#151
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-08-21, Dan Volker penned:
That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. For it to be moral, it has to be done out of realization that something is right, and that you have a duty to do it, even if you can't stand it.... The example : you have a scrawny child named JD who is wandering aimlessly outside in a snowstorm, clearly homeless and certainly bound to freeze to death. If you take him in to your home because it makes you feel good to help kids, or because you feel you will go to hell if you don't, you're act of kindness or Christian fellowship is not moral, just nice for JD. Alternatively, if you saw the poor wretch of a JD, freezing in the cold, and thought to yourself, "wow, that dirty little beggar really is disgusting--I bet he stinks to high heaven" --- but then continue to think " ...but no matter how much I don't like him, I realize he has a right to life, and I have a societal DUTY to prevent his death, by taking him into my home tonight"---this scenario would be morally motivated ( by Kantian standards). Of course, it would set up a future in which the world has to suffer the asinine behavior of JD, but Kantian moral distinctions don't allow this to be taken into consideration;-) I also don't care for religion as the basis of morality. Of course, philosophy has its own troubles. I liked reading Kant, too. Of course, if you take it to its logical extreme, if you derive any satisfaction from the fact that you've just done something moral, then you have to question your motives again. The only way to know you've been moral in Kant's world is to hate everything you do, but do it anyway out of a sense of duty. I'm not quite so stringent in my requirements. Also, your argument is internally inconsistent. Where did duty come from? This concept of right to life? That sounds an awful lot like one of those religious rules you so dislike, or maybe it's a societal rule -- just as arbitrary. You're just moving the argument one step back; you're not eliminating the question. I personally much preferred Kant's universality principle, in which you determine morality by imagining what the world would be like if everyone acted as you did. Now, to an example that actually applies to our situation. If everyone defended themselves against JD every time he got a burr under his saddle, no one would ever get around to actually talking about mountain biking. So, for the greater good and my personal comfort, I decided that it's better to ignore him so that I can actually talk about mountain biking, which is why I came here in the first place. I can't control JD's action's (and neither can you), but I can control my own. -- monique "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." -- Mark Twain |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-08-21, ireman_1 penned:
It's been a while since I've been forced to read Immanuel Kant, but I certainly remember one of his basic tenants was that people should *never* be treated as a means, but *always* be treated as an ends (much as your example above-the child received what was needed to get through the night because it was right, not because it would cause the person to feel proper). My issue with your use of Kant's (always loved that name associated with his thoughts) philosophy in this interaction you have created with Jerome Daniels is that, according to Kant, a person's "will" is what is to be respected *and* that people have their own "moral will." Enforcing your moral will is a means to an end and thus anti-Kant. Thanks for the reminder -- I'd forgotten about Kant's "people as ends in themselves" thing, which is kind of sad since it's fundamental to everything he talks about. I'd better find those philosophy books and take a crash refresher course ... You have to love philosophy. Regardless of what book someone's nose is in you can find someone else's nose in a book (equally as researched, well thought out and "supported") that is 180 degrees away. Philosophy, religion, politics and sports. Everyone is "right" and none of us have a clue. I'm currently reading an interesting book on pragmatism and the issues with it. It's not as entertaining as the last Kinky Friedman, but... Sometimes you can find the 180 degree position in the same book! Especially as philosophers often explore multiple opposing views before settling down to a point of view they like (which is often no better supported than the others they've explored). -- monique "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." -- Mark Twain |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message ... On 2004-08-21, Dan Volker penned: That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. For it to be moral, it has to be done out of realization that something is right, and that you have a duty to do it, even if you can't stand it.... The example : you have a scrawny child named JD who is wandering aimlessly outside in a snowstorm, clearly homeless and certainly bound to freeze to death. If you take him in to your home because it makes you feel good to help kids, or because you feel you will go to hell if you don't, you're act of kindness or Christian fellowship is not moral, just nice for JD. Alternatively, if you saw the poor wretch of a JD, freezing in the cold, and thought to yourself, "wow, that dirty little beggar really is disgusting--I bet he stinks to high heaven" --- but then continue to think " ...but no matter how much I don't like him, I realize he has a right to life, and I have a societal DUTY to prevent his death, by taking him into my home tonight"---this scenario would be morally motivated ( by Kantian standards). Of course, it would set up a future in which the world has to suffer the asinine behavior of JD, but Kantian moral distinctions don't allow this to be taken into consideration;-) I also don't care for religion as the basis of morality. Of course, philosophy has its own troubles. I liked reading Kant, too. Of course, if you take it to its logical extreme, if you derive any satisfaction from the fact that you've just done something moral, then you have to question your motives again. The only way to know you've been moral in Kant's world is to hate everything you do, but do it anyway out of a sense of duty. I'm not quite so stringent in my requirements. Also, your argument is internally inconsistent. Where did duty come from? This concept of right to life? That sounds an awful lot like one of those religious rules you so dislike, or maybe it's a societal rule -- just as arbitrary. You're just moving the argument one step back; you're not eliminating the question. I personally much preferred Kant's universality principle, in which you determine morality by imagining what the world would be like if everyone acted as you did. Now, to an example that actually applies to our situation. If everyone defended themselves against JD every time he got a burr under his saddle, no one would ever get around to actually talking about mountain biking. So, for the greater good and my personal comfort, I decided that it's better to ignore him so that I can actually talk about mountain biking, which is why I came here in the first place. I can't control JD's action's (and neither can you), but I can control my own. -- monique Good Response ! Dan V |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"pas" wrote in message ... Dan Volker wrote: In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral", that it has little meaning in the scheme of things. Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor? penny That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and terribly disrespectful of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that attitude incredibly offensive. The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell? Wow. That is a heck of a way to live your life. pas I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as possible. Dan V |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"ireman_1" wrote in message news:ireman_1.1bcfmy@no- It's been a while since I've been forced to read Immanuel Kant, but I certainly remember one of his basic tenants was that people should *never* be treated as a means, but *always* be treated as an ends (much as your example above-the child received what was needed to get through the night because it was right, not because it would cause the person to feel proper). My issue with your use of Kant's (always loved that name associated with his thoughts) philosophy in this interaction you have created with Jerome Daniels is that, according to Kant, a person's "will" is what is to be respected *and* that people have their own "moral will." Enforcing your moral will is a means to an end and thus anti-Kant. Dan Volker's will, Jerome Daniel's will; which is correct? Both if you follow logic as some thinkers lay it out. How does one reconcile this? Well, we can test that "might makes right" thing and "see" who is right. That gets old though. We can allow for disparate thoughts and understand that the world will continue to spin despite others stupidity (as we *individuals see it). We can....blah, blah, blah JD is a dick often times. You are not going to change his presentation in this NG or his thoughts of himself. If you follow Kant you should allow for him being an ass hole and understand that what is his will come and that it is not your place to hasten it/decide what "it" is. You have to love philosophy. Regardless of what book someone's nose is in you can find someone else's nose in a book (equally as researched, well thought out and "supported") that is 180 degrees away. Philosophy, religion, politics and sports. Everyone is "right" and none of us have a clue. I'm currently reading an interesting book on pragmatism and the issues with it. It's not as entertaining as the last Kinky Friedman, but... Take care, please. K. -- ireman_1 I found Kant more interesting than most of the other philosophers, and when someone trots out a religious example as being moral, I usually kant help myself ... I have to pull out Kant's much stronger argument for right and wrong. Good point about the dueling wills. I'll just add that my posting was for the social good of the group ( trying to help someone who came to AMB looking for advice on a mountain bike I'm familiar with) , whereas JD was posting with an anti-social intent. Regards, Dan V |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker =
wrote: "pas" wrote in message ... Dan Volker wrote: In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentag= e of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral= ", that it has little meaning in the scheme of things. Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor? penny That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely = on some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, = and terribly disrespectful of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find th= at attitude incredibly offensive. The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hel= l? Wow. That is a heck of a way to live your life. pas I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did n= ot read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors= of their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as possible. Dan V Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting = your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network= , = or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters = to = ask about the best DH bike they have available. -- = Slacker |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"Slacker" wrote in message newspsc3r6yn6m83lxu@slacker... On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker wrote: "pas" wrote in message ... Dan Volker wrote: In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral", that it has little meaning in the scheme of things. Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor? penny That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and terribly disrespectful of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that attitude incredibly offensive. The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell? Wow. That is a heck of a way to live your life. pas I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as possible. Dan V Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network, or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters to ask about the best DH bike they have available. -- Slacker So how long have you been with Huffy? Dan V |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"Slacker" wrote in message newspsc3r6yn6m83lxu@slacker... On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 16:55:39 -0400, Dan Volker wrote: "pas" wrote in message ... Dan Volker wrote: In terms of a moral sense, it does not, but such a tiny percentage of the world really works on doing what is "really right or moral", that it has little meaning in the scheme of things. Isn't it moral to "love thy neighbor? penny That would be following a religious rule--hardly moral behavior, since its done out of fear of hellfire and eternal damnation. good freaking g-d Dan, you think all moral behavior is based solely on some version of Hell? The fear of burning? That is so narrow minded, and terribly disrespectful of all the other cultures' and religion's moral teachings! I find that attitude incredibly offensive. The only reason to be nice to people is so that you won't burn in Hell? Wow. That is a heck of a way to live your life. pas I think you must have been in a hurry or something--clearly you did not read my post .... I don't like the way religions enforce the behaviors of their followers. I was making the hell motivation look as stupid as possible. Dan V Actually, you only made yourself look as ignorant as possible. Getting your "religious" info from knuckleheads on The Trinity Broadcast Network, or people associated with them, is like going to the Huffy headquarters to ask about the best DH bike they have available. -- Slacker Hey man, don't be dissing Huffy!! My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy. Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike! |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
El 19 Aug 2004 00:19:56 GMT, Stephen Baker va
escriu engamarus says: In Collserola there are plenty of tracks that you can pass with a rigid bike or hardtail, but you don't enjoy them, because you were braking all the time and with a severe risk of falling due to plenty free rocks. Not about technics. A-hah! We obviously have a different concept of "fun". That sounds great to me. Life is all about the differences. ;-) (Vive la difference!) Ummmmm! Notice that my mother language is Catalan, not English, and it's not the same. My English is limited . Reading again what I wrote, I would agree that is funny. By about 5-10-15 minutes. But when you are braking all-the-time, non-stop during 30-40-50 minutes, first with two fingers, later with one in order to change between fingers because they are tired, moving all the time the bike, hiting all the time the chain against the frame... and you look someone advancing you easily with a FS and sit down, enjoying, then you think: "Ey, Houston, we have a problem". -- Gamarús |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
TBF says:
My first bike was a orange/brown ride with a banana seat made by Huffy. Picked up nuff' chicks on that bike! But did they stay with ya, or go running towards the first 10-speed rider they saw?.... ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2004 - Trek 1400? Trek 1200? comments? | yuri budilov | Techniques | 1 | April 4th 04 10:53 PM |
Klein vs. Trek (crossposted) | Lester Long | Techniques | 9 | September 29th 03 06:47 PM |
FA: TREK Aluminum Investment Cast Lugs & Tubing | The Ink Company | Marketplace | 0 | September 8th 03 01:08 AM |