| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| IceCream |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 02:56:16
A really broad, general, philosophical/sociological question for you all:
Does the end justify the means? |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 16:59:36
But was that IceCream's end in starting this thread?
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| Thomas |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 06:04:37
The end never justifies the means unless you start a topic about it and the Forum makes Googles top ten search on the subject.
"Our Love is Rice and Beans and Horses Lard" |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 04/07/2005 : 04:33:10
What a load of ass!
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
| VoVat |
Posted - 04/06/2005 : 18:29:23
Sure, they did! They just did it in their own languages. For instance, "the ends justifies the means" in Donkey is "hee-haw hee bray hee-haw."
"Reunion? Shit union!" |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 04/04/2005 : 08:39:46
Darwin, animals did not string together the words "the end justifies the means."
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| darwin |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 13:21:40
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Let's suppose we are talking about human philosophy, not the philosophy of a may-or-may-not-be higher entity, and not the philosophy of animals. They simply do not exist to us...they make no sense to us, and they shouldn't. If we attempt to dissect a higher intelligence in an animal, we are heaping our own vanities upon them, and then feeling like we have cracked a code! Rediculous!
So let's stick to plain old folk.
I don't want to stick to humans. My whole point is that animals have behavioral rules just like humans. And, cracking the code of why animals do what they do is what I do for a living. I don't know why it should make no sense to us.
quote:
1) What I mean, as I've stated previously, is simple and precise. Forget the furrowed brow and put aside the thinking cap. Look around. Everyone operates on morality. Right and wrong. Some adopt an eye for an eye. Some murder for pleasure. Some aid the sick for money. Some go to church. Some don't work. Some overeat and enjoy it. ..... These are all choices made, and all have consequences good or bad to themselves. These are codes of conduct of people, shared by many and not shared by many, but universal within our species. These are moralities, because simply we have the ability to cast a negative response when we do not agree. Morality exists.
I'm confused. They're shared by many but not shared by many, but universal. Here's my point:
We all know that we're not suppose to kill other people, particularly if they're in our group. We also know we really shouldn't sleep with our sister or our mother. And, we know if we break these rules we are going to be punished by our society.
My point:
These same rules exist in many, many animal societies. It's doesn't take God or higher cognitive abilities for an animal society to develop rules of conduct. Now are you going to say non-human animals have morality? If not, then what about us gives us morality? Or, they just rules with no higher spiritual or philosophical purpose or needed interpretation?
quote:
2) We have endless free-will. I am understanding where you are coming from on this point, however.
My point is that we aren't actively making choices. Biology is largely dictating our behavior. Read Pinker and Dennett if interested.
quote:
4) I guess I am very confused by your application of animals to this discussion. I would like to understand how you feel it so necessary to bring these furry delights (or scaley, or prickly) into the quest for human morality or justification of means to ends.
I think I've been pretty clear about why I brought into the conversation.
quote:
What I think you're grappling with may be the fact that you don't like people telling you how to act, what to feel, when to eat, who to sleep with, etc.
Not at all. That's not my point or complaint.
quote:
Don't close your eyes to morality. That would be immoral to yourself. It exists, and it's a wonderful educator of mind and spirit and body. You don't have to agree with morality (because it is universal, you see?)
That's exactly what I disagree with. "It exists." What is It? How can it be universal? What does that even mean? I wrote this earlier, "I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. " |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 13:19:24
quote:
Originally posted by Carolynanna
Professor Hyde White?!
__________
This is the war and not the warning.
"Zoinks! That witch doctor sure has flipped his wig!"
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:42:59
Professor Hyde White?!
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:29:08
quote:
Originally posted by Cult_Of_Frank
I just want to say that there is no such word as 'diculous'. Therefore, you cannot do it more than once and so the prefix 're' is equally out of place.
The word is ridiculous (from ridicule, i.e. to make fun of). It isn't even supposed to be pronounced with a hard 'e' except for comic effect. This is all irrelevant and I'm a jackass for ridiculing "rediculous" (or a lover of irony, whichever) but it's a pet peeve of mine for some reason. Sorry. Now carry on your much more interesting debate.
 "Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank."
"...and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling kids!"
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:20:04
I just want to say that there is no such word as 'diculous'. Therefore, you cannot do it more than once and so the prefix 're' is equally out of place.
The word is ridiculous (from ridicule, i.e. to make fun of). It isn't even supposed to be pronounced with a hard 'e' except for comic effect. This is all irrelevant and I'm a jackass for ridiculing "rediculous" (or a lover of irony, whichever) but it's a pet peeve of mine for some reason. Sorry. Now carry on your much more interesting debate.
"Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank." |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 09:06:38
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. Perhaps we agree.
quote:
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it?
My point is that we don't have much of it. We think were making decisions based on our rational thought, but much of what we do is just reactions based cognitive rules that have evolved over our evolutionary history. Our brains are wired in ways that lead to certain decisions. People like Dennett and Pinker have written about this if you're interested.
quote:
And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
But they do have languages. And those languages even differ regionally. How do you think animals communicate with each other?
quote:
You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
And my point is that those rules exist in other animal societies, so obviously they don't require religion. Cognition and belief is harder to say. Something either cognitive or innate has to prescribe the costs and benefits of animals using different sets of behaviors.
I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well.
Let's suppose we are talking about human philosophy, not the philosophy of a may-or-may-not-be higher entity, and not the philosophy of animals. They simply do not exist to us...they make no sense to us, and they shouldn't. If we attempt to dissect a higher intelligence in an animal, we are heaping our own vanities upon them, and then feeling like we have cracked a code! Rediculous!
So let's stick to plain old folk.
1) What I mean, as I've stated previously, is simple and precise. Forget the furrowed brow and put aside the thinking cap. Look around. Everyone operates on morality. Right and wrong. Some adopt an eye for an eye. Some murder for pleasure. Some aid the sick for money. Some go to church. Some don't work. Some overeat and enjoy it. Some stay thin and enjoy it. Some help children. Some harm children. Some stay married. Some are never merry. Some play sports. Some hunt. Some fish. Many never eat what they hunt. Some eat only vegetables. Some like Frank Black. Some people burned the Beatles. The list is endless, because all you have to do is look around. These are all choices made, and all have consequences good or bad to themselves. These are codes of conduct of people, shared by many and not shared by many, but universal within our species. These are moralities, because simply we have the ability to cast a negative response when we do not agree. Morality exists.
2) We have endless free-will. I am understanding where you are coming from on this point, however. BUT, if we are only utilizing a certain percent of our brain power, which is what I think you are driving at, then wouldn't free-will explode a million fold if suddenly we had another 90% of thought to work with? Yes we are only to a certain point in evolution. There's nothing we can do about that...EXCEPT utilize free-will. I really have never like the term of only using '10% of our brain' because I believe if we suddenly had access to 50% more, maybe only 15% more, we'd find mathematics useless and void. There would be no more percentages because a new level of concsious thought or even existance would apply itself. We live in a universe of spheres and circles. All mathematics point to this shape. Everything is round. Our thoughts are round because we have limitless tangents to spider off onto. And yet our lives will always remain on one straight line. Even if we choose choice A over B, we will always continue down one straight line to our death. A straight line through a universe of spheres. And it will remain that way until we evolve a little more. We will just have to wait. But that's a whole other thing.
3) Yes animals do communicate with each other AND us. However their interaction with us is in a limited form. What I was trying to focus on was the obvious fact that they cannot speak with tongue to us in english or spanish or any other form of human spoken language. Remember I'm keeping this human. Not in speculation of animal philosophy. It doesn't apply...in my opinion.
4) I guess I am very confused by your application of animals to this discussion. I would like to understand how you feel it so necessary to bring these furry delights (or scaley, or prickly) into the quest for human morality or justification of means to ends.
To boil this all down simply, I am trying to say I agree that moralities differ from one individual to the next...call them codes or ethics if you like. What I think you're grappling with may be the fact that you don't like people telling you how to act, what to feel, when to eat, who to sleep with, etc. None of us like these. But these are responses from people based on their morals. They can express this freely-of-will. Don't close your eyes to morality. That would be immoral to yourself. It exists, and it's a wonderful educator of mind and spirit and body. You don't have to agree with morality (because it is universal, you see?) but you must agree with yourself...that's the first, best moral obligation.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 04/01/2005 : 05:03:28
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I guess since I don't believe in God I also don't believe in a universal morality. By that I mean I don't believe is a true morality, but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years.
That's fair enough.
Kitty, I can't help you if you can't understand what I put.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
| darwin |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 20:35:35
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'.
I'm not sure what that means. Do you think there is morality beyond what humans have created and believe? If you want to call rules of society morality, then I agree there is mortality. If you think morality is universal and is some kind of truth that lies beyond the invention of man, then I disagree. Perhaps we agree.
quote:
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it?
My point is that we don't have much of it. We think were making decisions based on our rational thought, but much of what we do is just reactions based cognitive rules that have evolved over our evolutionary history. Our brains are wired in ways that lead to certain decisions. People like Dennett and Pinker have written about this if you're interested.
quote:
And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
But they do have languages. And those languages even differ regionally. How do you think animals communicate with each other?
quote:
You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
And my point is that those rules exist in other animal societies, so obviously they don't require religion. Cognition and belief is harder to say. Something either cognitive or innate has to prescribe the costs and benefits of animals using different sets of behaviors.
I'm enjoying this conversation. I hope you are as well.
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:48:16
don't mind me too much btw. i struggled to write that post. i can't say i'm sure what i believe.
lolzabad |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:46:29
me too, actually. I'm going to stop posting now.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:44:45
.... i'm scared because i'm not sure what to make of that.
lolzabad |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:43:21
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
to me, religion is based on morals, not the other way around. religion put certain morals in writing and has tried to teach them as definitive and the word of god, but i think it is innate in humans (and as a non-believer in God, i don't think this is a result of god)
lolzabad
You are absolutely right. A social code of conduct. Religion has made a Wal-Mart of it. God has nothing to do with an end justifying a means. If He did, he'd have a lot of explaining to do!
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:35:11
to me, religion is based on morals, not the other way around. religion put certain morals in writing and has tried to teach them as definitive and the word of god, but i think it is innate in humans (and as a non-believer in God, i don't think this is a result of god)
lolzabad |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 16:15:42
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality.
That's my point. I don't think there is such thing as morality. I think there are rules that make societies work and evidence of that is other animal societies have these rules. So, the rules don't require religion, cognition, or belief in universal truths. If they did, other animals wouldn't have them.
quote:
The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends.
True of all phrases and I'm not just talking about birds (sorry a bit flippant there).
quote:
Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
I think you are overestimating our free-will and underestimating the cognitive abilities of other animals. My opinion is we're not that different than other animals; we've just made up more jargon.
[soapbox]Have I ever mentioned that I wish the phrase "survival of fittest" was never uttered again? It's terrible simplification and misrepresentation of how evolution works.[/soapbox]
Okay okay okay.
Without becoming argumentative (as is NEVER the case in debate!), I have to disagree on one point. There IS definately an existance of 'morality'. Acceptance of that fact does not in any way mean one has to subscribe to it. However, if one believes truly that NO belief in morality is how they operate, then it is like labeling oneself as 'non-conformist'. It simply negates itself.
I too, actually will disagree with my apparant overestimation of free-will. Free-will is free. It is bottomless. How can that be over-estimated unless a tax is slapped upon it? And as for animals (and I love animals more than people!), I could provide you with a pretty lengthy list of how we two lifeforms differ. Oh. But your speaking of cognitive abilities. You see. That's just it. Animals can't speak.
I would also like to state that we DO agree on one point...that morality is a code of conduct. However I would like to clear up what I feel you are not understanding what I originally said. You brought up God originally, stating a disbelief in that Entity, but agreeing in a conduct of morality settled upon by society(ies). I pointed out that religions have, since the history of mankind, PUSHED the idea of 'morality' onto the people...most of the time with dire consequences resulting from aberration from the norm...hence my labeling that as a governmental form. These are the rules you speak of...and they do require religion, cognition and belief in universal truths, because those are the things we think about! And if there are rules, there is morality!
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:42:37
probably, but no one cares because we don't all name ourselves darwin on message boards. 
lolzabad |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:37:40
quote:
Originally posted by TRANSMARINE
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality.
That's my point. I don't think there is such thing as morality. I think there are rules that make societies work and evidence of that is other animal societies have these rules. So, the rules don't require religion, cognition, or belief in universal truths. If they did, other animals wouldn't have them.
quote:
The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends.
True of all phrases and I'm not just talking about birds (sorry a bit flippant there).
quote:
Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
I think you are overestimating our free-will and underestimating the cognitive abilities of other animals. My opinion is we're not that different than other animals; we've just made up more jargon.
[soapbox]Have I ever mentioned that I wish the phrase "survival of fittest" was never uttered again? It's terrible simplification and misrepresentation of how evolution works.[/soapbox] |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 15:00:31
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this).
But we're speaking about morality. The phrase 'the end justifies the means' is indigenous to homosapiens, not our fine feathered friends. Being content in an outcome, even if alone in that fact, is not survival of the fittest or a programmed lending of help. It's Human, and it is unique, and it is vulnerable while also being calculated.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| NimrodsSon |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:48:48
Get and read these two books by Aldous Huxley:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083712252X/qid=1112309032/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2672573-9044638?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0892440457/qid=1112309212/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2672573-9044638?v=glance&s=books
ˇViva los Católicos! http://adrianfoster.dmusic.com/ |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:46:11
Actually, I think many of the rules predate religion. They predate being Homo sapiens.
I don't think humans are unique for rules for their societies. Other animals have rules of conduct, such as sharing resources when you have an excess but being repaid when you need help (vampire bats are a good example of this). Or cheater or individuals that try to represent themselves as something they're not get punished (attacked) (red-winged blackbirds I believe are a good example of this). |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:37:06
I guess since I don't believe in God ... but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years.
[/quote]
...which, unfortunately, were mostly created by religious governmental forces over the thousands of years.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| darwin |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:32:35
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I guess since I don't believe in God I also don't believe in a universal morality. By that I mean I don't believe is a true morality, but rather there are rules of morality (or conduct) that our socities have settled on over thousands of years. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:28:47
quote:
Originally posted by Homers_pet_monkey
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
I'm sorry, what?
 cats have nine lives/ which makes them ideal for experimentation |
| TRANSMARINE |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:07:35
Since an end is absolute, and everything comes to an end, and if you strip all temerity and soul away from this mathematical equation, then how can the means not be justified? But just as an ending is absolution, there breeds outcome. And outcome can be infinite. So justification of means will always be moral to some, and immoral to the remaining. Without Humanity, we would have no measure of endings, means, or justifications...and with Humanity we have no forseeable end to justification and means to reach a conclusion.
Catchin' blue in his eyes that were brown
-bRIAN |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:07:33
Yeah but does that justify it? It may justify it to you , but not to everyone else.
I guess it comes down the definition of justify, which is slightly hazy in itself.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
| darwin |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 14:01:40
My brain doesn't work well on these conversations (philosophy - head spinning), but I think I agree with erebus. You can't possibly know all of the consequences of a behavior, but maybe you can know the likely consequences and base your behavior on those.
<insert Spock quote> |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:45:05
The first rule of Robot Club: No smoking
 I'm like a lost snail in the night. |
| Cult_Of_Frank |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:43:07
My personal philosophy which probably doesn't apply at all:
The only golden rule is that there is no golden rule.
"Oh dear / I seem to have joined the Cult of Frank." |
| Homers_pet_monkey |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 13:09:42
quote:
Originally posted by Monsieur
Erebus,
Let’s take an example. Suppose that by torturing one person you can save 100 lives. But then, a couple of years later one of those guys you saved (a very nice guy) has a son who becomes a serial killer and kills 200 persons (I think there is a story like this somewhere in the Bible).
I will show you fear in a handful of dust
I also agree with Monsieur. I watched a film based around this theory a few weeks back, and I can't for the life of me remember what it was called. I expect you are right about it also being in the bible.
Hansel and Gretel have formed a band, .....And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Breadcrumbs!!!
|
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:28:05
Hmmmmm, yeah I got nuthin. 
__________
This is the war and not the warning. |
| starmekitten |
Posted - 03/31/2005 : 12:23:33
actually, they've managed to trick cells into making stem cells sans fetus so it's sort of a bad example, but if all stem cell research had been banned like some people wanted that development would never have happened.
(retrieved! almost!)
cats have nine lives/ which makes them ideal for experimentation |
|
|
