Who Determines the Authority of Moral Standards?

[tA]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

My point exactly. I think that if there is a "God" and that God "writes a Book" ...it would be a book of "wisdom" ...not "rules". Those who would interpret them as "rules" and impose them upon the minds -- often YOUNG minds -- of others is taking the Gift of Free Will out of the equation. I do not believe that even "God" would want to do that. That is why it would not be a Book of Rules, but a Book of Wisdom.

I took it soley as a slight semantic glitch. Interesting to see how I automatically correct the impression of other's thoughts to fit my framework...
Namely, I interpreted "rules" as wisdom. Compact in their presentation, but with more meaning behind. (Trying to avoid reference to holy books here, though this most definitely would apply.) Wisdom can easily be transferred through gradual transference of heuristics (rules). The mistake would then be the lack of interpretation, the medium in itself may still well be rules.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

I think the initiator of this thread is asking the wrong question. S/he is asking whether God would "force" someone to "obey" the "rules" -- when the questions should be "Are these really rules?" and "Who gets to SAY what is relevant guidance for ME in each situation?"

I think the questions I've been asking if there are any rules, how they work, and how they are relevant to me. Not rules soley stated by another person, but the rules I accumulate through observation. The attempt to understand the rules of an objective reality despite an inevitably subjective viewpoint. But in such an attempt, any viewpoint presented (any persons's statement) is also a reality manifestation of sorts, hence remains the task of decifiering reality/truth/validity ("wrong/right"). I ask (myself) what guidance to use when I extend/modify the concepts I currently entertain? And maybe more importantly, _how_ to use the guidance.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Yes, it probably IS "why we're here" in BOTH contexts. So, would you say that PREVENTING someone from developing their intellect would, in effect, be a "sin" as well?
And should someone submit to being sinned upon?

Actually, on second thought. I'm not sure I see not using intellect as a sin per se. In a social context, I'm not sure if a world full of intellectuals would actually work. It's my favorite utopia, where everyone has something to offer the world. I am however very sceptical when I attempt a realistic plan.
Having said that, I do see it as disrespectful towards any type of spirituality not to use the tools we've been given. Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition?)
It is an insult to humanity when we limit each other, intellectually as well emotionally and industrially (think I need to work on the later thought). Submission again may have it's purpose in social contexts. Placed on a scale of morals, there are most definitely things that would weigh heavier, and some that would weigh less. Is self-fulfillment a basic right and possible for everyone to have at once or is it just an elitist concept? (new thread, anything on the topic other there already?)

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by tA
I took it soley as a slight semantic glitch. Interesting to see how I automatically correct the impression of other's thoughts to fit my framework...Namely, I interpreted "rules" as wisdom. Compact in their presentation, but with more meaning behind. (Trying to avoid reference to holy books here, though this most definitely would apply.) Wisdom can easily be transferred through gradual transference of heuristics (rules). The mistake would then be the lack of interpretation, the medium in itself may still well be rules.

I cannot agree that "rules" are the same as "wisdom". The former leaves no room for personal judgement while the latter INFORMS one's judgement.

I think the questions I've been asking if there are any rules, how they work, and how they are relevant to me. Not rules soley stated by another person, but the rules I accumulate through observation.

Again, the "rules" that one accumulates through observation is actually "wisdom" which one reserves the right -- and the judgement -- to apply. Let us say, as an example, that one has found that one goes over well socially when one tells a joke when one meets new people. If one adopts this as a "rule" which one must follow RELIGIOUSLY, then when one meets new people at a FUNERAL, one MUST tell a joke ...even to the bereaved. This is not good judgement. Wisdom, on the other hand, would inform one that telling a joke might usually be appropriate, but in THIS case one's judgement dictates otherwise.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a good idea ...except when someone is attacking your wife ...if you get my drift.

Actually, on second thought. I'm not sure I see not using intellect as a sin per se.

I did not suggest that it is a sin not to use one's intellect, but that it may be a sin to prevent ANOTHER from using theirs.

In a social context, I'm not sure if a world full of intellectuals would actually work. It's my favorite utopia, where everyone has something to offer the world.

I'd be happy for 10 percent "intellectuals" ...as in one out of every ten people I meet. Instead, it's about one in 50 ...and that's being kind.

Having said that, I do see it as disrespectful towards any type of spirituality not to use the tools we've been given.

I think you're saying that it "can't hurt" a religion to use one's mind. Apparently, certain religions think it CAN.

Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition?

I don't understand.

It is an insult to humanity when we limit each other, intellectually as well emotionally and industrially (think I need to work on the later thought. Submission again may have it's purpose in social contexts.

I'm not sure one can "insult humanity" ...but on MIGHT be able to "offend" the Giver of a Gift by throwing it away!

Placed on a scale of morals, there are most definitely things that would weigh heavier, and some that would weigh less. Is self-fulfillment a basic right and possible for everyone to have at once or is it just an elitist concept? (new thread, anything on the topic other there already?)

Actually, that would make an excellent thread. I'm sure you know that there's a Maslov (sp?) hierarchy that suggests that once humans get past meeting survival needs, one progresses naturally to meeting the need of self-actualization. Having been "blessed" to be born in a time and place when one has the LUXURY of thinking about what may or may not be "true" -- scientifically and metaphysically -- then blessed again with the mental capacity to do so -- then blessed AGAIN with a medium such as this whereby we can share and be enriched by information ...it would seem to be a shame (if not a sin) to be "stuck" in the "knowledge" of a primitive past ...and permitted only to discuss limited subject matter with equally limited minds.

 

[tA]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I cannot agree that "rules" are the same as "wisdom". The former leaves no room for personal judgement while the latter INFORMS one's judgement.

I still argue the difference lies in a person's interpretation. Wisdom can be presented as rules. But it is only when they are interpreted (wisely?!) that they become wisdom. I do agree that a wise approach to ethics can be little but situtational. I do believe however that rules are good for "You need to know 'em to break 'em".
When we chose to act outside our frame of mind, or even more rigidly, by set rules, we have to take note of what boundries we are going beyond, and why we chose to do so. E.g. Coming back to the example of "Thou shalt not kill"...I am strict pacisift and attempt to live by just that rule. And I do indeed find myself revising the boundries constantly. Being a vegitarian and getting nutritional deficits has also lead me to revise the killing of animals and reverting to the occasional fishdish.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I did not suggest that it is a sin not to use one's intellect, but that it may be a sin to prevent ANOTHER from using theirs.

Totatalitarian nations aside is this really possible? People are discouraged, and ostrazied at worst, but is that stopping? And is lack of education, or educating on a normalised level despite higher ability _morally_ wrong? (what about international productivity if we're talking about economy already...?)

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'd be happy for 10 percent "intellectuals" ...as in one out of every ten people I meet. Instead, it's about one in 50 ...and that's being kind.

I think they're out there, just hard to spot. I seem to be meeting more of them these days than before. ( Of which I find an even lesser minority allowing themselves to question their already very structured views.) It seems a lot of free minds keep their thoughts to themselves...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I think you're saying that it "can't hurt" a religion to use one's mind. Apparently, certain religions think it CAN.

Well it can. Who needs a higher entity when we can fend for ourselves. Why give money to charities we don't believe in when we no longer fear the wrath of God...
Don't worry, I get the point here too. In a religion where we find a connection to that which is good, we should automatically want to be part of that and be willing to give and love freely. I think we are both aware of what a radical change/revision that would mean in religious institutions today. And how much that can be and is abused by people that have been convinced that they made a "free" choice to join a certain money milking organisation...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

I don't understand.
(Re:
Though a recent discussion also has lead me to the, not so new, conclusion, that there is indeed indulgence of this sort can be unproductive. Maybe that's why we were given metacognition? )

Thinking "too much" can be unproductive. We must also be able to judge whether we are getting stuck in the same though cycles, and indeed if we are intellectualising emotions beyond their actual scope. It is all good and well to understand why we feels certain things, as long as we remember the feeling underneath, even after the conclusions have come and gone.

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

Actually, that would make an excellent thread. I'm sure you know that there's a Maslov (sp?) hierarchy that suggests that once humans get past meeting survival needs, one progresses naturally to meeting the need of self-actualization. Having been "blessed" to be born in a time and place when one has the LUXURY of thinking about what may or may not be "true" -- scientifically and metaphysically -- then blessed again with the mental capacity to do so -- then blessed AGAIN with a medium such as this whereby we can share and be enriched by information ...it would seem to be a shame (if not a sin) to be "stuck" in the "knowledge" of a primitive past ...and permitted only to discuss limited subject matter with equally limited minds.

Cheers. I'm not sure if I ever bought the concept of Maslov's hierarchy. I only know I'd be very silly not to make use of what I've got. =)

But back to the main question. How can we use our intelligence to find out what is right and wrong in a valid way? (There has been enough harm done by very intelligent people.)

 

[Mentat]

How's it goin', M. Gaspar? It's good to see you back on the threads...but then, I haven't been on the Forum in a month ...

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
First off, if there WERE One Being who has DECIDED what is "right" and "wrong" -- and had "dominion over all" -- then It would merit the capitalization of any reference to It.

Only if It believed that this was appropriate .

So, first I must ask whether we are talking about a One Being or a one being who has DECIDED (not "chosen" because there would be no "choice" if "right" and "wrong" were absolute) what is "right" and "wrong".

First off, what is the difference between a "One Being" and a "one being".

Secondly, a decision is a choice, they are equivalent terms, and choice does exist for the Being, since right and wrong would not be absolutes if that one had not chosen to make them so.

I will assume -- unless you tell me otherwise -- that we are speaking of One Being who, when S/He/It "created the Universe", already knew that It was going to "create man" and would have this set of "rules" ready for "man" ...to break ...almost immediately.

Unnecessary assumption, but not incompatible. My question works regardless of whether this Being is the "Creator" or not, and regardless of whether It had intended to make anything ITFP.

Of course, there are other paradigms that would have the Universe Itself as an evolving Entity Who does NOT have "rules" but, rather, has an INHERENT PROCESS we have noticed and have called CAUSE & EFFECT. With THIS process in place, "man" MIGHT -- over time -- be able to ascertain for him and her self what "works" and what DOESN'T work with regard to our treatment of one another (for starters).

But is what "works" necessarily what is "right"? And, is it possible for one set of ethics to "work" for everybody?

I don't understand your logic here. You seem to be saying -- in fact, you specifically say -- that the Being would know "whether it is right or wrong to listen to It".

No, I said that we would have to assume that, in order for the Being to have any dominion at all...the Being does not, in fact, have the ability to tell us whether it is right to listen to It; at least, that's how it appears to me.

Well, if the Being has decided that one of the "rules" is that "we" should listen to and abide by the rules -- and if this Being had, in fact, gotten the rules RIGHT ITFP(an important "if")and had found a way to get the rules TO us, and had the power to "punish us" if we didn't follow them, then it would seem that, yes, we would be obliged to learn and play by the rules.

Too many "if"s. What exactly are you getting at?

OTOH, having "created us" and bestowing on us "free will" AND "bad judgement" peppered with temptations of the flesh and of the spirit, then this Being has set up a situation whereby we all must trip and fall on a daily basis. For Someone so interested in "rules" ...does this sound "fair" to YOU?

You seem to be thinking of a specific Being...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I think "we" would have to be VERY CAREFUL that "we" were not being told which "rules" apply in a particular situation.

But if a Supreme Being made up all the rules, then It would have certainly made up a rule for applying the rules, right?

For instance, interspersed throughout the rules might be primitive "explanations" about this or that. A person detecting that that these "explanations" do not hold water in the light of current knowledged -- knowledge, I might add, ascertained via a great GIFT to us (our evolving intellect) from whatever Being had created us (if this is how it happened) -- and if there were those who here on Earth had dominion -- even temporary dominion -- over this person and, because of whatever limitations those with temporary dominion may have that keep them from appreciating new information which in fact seems to CHALLENGE "explanations" imbedded in -- BUT NOT INTEGRAL TO -- the "rules" ...then those with temporary dominion might be motivated to keep one from an inquiry because they themselves cannot separate out the "meanings" -- the "rules" -- from the "stories" -- the "explanations".

Clarify, please. Perhaps a specific illustration.

And if the knowledge-seeking person where swayed to believe that they were committing some sort of "sin" by using his or her "gifts" and were actually held hostage by someone else's interpretation of the rules, then this would be a shame -- and a TRUE SIN -- don't you think?

If a person is kept from using her intellectual gifts to contradict a rule that most certainly is correct, then s/he's simply being kept from going down a dead-end road, right?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
How's it goin', M. Gaspar? It's good to see you back on the threads...but then, I haven't been on the Forum in a month ...



Only if It believed that this was appropriate ...referring to my request that "It", "God" and the "Universe" be capitalized.

Wrong again. It is NOT whether "It" (God or the Universe) "believed that this was appropriate." It is something I decide based on what I CREATED as a way of DEMONSTRATING my profound appreciation of my Source. It is I who have decided to HONOUR "IT".

"It" hasn't ORDAINED that I capitalize "It". I do so as an ACT of FREE WILL! I would think my CHOSEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT would be worth a lot more than any act of "obedience".

First off, what is the difference between a "One Being" and a "one being".

As I have explained, I capitalize words like Universe and God and Source and Entity and Being when I am speaking of That Which Is Everything. This is a personal preference; nothing more.

Secondly, a decision is a choice, they are equivalent terms, and choice does exist for the Being, since right and wrong would not be absolutes if that one had not chosen to make them so.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the word "decide" is derived from the same root from whence came "homocide" and "suicide". The "ide" is to "kill off" ...and in "decide" it is to "kill off all other possibilities" ...whereas a "choice" is IN THE MOMENT based on what's happening and the RESULTS ONE WANTS. A choice is a CREATIVE ACT that a person performs while being INFORMED BY whatever Guidance one is "hooked into".

This process of choice, of course, is strictly between you and the Source. Any other "guidance" is COUNTERFEIT ...and to whatever extent one allows the guidance of others to determine what they DO, to that extent someone ELSE -- or someONES else -- are running one's life.

But is what "works" necessarily what is "right"? And, is it possible for one set of ethics to "work" for everybody?

I think there may be some "common denominators". For instance, "cooperation" "works" better than "conflict" when a group of people are trying to accomplish something together. Now, a Being could tell us that ...or, we could figure it out for ourselves. But if we DIDN'T "cooperate" we would only be "punished" by whatever CONSEQUENCES our ACTIONS yielded in a Cause & Effect Universe.

No, I said that we would have to assume that, in order for the Being to have any dominion at all...the Being does not, in fact, have the ability to tell us whether it is right to listen to It; at least, that's how it appears to me.

I don't BELIEVE in "dominion". I believe in "stewardship". While a Being with "dominion" in fact WOULD have the "ability" -- as well as the "power" -- to "tell us whether it is right to listen to It" ...an Entity that gave rise to exquisite parts of Itself -- me and you, for instance -- would simply not wish to. It would prefer to GUIDE ...IMO.

Too many "if"s. What exactly are you getting at?

I don't know: lost antecedent ...and not motivated to go back to my first response to you on this thread. I am, however, very appreciative that YOU did and further request that you NOT answer this or my next post next, but continue to respond to my posts in the order that I posted them. Take your time. We've got forever ..right? (Well, at least YOU do! )

You seem to be thinking of a specific Being...

Yes ...and also a specific being

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
But if a Supreme Being made up all the rules, then It would have certainly made up a rule for applying the rules, right?

Right. But a Being with "wisdom" would only "recommend" that we "apply" It's Wisdom.

Clarify, please. Perhaps a specific illustration.

I might go back later to see if it's worth it to respond ...but lost antecedents generally get passed over ...which might be a shame if there is something "important" ...if ANY of this "important". You see, here a Being might say "It is wise to bring forward that which one is responding to if one hopes for a response oneself." ...but it would never say "One MUST bring forward all antecedents or one will experience damnation." Ya see?

If a person is kept from using her intellectual gifts to contradict a rule that most certainly is correct, then s/he's simply being kept from going down a dead-end road, right?

What "rule" would a sane and benevolent Being impart that one would be "contradicting" by using one's intellect? Be specific.

Remember, I am requesting that you not respond to this post now, but go back to whatever is next on page 2 from me. You'll get to this one eventually ...I hope. [?]

...and now, having looked back at my first post and noting WHOLE CHUNKS to which you did NOT respond, I will content myself with the hope that you have at least READ them ...and responded to them in -- and WITH -- your mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Wrong again. It is NOT whether "It" (God or the Universe) "believed that this was appropriate." It is something I decide based on what I CREATED as a way of DEMONSTRATING my profound appreciation of my Source. It is I who have decided to HONOUR "IT".

But it is not appropriate until It says so. That's the whole point of "A being who made all the rules", which is the whole point of this thread.

"It" hasn't ORDAINED that I capitalize "It". I do so as an ACT of FREE WILL! I would think my CHOSEN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT would be worth a lot more than any act of "obedience".

Why? Chosen Acknowledgement is only a good thing if It thinks so. If it wants "obedience" and you give it something else, then you've done wrong, because that's the whole point of a Being "who makes all the rules".

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the word "decide" is derived from the same root from whence came "homocide" and "suicide". The "ide" is to "kill off" ...and in "decide" it is to "kill off all other possibilities" ...whereas a "choice" is IN THE MOMENT based on what's happening and the RESULTS ONE WANTS. A choice is a CREATIVE ACT that a person performs while being INFORMED BY whatever Guidance one is "hooked into".

So? They still have to choose only one of the possible choices, thus killing off the rest...right?

I think there may be some "common denominators". For instance, "cooperation" "works" better than "conflict" when a group of people are trying to accomplish something together. Now, a Being could tell us that ...or, we could figure it out for ourselves. But if we DIDN'T "cooperate" we would only be "punished" by whatever CONSEQUENCES our ACTIONS yielded in a Cause & Effect Universe.

Unless the Being doesn't want us to "cooperate", in which case it would turn out good, regardless of the human belief on the matter (in this case, the human belief is that cooperation works better than conflict). Besides, even if it didn't work out right for a particular person, does that really mean that it was "wrong"...isn't "wrong" whatever the Being says it is?

Yes ...and also a specific being

And which specific "Being" would that be? Does that "Being" decide what is right and what is wrong? That's the question of the thread.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Right. But a Being with "wisdom" would only "recommend" that we "apply" It's Wisdom.

How do you know?

I might go back later to see if it's worth it to respond ...but lost antecedents generally get passed over ...which might be a shame if there is something "important" ...if ANY of this "important". You see, here a Being might say "It is wise to bring forward that which one is responding to if one hopes for a response oneself." ...but it would never say "One MUST bring forward all antecedents or one will experience damnation." Ya see?

Again, how could you possibly know that? That may be what your preferred "Being" would do, but that doesn't mean that is the only kind of Supreme Being. Indeed, how Supreme is the Being if it can only suggest what is right and what is wrong...does not the Being decide what is right?

What "rule" would a sane and benevolent Being impart that one would be "contradicting" by using one's intellect? Be specific.

What is the purpose of the question?

Remember, I am requesting that you not respond to this post now, but go back to whatever is next on page 2 from me. You'll get to this one eventually ...I hope. [?]

I know that this is what you've requested, and I did read that in the previous post, but I have chosen otherwise. My apologies, I just didn't see the point.

...and now, having looked back at my first post and noting WHOLE CHUNKS to which you did NOT respond, I will content myself with the hope that you have at least READ them ...and responded to them in -- and WITH -- your mind.

If I had merely "glossed-over" something you wrote, then I would have responded to it, out of habit. The fact that I don't respond to everything is usually a good indication that I'm paying attention.

 

[Royce]

Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Royce
Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

The operative word above is "reward". If there were no reward there would be no reason to do good. There is however a reward for doing good so in order to reap the reward we choose to do good.

Supreme Being or Supreme Leader governs with the consent of the governed.

No matter who or what made what rules for whatever reason can only apply them and enforce them only if we the governed subjects choose to follow or obey the rules. We can only choose if we know the rules.
A rule kept secret is not a rule that can be obeyed or broken. The only thing that can make use choose to be governed or obey the rules is for there to be something in it for us, some reward.

If The Supreme Being makes a rule that is not reasonable and has no reward or reason to obey it but death to disobey it, S/He/It may well soon find him/her/itself all alone. It is, in the military, a well known wisdom to never give an order that you know can not or will not be obeyed.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Glad to see you back and participating Mentat and M. Gaspar. Hope you don't mind if I throw in my $.02 worth.

There is no absolute right and/or wrong. Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

In human society it is the society that determines right and wrong according to the needs of the society and for its preservation. As individuals we have to make a choice between what is said to be the rules and needs of our society and our own needs and desires.

A perfect human that is perfectly wise and good would not need any laws or rules but would always do good or right

No matter whether it is God or a god or a dictator we obey s/he/its rules, laws etc because it benefits us individually. We would not want to make God or Mars or Stalin mad at us. It would not be to our benifit to have any of them or even G. Bush mad at us so we obey their rules and laws and do good or right rather than bad or wrong be it out of loyalty, respect, awe or fear.

It always comes down to what is in it for me. That is why we listen to and give credense to and obey anyone or anything. That is called being human. We rarely if ever do good strictly for goods sake. It may be nothing more than self respect or pride or a good feeling to do good but there is always something in it for us or we wouldn't do it.

Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it? Also, I wondered about this statement:

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Goodness is its own reward. Cause & Effect.

Thanks.

Goodness is its own reward? What about when one dies a painful death in the "good" attempt to save another?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Goodness is its own reward? What about when one dies a painful death in the "good" attempt to save another?

Because the "essence" of the ACT may "live on" in the memory of the Universe ...It's "network of memories" being that which comprise the "spiritual domain". Thus, the essence of the act -- the EXPERIENCE of the act by the Universe -- transcends the transient suffering of the "physical system" who performed it. And, perhaps, the one who is making a "willing sacrifice" knows or senses the quality of the experience that one is CONTRIBUTING to the Experience of the Universe, and one is perhaps rewarded by this knowing/ sensing.

This is what I believe is the "message" in the story about the real person, Jesus Christ ...that he made a willing sacrifice to show, by example, what needs to be done by US ...that one must make "willing sacrifices" -- often from moment to moment -- to lead a life which aligns with one's highest ideals.

Thanks for the crumb.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it?

Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Also, I wondered about this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

No,at least according to it. As there is no absolute right or wrong, Whatever the supreme being or Supreme Being says is right is, therefore, right by it's definition.

Given free will it is still up to us to agree and obey or do right by our own free will. It is our choice. If we are good and wise ourselves then well will do good as a matter of course rather than because someone or something told us to do it.

Either way it is our choice and we are responsible and accountable for whatever decision we make. We may hate having to obey someone in power over us but it is ultimately our choice to or not obey and suffer the consequences whether good or bad.
Whether there is or is not a Supreme Being or simply a supreme commander, it is alway our choice and no one elses and we have only ourselves to blame or take credit for the choices we make and the consequences. Remember with freedom comes responsiblity and the greater the freedom the greater the responsiblity.
IOW Free will ain't free.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Eloquently written, as always, Royce. However, this is all dependent on whether that being endowed us with free will, isn't it?

Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Also, I wondered about this statement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even given a supreme being such as God or a god the s/he/it determins what is right or wrong according to s/he/its whim, will, paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this change the fact that what It says is indeed "right"?

No,at least according to it. As there is no absolute right or wrong, Whatever the supreme being or Supreme Being says is right is, therefore, right by it's definition.

Given free will it is still up to us to agree and obey or do right by our own free will. It is our choice. If we are good and wise ourselves then well will do good as a matter of course rather than because someone or something told us to do it.

Either way it is our choice and we are responsible and accountable for whatever decision we make. We may hate having to obey someone in power over us but it is ultimately our choice to or not obey and suffer the consequences whether good or bad.
Whether there is or is not a Supreme Being or simply a supreme commander, it is alway our choice and no one elses and we have only ourselves to blame or take credit for the choices we make and the consequences. Remember with freedom comes responsiblity and the greater the freedom the greater the responsiblity.
IOW Free will ain't free. "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Because the "essence" of the ACT may "live on" in the memory of the Universe ...It's "network of memories" being that which comprise the "spiritual domain". Thus, the essence of the act -- the EXPERIENCE of the act by the Universe -- transcends the transient suffering of the "physical system" who performed it. And, perhaps, the one who is making a "willing sacrifice" knows or senses the quality of the experience that one is CONTRIBUTING to the Experience of the Universe, and one is perhaps rewarded by this knowing/ sensing.

That may all be the case, but how is the person, him/herself, rewarded for their good action (and let Occam's Razor not prick you in your attempt to answer this, my friend)?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Of course it does; but, if we don't have free will then your entire question and all of our replies are moot, aren't they.

Why? If the being has decided that it is right for us to respond, then we will (either because we chose to do what was right, or because we had no choice). It is well within the bounds of this discussion to postulate a predestination of sorts.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why? If the being has decided that it is right for us to respond, then we will (either because we chose to do what was right, or because we had no choice). It is well within the bounds of this discussion to postulate a predestination of sorts.

If there is no free will there is no choice. We are either preprogrammed or our illusion of choice is predetermined or predestined. If there we have no choice but to do what we are predestined to do then there can be no culpability, accountability, responsibility or consequences.

Your 'one being' would not have to make any rules nor would we decide to obey it's rules. We would simply be doing whatever we were predestined to do anyway. Granted that this could be the case but then what would be the point. If all is predestined why bother actually going through the motions. It would be a waste of time and energy.

If we have free will but all is already known of what was, what is and what will be then we still have to actually live our lives. That would not be the same as predestination or predetermination. Te difference is subtle I know but it is like knowing how a chess game will be played out form the position of the pieces rather than playing a scripted game.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
If there is no free will there is no choice. We are either preprogrammed or our illusion of choice is predetermined or predestined. If there we have no choice but to do what we are predestined to do then there can be no culpability, accountability, responsibility or consequences.

Your 'one being' would not have to make any rules nor would we decide to obey it's rules. We would simply be doing whatever we were predestined to do anyway. Granted that this could be the case but then what would be the point. If all is predestined why bother actually going through the motions. It would be a waste of time and energy.

If we have free will but all is already known of what was, what is and what will be then we still have to actually live our lives. That would not be the same as predestination or predetermination. Te difference is subtle I know but it is like knowing how a chess game will be played out form the position of the pieces rather than playing a scripted game.

The difference being (in the analogy, and in the case of free will vs. predestination) the margin of error on the part of the "predicter". If, however, the "predicter" was infallible, then there would be no difference between predestination and determined free will (phrased thus to reveal that it is an oxymoron at heart).

 

[elwestrand]

Predesination and free will are both illusions, yet they are the same and both real. My zen master friend says:
the person with the most choise has the least reality,
The person with the most reality has the least choice

The macrocosm is "predestined," absoulte "free will" exists in the micrososm and it is because of the microcosm that there is a macrososm and that it is predestined.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by elwestrand
Predesination and free will are both illusions, yet they are the same and both real. My zen master friend says:
the person with the most choise has the least reality,
The person with the most reality has the least choice

The macrocosm is "predestined," absoulte "free will" exists in the micrososm and it is because of the microcosm that there is a macrososm and that it is predestined.

Perhaps you might expound a bit, for those of us (myself included) who know nothing of Zen philosophy.

 

[elwestrand]

There's nothing I can explain about Zen philosophy, and if I were to guess, probably every member of these forums would hate it because it is not intellectualy stimulating. There is no philosophy, only spirituality. My Zen friend does not like religion, nor do I. I had a book of peotry and writings by a 13th century Chinese Hermit, but I gave it away. All I can remember is something from one of his poems in which he is with a party and they are watching a flag being blown by the wind. He states that the flag is not moving, only your mind is moving.