2ndRateMind

I can really relate to this. Best wishes, 2RM.

Sure, both. Broadly speaking, there is neo-liberal capitalism, reliant on a somewhat unreliable sense of charity among the rich to succour the poor. Or the pragmatic left, which involves some compulsory element of the redistribution of wealth from the rich to meet the fundamental needs of the absolutely poor. Personally, I prefer a combination of the two; the capitalism to create the wealth, and the enlightened tax system to distribute part of it to eliminate 'want', that being a state of absolute, vital need for the individual, without the resources to meet that need. Best wishes, 2RM.

Fair enough. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Best wishes, 2RM.

I am aware of a little language difficulty that may arise, or may have already arisen. What you call socialism, we in Europe are prone to call communism, and there are very many Europeans, unlike most North Americans, who have experienced that totalitarian regime personally, and know full well its horrors. What we call socialism is much softer, and more pragmatic, and altogether more cuddly a centrist concept than communism. Those of us who lean to the left often do so not out of some jealousy of the worldly success of others, but simply out of love and pity and sympathy, because we don't want our people, or indeed, any people, to be homeless and destitute, hungry to the point of starvation, or ridden with cheaply preventable disease. And the thing is, there is enough wealth the world right now to make that ambition a reality. And because we can, I am inclined to think that so we ought. Best wishes, 2RM.

Just so. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ummm. I'm not the one whose Church (according to one of your missionaries I met once) insists on a tripartite heaven, LDS believers being assured the best place. Regard my post as my gentle, indirect enquiry towards understanding why this might be. Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, He does say that:* So, if you read the context, you might well agree with me that Jesus was chiding His disciples, in their time and place, not prophesying some adamantine necessity for all times, and all places. And in our time, and our place, perhaps for the first time in human history, we have the means to eradicate absolute poverty for now and ever, if we only summon the political will to do so. And I suspect, if we did, Jesus would approve. Best wishes, 2RM *Matthew 26: 6-13 KJV

So, to take your points one by one, as the quality of your reply duly deserves: 1: I am assuming that the 'afterlife' will be the presence of God, absolute and infinite goodness, which will be both the vindication of virtue, and the punishment of vice. I am assuming, above all, that it will not be a material state, but a spiritual one, just as God is not material, but pure spirit. 2: I am quite happy to suppose that, per million head of population, there are just as many virtuous North Americans, Europeans, etc, as virtuous Africans, Chinese, Indians, Latin Americans, etc. In fact, I regard this as an empirical hypothesis to be disproven, if one can arrive at a reasonably objective method of measuring virtue. If it is disproven, my argument would need modification to retain any credibility. But I'm content to leave that work to you and any others who might find the topic of interest. 3: I prefer the term 'self-reliance' to 'self-sufficiency'. It does not imply the same lonely and solely self-regarding state of mind. And yes, I would regard self-reliance as a virtue, also, provided we note that it depends on one's circumstances being such that it is a realistic prospect. 4: I never said it was. 5: There are plenty of people, even in the US, let alone world-wide, who are absolutely poor and eke out meagre, stunted lives on ridiculously small annual incomes. 1.3 billion of them on earth, as I recall the figure, on less than $2 per day. I remember, a couple of years ago, when the snow in New York was particularly bad and the temperatures well below zero centigrade, seeing on the news a brief item about a (black) homeless man whose protection from the weather was a plastic sheet and the warm air expelled by a vent to the subway system. This, in the richest nation on Earth. Best wishes, 2RM.

@Vort my dear fellow, I thought I had let enough time elapse for our previous differences to lie fallow for good. And I have tried to be more respectful. So, I'm willing to let byegones be byegones, if you are. Best wishes, 2RM.

On the contrary, I am presuming righteousness has little or nothing to do with wealth. But power does have to do with wealth, and given the current state of the world, so does also the lack of distribution of that wealth amongst people of colour, womenfolk, the disabled, and so forth. The notion I would like to discuss, for the sheer enjoyment of debate and my own enlightenment, is this: So far as the social structure of heaven goes, that it has to do with character, or what some call 'spiritual stature'. The 'riches' of heaven may very well be the traits of character we value, (or pretend to), in others: honesty, courage, justice, temperance, integrity, generosity, humility, prudence, empathy, fortitude etc. They all being bound together by love, such that others would value them in us quite as much as we value them in others. Clearly, we all might possess such traits, and those that do are evenly (one might say; fairly) distributed around the world. In fact it might well be the case, so far as wealth goes, that the possession of such virtues in any large extent militates against their possessors ever becoming rich and powerful in worldly terms. Nevertheless, if they are virtues, and if any or all of us may possess such traits to greater or lesser degrees, it might also be that on them is the social structure of paradise founded. As for righteousness specifically, I notice the human capacity for self-delusion, such that even the worst of us is inclined to think himself righteous, really. And excuse in ourselves thought, word and deed we would never excuse in others. So, I'm inclined to more than a little suspicion of those who proclaim their own righteousness. But, as I said earlier, this is not meant to be read as asserted dogma, merely grounds for discussion. Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm inclined to note that Christians have persistently prophesied the second coming and the end of the world, throughout the history of the church, and have equally persistently been proven wrong. So, with that precedence, I tend to regard all such premonitions, omens, harbingers, portents and signs as suspect. I place more credence, then, in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 KJV: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. (ie., unexpectedly). And commend the injunction to 'live each day as if it were thy last'. Best wishes, 2RM.

Like this post There is, it seems to me, amongst both Christians and non-Christians alike, an extant idea that one can have it all in this life, and the next also. But Jesus said:* Quote: But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first. So, in the event that there actually is a next life, I wonder what your take on this verse might be? Will those closest to God be the rich, powerful, predominantly white, predominantly male, predominantly (allegedly) christian hegemony of this world? Or, can we expect that the poor, and the people of colour, and the women, and those of no or any religion, will eventually receive the justice they are denied here? And that they who suffer, will be compensated, and that they who do not, and carelessly ignore the plight of the very many who do, because they are not 'people like us', will not be among 'the first', hereafter? Best wishes, 2RM *Matthew 19:30 KJV

This is all great stuff. I actually feel this conversation is now getting somewhere constructive. I have proposed a provisional definition of 'ethical' (wanting the best interests of all concerned, and knowing what those best interests are). and I intend to elaborate in due course. But you are quite right to point out that ethics is not just about being and knowing, but also (especially) about doing. I think we have enough meat in the matter now to keep us all occupied for the next few days. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. I think we can distinguish between an individual who accidentally brings about a bad outcome, and a person who deliberately brings about a bad outcome. But either way, the outcome is not an irrelevance. You said; ethics is about choices. In what sense has a man scratching his nose casually made an ethical choice? I'll let you answer this, and then propose to return to the other substantial points you raised in your original objections to 2, on why humans cannot claim, etc. Best wishes, 2RM

I don't think so. Do you? I think he would be excused by his ignorance, his lack of intention, his incapacity to foresee, and so on. But you are anticipating me on utilitarianism, which I shall get to over the next few days, God willing. Best wishes, 2RM.

Patience friend. I'll get there, sooner or later... Indeed it is. In my opinion it is the choice to bring about the best interests of all concerned. Or, at least, the optimal solution, given that some best interests are liable to interfere with other best interests. But to make this choice accurately, you need 1) the desire to bring it about; the universal love motivation, and 2) the capacity to calculate the best, or at least optimal, solution, based on certain knowledge. Thus, omnibenevolence and omniscience are both necessary to maximal ethicality. Best wishes, 2RM.

Good post. I shall respond piece-meal, as I have the opportunity. (I'm quite busy, today!') On 2.2. My argument is that because humans are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, we are not maximally ethical. This is a deductive argument. If omniscience and omnibenevolence are individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for maximal ethicality, and humans are neither, then the argument is valid and sound, and therefore it's conclusion true. I would support it by claiming that there never has been, is not now, and will not ever be, a human that is both omniscient and omnibenevolent. (Jesus excepted, but He was divine). This is an inductive argument. It cannot be proven, only disproven. Each observation of a non-omniscient, non-omnibenevolent human supports the contention, and lends it strength, but only one observation of an omniscient, omnibenevolent human is sufficient to disprove it, as you point out. However, I am pretty confident that this one observation will never occur. Best wishes, 2RM.

2 On why humans cannot claim to know the difference between good and evil innately and completely. 2.1 The nature of God. God is commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. That is, He knows everything that can be known, and loves His creation and everything and everybody in it. With these two attributes, it can be deduced that He is also maximally ethical; since He loves us, He wants our best interests realised, and since He knows everything, He knows what those best interests are. 2.2 The nature of humanity. Humanity is not commonly thought by Christians to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. If we are not omniscient and omnibenevolent, it follows that we cannot be maximally ethical. There is plenty of evidence for all this, ranging from honest, individual, introspection, to the litany of wars, massacres, genocides, exploitation and subjugation that has occurred down history, and still occurs today. We often do not care all that much about other people’s best interests, only our own and those close to us, and often enough we get our own best interests wrong, let alone other people’s. 2.3 Nature and nurture. Human knowledge of the ethical seems to derive from two sources, nature, and nurture. The ‘nature’ aspect can be said to be innate, since we are born with our unique DNA coding. Evolutionary Psychologists think that our species DNA evolved some 4 million years ago, and as DNA does, since then it continued to evolve to befit us to inhabit the environment in which we found ourselves, African plains, and tribal societies. That part of our ethics that can be assumed to be innate, therefore, is those behavioural predispositions that would have suited survival under those circumstances, such as tribal loyalty, a tendency towards sexual partnerships, and sharing equitably work and reward amongst the social group. The ‘nurture’ aspect cannot be said to be innate. Social constructions such as marriage, tribal hierarchies, military honours, the division of labour, and social norms and laws were ‘invented’ and then taught down the ages, the elders passing the wisdom on down to the children through stories, song, dances, and direct instruction. Over time, these social constructions have developed into the complex network of beliefs and theories and practices and structures and institutions, etc, that we know today. As we learn them, we ‘internalise’ them, so that they seem to us obvious and ‘second nature’, and we cannot conceive how they might be different, and so they might seem to be innate. 2.4 The measurement of the ethical. Since all our DNA is different, and since all our nurturing is different, it follows that our various ethical quality is liable to be different, also. That is to say, if there is a qualitative dimension to ethics, we all occupy different points on it, ranging from mostly unethical to mostly ethical. The point to make here is that those who are mostly unethical often do not understand those who are mostly ethical, because they cannot appreciate the way of being, since they have no experience of it. Thus we cannot measure those who are more ethical than us. We are not ‘adequate’ to the task. Most of us who are reasonably ethical however, do understand those below us on the hierarchy, since we are still subject to the same temptations. It’s just that we have learned not to give in to them. Our measurement of the ethical, therefore, is ourselves, to the extent of our ‘moral fibre’ or ‘spiritual stature’. 2.5 Divine revelation. Into this mix we need now inject God’s communications with humanity on ethics. For Christians this is Jesus, generally thought to be the perfect example for us to try to emulate, the Prophets, the Church, and whatever direct ethical revelations we might ourselves receive. So far as the latter three are concerned, we are only able to understand their ethical import to the extent of our own ethical stature, as argued in 2.4 above 2.6 To summarise the argument: God is ethically perfect. Humanity is not. Most of human ethical knowledge comes from nature and nurture, and the interplay between them. But nature and nurture do not suffice to make us ethically perfect. We only understand the ethical to the extent that we ourselves are ethical. But God helps us out as best He can, given our inadequate ethical development. Best wishes, 2RM

I haven't read 'The Great Divorce'. It seems I must get hold of a copy, sometime. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. You all asked me to state my ethical position, and then clarify it, but now you don't seem to like it very much when I start to do so. Best wishes, 2RM.

As an aside, On Quality. I have been asked to define what I mean by ‘better’. I still think this a fairly transparent attribute. Most of us know what it means, in most situations. But it does depend on context. A better gun is not the same as a better table. Better guns do not make better tables, and better tables do not make better guns. But what this question does hint at is a 5th dimension of human experience. Apart from width, height, depth and time, we also have quality. The problem with accepting quality as a dimension is that unlike time and the three dimensions of space, we have no agreed, objective method of measuring it. What one person thinks a quality gun might differ from what someone else thinks a quality gun. And there seems to be no definitive way to decide between such preferences. So the most we can say to ‘define’ better in the abstract is that it occupies a higher position on the qualitative scale (which ranges from worst, to worse, to bad, to good, to better, to best) than any other qualitative determination except best. Best wishes, 2RM.

I resent the implication that I regard this discussion as simply some kind of intellectual game, as one might approach a crossword puzzle, or a chess problem. I am actually quite serious about this quest for truth. But my psychological state, actually, has nothing to do with the argument I have put, which runs along the lines of 'Debate is good because...' If you want to engage with the substance of my position, you might try arguing along the lines of 'Everyone should agree about everything because...' Best wishes, 2RM.

1. On why disagreement is to be encouraged, not feared. 1.1 By way of preamble, I want to start by explaining just what, in philosophy, an argument is, and what it is not. It is not the same as the vernacular use of the word, and I want to dispel any misunderstandings. Philosophically speaking, an argument is not a vehement, hostile, disagreement, with all the insults and verbal fisticuffs that implies, (though these are not unknown amongst philosophers) but an assertion made with a supporting justification. Thus, my assertion might be: it is raining outside. It becomes an argument when I say: it is raining outside because the cat has just come in bedraggled, and left muddy paw marks all over the kitchen floor. The assertion is about the weather, the justification is the stuff about the cat, and only when they are combined do you have an argument. It is in this sense that I have been and shall continue to use the word. 1.2 The management guru, Peter Drucker, (1), in a chapter on ‘effective decision making’, quotes the General Motors Chairman and CEO Alfred P Sloan as follows: ‘Gentlemen, I take it we are all in complete agreement here?’ General assent. ‘Then I propose we postpone further discussion on this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what this decision is all about’. What Sloan was cautious about was the danger of ‘groupthink’, which is basically the situation where nobody notices a mistake because everyone is making the same mistake. But the concept has even more sinister connotations than this, which you can discover if you decide to follow this link. This is the negative justification for encouraging dissent. 1.3 The positive reason for encouraging dissent is that in the ‘free market of ideas’, where all ideas compete for belief, the best ideas (ie, those closest to truth) tend to prevail. In philosophy, in science, in the social sciences, the best arguments, supported by the best justifications, supported by the best evidence, are the ones that eventually earn general acceptance and allegiance. And I suspect the same to be true of theology, too. It is important to note that the best arguments may not be completely true, only partially true, but if so, some genius will doubtless appear at some stage and make an improvement or provide a different, superseding theory. Whatever, the tendency is to an ever closer approximation to truth. It’s a ratchet effect, and this is the basis on which I ground my optimism about human moral progress. 1.4 It should by now be reasonably clear why my answer to @FunkyTown's either/or question (Do you want to know the truth or have an argument?) is ‘Both’. Debate is my method of discovering truth. 1.5 I have also been asked about my motivation for being here. The answer to this follows on naturally from the above. If you want to test the strength and quality of an argument, you do not go to those most likely to agree with you, but to those most likely to disagree. Best wishes, 2RM (1) Drucker, P. The Effective Executive, 1970, Pan Books, London.

Thank you @mordorbund, for your interest. I am sure the entire 'agenda' is not entirely necessary for you, but this schedule would allow me to mount a coherent argument, and deal with some of the forum's more ancillary questioning along the way. Just skip the parts that don't interest you. I have noted your questions and points, and will include and be influenced by them as I write, and address them in their logical place in the 'agenda'. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I thought so. You either don't have an agenda, or you do (which I suspect to be the case), but won't say what it is. So, I intend to pretty much ignore you henceforward, until you a) stop insulting me, and b) raise questions or make points or lodge objections which I judge to have some philosophical substance. Best wishes, 2RM.