they're the exception that proves the rule?

​

b)i happen to think that in a properly functioning brain (no defects, iow), God created us so that we already have all the knowledge it's possible to have... whatever we say we know, here and now, hasn't come *in*, it's seeped out... certain experiences in our lives (or the lives of others) triggered this 'knowledge seepage'...

---

​

a)Bud its only in colloquialisms that exceptions prove rules the rest of the time they are evidence against...[/quote]

​

the exceptions are evidence against the rules? can you give me some examples of this, bud, i might be misunderstanding you... [quote] b)This is pretty much Descartes thory of innate ideas, as I intimated in my previous post my opinions take after those of Locke in this matter...
[/B]

---

really? i do need to read more

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
The exceptions are evidence against the rules? can you give me some examples of this, bud, i might be misunderstanding you...

---

Yes bud I can, if an apple were to fall off a tree and instead of plumeting down to brain an unsuspecting physicist remain hovering in place or even soar up into the atmosphere would it:a)cast doubt on our theories of gravity.or,b)By virtue of being an exception prove them.What do you think bud?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
a)i agree that what the majority thinks has nothing to do with it, but your answer is still disturbing...b)according to your reasoning, infanticide is only wrong because you chose it to be wrong, iow it's only wrong for *you*... but it isn't wrong for another, if that person chooses to... granted, society will exact punishment, but according to your belief that punishment would be unfair in the sense that the person didn't actually do anything wrong, just something against societal mores... is that accurate?c)yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right? it simply combines infanticide and cannabilism, neither of which are inately evil... in your view, that is...d)interesting.. i've rarely met someone who believed the torture and murder of a small child isn't inherently evil, that such an act would be ok, even appropriate i suppose, if they so chose... after all, you only refrain from acts such as that because you have chosen a particular moral code... you could just as easily choose another[/B][/QUOTE]a)I`m sorry bud but to show innate ideas you have to show something that is assented to by 100% of the population, otherwise its hardly innate is it? So while I think its immaterial you might want to rethink this part of your answer...b)No I think infanticide is wrong because I was conditioned too, I happen to be fairly convinced that it is wrong in myself and others and would take pretty damm stiff measures to prevent it happening.You seem to be confusing my position with a sort of extremely existentialist one, it isn`t, I believe that one must choose a moral code and adhere to it and those that either do not or choose one vastly removed from the majority and in direct opposition to the interests of that majority shouldn`t be too surprised by the kicking around they get....c)Umm you might want to read up on that bud, Jonathan Swifts "Modest proposal" was a satire on the attitudes of us English to the plight of the poor starving paddys, the assent I refered to was the English who thought it was a fine idea, nauseating isn`t it. Sorry you misunderstood bud but I was arguing that infanticide outside ones own culture has historically been periodically encouraged and even actively engaged in....Ergo I would argue that while infanticide is (from my POV) morally reprehensible my attitude hardly seems to be innately shared by all others....d)No bud its not inherently evil but that doesn`t mean that I`d sit back crack open a cold one and spectate, I`d do everything I could to stop it...Choosing a moral code is not a light flipant decision, it requires a fair deal of introspection and thought, while my moral code may adapt it is pretty bloody unlikely that I could up and decide to impale babies for fun and giggles...I will oppose all people whose ideals are violently antipathic to mine, who have chosen that other path that doesn`t mean that I inherrantly know myself to be in the right but because they are in opposition I MUST subvert, frustrate and nullify their attempts, to do otherwise is to condone what they do. Infanticide would be a very unhealthy hobby to practice around me but because I am opposed to it not because of any sense of universal morals....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
derived from experience, yes... however, does that fact mean there isn't an objectivity to "right and wrong?"

---

Objective being what? An abstract absolute outside of space and time platonic form thingie? 'derived from experience' implies that this is not the case.

quote:

---

we're told that occasionally there are people born who have no inner governor... doesn't that very existence argue that they're the exception that proves the rule?

---

Actually it demonstrates that these ideas are not innate, that it is possible to be born without them.

quote:

---

God created us so that we already have all the knowledge it's possible to have...

---

joz is right. This does sound like Descartes.How do you demonstrate that we are born with all knowledge? I don't think you can. Without that demonstration it is just an assumption.

quote:

---

right and wrong *are* practical concepts...

---

You aren't really using this the way I meant it. Practical means 'functional' in this case. We don't allow unrestricted murder because allowing such murder would quickly topple society and we depend upon society to survive.

quote:

---

the knowledge of each is inate, imo, and triggered by experiences...

---

You still haven't made a case for this. Just a reminder.

quote:

---

at some point in the lives of each person, a bite of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (that fruit being our experiences) triggers the realization that *this* is good and *that* is evil...

---

You say good; I say pleasing. You still haven't made a case.

quote:

---

we might deny we know this objective reality, but it's self-denial...

---

Self-denial? To doubt an invisible, intangible, inaccessible 'objective Good', is self-denial? It sounds like commons sense to me.

quote:

---

and we do *not* need society to explain the difference

---

Yeah, I think we do. Parents, peers, teachers, TV... all explain this stuff to us. And all at a very young age. People are born with certain emotional responses, but this is hardly what you are aiming to hit.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

​

a)Bud its only in colloquialisms that exceptions prove rules the rest of the time they are evidence against...

---

Call me a total pedant if you like (and many have), but the expression 'The exception that proves the rule' is almost never used in the correct way these days due to a linguistic shift in the meaning of the word 'prove'Originally to prove something meant to test it, which gives us the phrase 'proving ground' and the idea of spirits being given a 'proof' which is the alcohol limit they have been tested to have.Thus the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' would be better written these days as 'the exception that challenges the rule'Just my 0.02

quote:

---

Originally posted by Weyland:

Thus the phrase 'the exception that proves the rule' would be better written these days as 'the exception that challenges the rule'

​

Just my 0.02

---

Spiffy. I love etymology. Thanks for the info.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
The exceptions are evidence against the rules? can you give me some examples of this, bud, i might be misunderstanding you...

---

​

Yes bud I can, if an apple were to fall off a tree and instead of plumeting down to brain an unsuspecting physicist remain hovering in place or even soar up into the atmosphere would it:

​

a)cast doubt on our theories of gravity.

​

or,

​

b)By virtue of being an exception prove them.

​

What do you think bud?

---

i still don't have enough info... how many times must a theory be falsified before it's no longer valid as a theory? the floating apple, is that a sign of a theory having been falsified at least once? but if i saw an apple do that, i'd call it a miracle ... in no way could such an occurance be said to *prove* the theory of gravity... if it can, show how[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)I`m sorry bud but to show innate ideas you have to show something that is assented to by 100% of the population, otherwise its hardly innate is it? So while I think its immaterial you might want to rethink this part of your answer...

---

that's simply absurd... you're simply saying that before an act can be objectively evil, all people in existence must call it so... it denies the possibility of all people being wrong...

quote:

---

b)No I think infanticide is wrong because I was conditioned too, I happen to be fairly convinced that it is wrong in myself and others and would take pretty damm stiff measures to prevent it happening.

​

You seem to be confusing my position with a sort of extremely existentialist one, it isn`t, I believe that one must choose a moral code and adhere to it and those that either do not or choose one vastly removed from the majority and in direct opposition to the interests of that majority shouldn`t be too surprised by the kicking around they get....

---

you simply restate your position, that being that your moral code at the moment falls within norms set by the society in which you live... at one time it was a perfectly acceptable moral code to capture and exterminate jews... those who resisted because of a different moral code shouldn't be, according to you, surprised when they were kicked around for their choice... infanticide is only wrong because you've been conditioned to believe it is... it isn't wrong in and of itself, and could be a perfectly acceptable practice should society determine that, or should your "conditioning" determine it

quote:

---

c)Umm you might want to read up on that bud, Jonathan Swifts "Modest proposal" was a satire on the attitudes of us English to the plight of the poor starving paddys, the assent I refered to was the English who thought it was a fine idea, nauseating isn`t it. Sorry you misunderstood bud but I was arguing that infanticide outside ones own culture has historically been periodically encouraged and even actively engaged in....

---

i know swift's work, and i didn't misunderstand... the point is, whether or not infanticide has been encouraged or not has nothing to do with its morality... it's simply a more, neither right nor wrong inately... do you really believe this?

quote:

---

Ergo I would argue that while infanticide is (from my POV) morally reprehensible my attitude hardly seems to be innately shared by all others....

---

from *your* pov eh?... so genocide also is only wrong if your society says it is...

quote:

---

Choosing a moral code is not a light flipant decision, it requires a fair deal of introspection and thought, while my moral code may adapt it is pretty bloody unlikely that I could up and decide to impale babies for fun and giggles...

---

unlikely is it? but if you did so choose, it'd just be another choice... hmmm wendy's or burger king today... hmmm impale a baby or go to the game?... in the final analysis, you are your own arbiter of good and evil and you choose to let societal mores and upbringing govern your choices...

quote:

---

I will oppose all people whose ideals are violently antipathic to mine, who have chosen that other path that doesn`t mean that I inherrantly know myself to be in the right but because they are in opposition I MUST subvert, frustrate and nullify their attempts, to do otherwise is to condone what they do. Infanticide would be a very unhealthy hobby to practice around me but because I am opposed to it not because of any sense of universal morals....

---

oppose them for their choice of hobby, eh? ummmm i hope you aren't violently opposed to chess, but if you are i've been forewarned

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
derived from experience, yes... however, does that fact mean there isn't an objectivity to "right and wrong?"

---

​

Objective being what? An abstract absolute outside of space and time platonic form thingie? 'derived from experience' implies that this is not the case.

---

objective being, something that is evil regardless of the number of people who say it isn't... such as nazi germany, such as nero... to say that nazi germany was proven wrong when they lost the war would imply they'd have been right had they won (i know you didn't say that and might not, just thought i'd try building a preemptive straw man)

quote:

---

quote:

---

we're told that occasionally there are people born who have no inner governor... doesn't that very existence argue that they're the exception that proves the rule?

---

​

Actually it demonstrates that these ideas are not innate, that it is possible to be born without them.

---

why is that? why can't it show that people are born without properly functioning minds? mental and/or physical defects? iow, why *must* it demonstrate what you say it does?

quote:

---

quote:

---

God created us so that we already have all the knowledge it's possible to have...

---

​

How do you demonstrate that we are born with all knowledge? I don't think you can. Without that demonstration it is just an assumption.

---

agreed... i think i stated it as a belief, not as a fact.. the thread is knowledge tho, so i think my mind is properly functioning, i think i have no (glaring) mental deficiencies, therefore i think i have warrant for that belief... but for it to be knowledge it must also be true... so for now let's call it a belief i hold

quote:

---

quote:

---

right and wrong *are* practical concepts...

---

​

You aren't really using this the way I meant it. Practical means 'functional' in this case. We don't allow unrestricted murder because allowing such murder would quickly topple society and we depend upon society to survive.

---

i agree with that... but you should grant that a practical concept doesn't of neccesity rule out the objective nature of that concept... iow, disallowing certain acts *can* be for practical reasons *and* because they're objectively evil

quote:

---

quote:

---

at some point in the lives of each person, a bite of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (that fruit being our experiences) triggers the realization that *this* is good and *that* is evil...

---

​

You say good; I say pleasing. You still haven't made a case.

---

agreed again.. explained above

quote:

---

quote:

---

we might deny we know this objective reality, but it's self-denial...

---

​

Self-denial? To doubt an invisible, intangible, inaccessible 'objective Good', is self-denial? It sounds like commons sense to me.

---

why? because of the transcendental nature of such a God? do all transcendental entities fall under this stricture? [quote]

quote:

---

and we do *not* need society to explain the difference

---

Yeah, I think we do. Parents, peers, teachers, TV... all explain this stuff to us. And all at a very young age. People are born with certain emotional responses, but this is hardly what you are aiming to hit.[/B][/QUOTE]again, nazi germany had parents, peers, teachers, radio... stuff was explained

[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE]i still don't have enough info... how many times must a theory be falsified before it's no longer valid as a theory? the floating apple, is that a sign of a theory having been falsified at least once? but if i saw an apple do that, i'd call it a miracle ... in no way could such an occurance be said to *prove* the theory of gravity... if it can, show how...[/B][/QUOTE]Ok Buddy boy this discussion is fast developing a surreal element, you ask the question

quote:

---

The exceptions are evidence against the rules?

---

Then after my example given to illustrate the absurdity of exceptions proving rules your line becomes

quote:

---

in no way could such an occurance be said to *prove* the theory of gravity... if it can, show how...

---

IOW you seem to think that we have magically switched positions, a somewhat odd notion don`t you think?Its great that I convinced you that exceptions do not prove rules but if we are going to get anywhere here you must stop projecting what you percieve to be the antithesis of your views onto me and actually read my posts and argue with the positions that I actually do take in them....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
a)that's simply absurd... you're simply saying that before an act can be objectively evil, all people in existence must call it so... it denies the possibility of all people being wrong...

​

b)you simply restate your position, that being that your moral code at the moment falls within norms set by the society in which you live... at one time it was a perfectly acceptable moral code to capture and exterminate jews... those who resisted because of a different moral code shouldn't be, according to you, surprised when they were kicked around for their choice... infanticide is only wrong because you've been conditioned to believe it is... it isn't wrong in and of itself, and could be a perfectly acceptable practice should society determine that, or should your "conditioning" determine it

​

c)i know swift's work, and i didn't misunderstand... the point is, whether or not infanticide has been encouraged or not has nothing to do with its morality... it's simply a more, neither right nor wrong inately... do you really believe this?

​

d)from *your* pov eh?... so genocide also is only wrong if your society says it is...

​

e)unlikely is it? but if you did so choose, it'd just be another choice... hmmm wendy's or burger king today... hmmm impale a baby or go to the game?... in the final analysis, you are your own arbiter of good and evil and you choose to let societal mores and upbringing govern your choices...

​

f)oppose them for their choice of hobby, eh? ummmm i hope you aren't violently opposed to chess, but if you are i've been forewarned

---

a)Innate and objective are totally seperate concepts bud...And yes for an idea to be innate it has to be assented to by 100%, read some Descartes...b)Yes I restate my position because you failed to comprehend it last time and lo and behold you failed to comprehend it this time, go back reread what I posted and stop projecting straw men onto my position...Yes from my POV genocide is wrong, yes from my POV infanticide is wrong and if those were tolerated or actively practised in this society I would not be surprised by any kicking around I got attempting to prevent their occurance....My moral code is no mere carbon copy of the societal mores I grew up with, if nothing else my comments on polygamy and canibalism should have alerted you to that, I am free to choose my own moral code, that does not mean that I can ignore the possibility that the society I developed in influenced my decisions of what was moral and what was not....c)That may be but judging from your response you did misunderstand.

quote:

---

joz:

​

Also infanticide within ones own culture is hardly ever a plus, so most of us are probably memeticaly programmed against it, the same can hardly be said of infanticide external to ones own society.

​

Forgiven:

​

yes... well, if the irish or any other nationality so choose there's obviously nothing wrong with it, right?

---

You`ll see that I am refering to the historic trend to either engage in or actively encourage infanticide external to ones own culture, the attitudes of the Irish hardly matter the (nauseating) attitudes of those Englishmen that thought Swifts modest proposal was a great solution are...d)No IMO genocide etc are wrong if I say they are.....e)No I make my own choices and do not rule out the possibility the societal mores I grew up with affect my choice.....f)Only those that are "violently antipathic" to my ideals, 2 year old shish kebab qualifies chess doesn`t, I`m begining to think that you willfully misunderstand others positions if you are reconsider because its not the best way of conducting a dialouge.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
again, nazi germany had parents, peers, teachers, radio... stuff was explained.

---

They also had the treaty of Versailles that emasculated the country and led to the rise of nationalism with its associated scapegoating of anyone who did not fit in with that national identity......

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
why? because of the transcendental nature of such a God? do all transcendental entities fall under this stricture?

---

Depends if I can see, smell, hear, taste or feel any of these transcendental buggers, if not then yes they do all fall under the same doubt....[This message has been edited by joz, 11-21-2002]