Doing what is right in an out of control world

[2ndRateMind]

And your point would be...?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[FunkyTown]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And your point would be...?

Best wishes, 2RM.

All right - I want you to go back. Take a deep breath. Reread the thread we have here. Go ahead - I'll wait.

 

 

Back? Good.

 

Now, what I want you to consider is: Do you think I have been trying to trick you, or deliberately misinterpret you, or attempt to mislead you? For the most part, I have been asking questions. And when I have attempted to reiterate your points to make sure I've understood, you have told me I was wrong in every single case - Every one. You have stated that our morals are subjective, but that overarching morality is objective. You have stated that you would create a morality based upon consensus and, when the problems with consensus morality were pointed out, you shifted tack and said that 'appropriate, informed people' would make the decisions rather than a consensus.

 

And despite the fact that I have clearly misunderstood your meaning every time I have attempted to clarify your own beliefs in an attempt to speak to you in a language you understood, you are getting irritated as I attempt to clarify what it is that you believe.

 

Would you say that's a fair assessment?

[2ndRateMind]

18 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

...You have stated that our morals are subjective, but that overarching morality is objective... 

Correct. Few of us would be so arrogant as to think they are as moral as God. And if they do, that is quite a sufficient enough reason to doubt them.

Quote

...You have stated that you would create a morality based upon consensus and, when the problems with consensus morality were pointed out...

Not quite correct. I do not intend to create a consensus morality, only that I think this is, in reality, all we have, to a greater or lesser extent of consensus.

Unless you can provide an alternative paradigm, which I have persistently prompted you to do, and which you have persistently failed to do, I perceive no reason to alter my views on this.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

@FunkyTown, I am very happy that you are back.  Reading this thread is a joy.  It is exciting to once again experience the unwrapping of how your mind navigates the strait and narrow and tries to bring others to it without dragging them through.  I have missed it.  I am privileged because I have an inkling on where you're going with the conversation.  I am confident @2ndRateMind will come to see it as well.  Patience is a virtue.

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Correct. Few of us would be so arrogant as to think they are as moral as God. And if they do, that is quite a sufficient enough reason to doubt them.

Not quite correct. I do not intend to create a consensus morality, only that I think this is, in reality, all we have, to a greater or lesser extent of consensus.

Unless you can provide an alternative weltanschauung, which I have persistently prompted you to do, and which you have persistently failed to do, I perceive no reason to alter my views on this.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay. Thank you for this.

 

So, please answer the following:

 

1) Do you think I am trying to trick you?

2) Would you agree that taking 70 posts for you to answer my original question I had in my first post is a bit excessive?

3) Why do you think you are so hesitant to answer plainly the questions that I ask?

 

That last one, you don't have to answer. Just know that it is coming across that way, and I want you to consider - At least to yourself - Why you are so resistant to providing an overarching framework whereby we can actually have a discussion.

[anatess2]

 

12 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Unless you can provide an alternative paradigm, which I have persistently prompted you to do, and which you have persistently failed to do, I perceive no reason to alter my views on this.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

9 minutes ago, FunkyTown said:

Why you are so resistant to providing an overarching framework whereby we can actually have a discussion.

Okay, I'm going to go for electrical injection to the conversation...

@2ndRateMind, the alternative paradigm you are seeking is easy.  We can just blurt it out.  I can even do it here - the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost.  See how easy that was?  But, as you can see, it's not something that fits your overarching framework because you don't "see" it (like the blind man analogy FT mentioned earlier).  So, it is super duper useless to give you that paradigm you're looking for because you won't accept it as truth.  So we have to figure out how to put the Holy Ghost in the framework that you can accept as truth... so, that's why the conversation can't move forward until you give us that framework.

Okay, carry on...

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by anatess2

[2ndRateMind]

17 hours ago, FunkyTown said:

Okay. Thank you for this.

 

So, please answer the following:

 

1) Do you think I am trying to trick you?

2) Would you agree that taking 70 posts for you to answer my original question I had in my first post is a bit excessive?

3) Why do you think you are so hesitant to answer plainly the questions that I ask?

 

That last one, you don't have to answer. Just know that it is coming across that way, and I want you to consider - At least to yourself - Why you are so resistant to providing an overarching framework whereby we can actually have a discussion.

I think you are avoiding the central contentions I have put to you. I am sure you have understood it, (and no, I don't think you are attempting any sort of trickery), but for the benefit of casual readers of this thread I will spell it out again.

Objective morality exists, and it is God's Will for us.

Because God loves us, His Will is for our best interests, individually and collectively.

However, humanity does not know, and would be absurd to claim to know, the specifics of God's Will.

But we do have our several intimations as to what that Will might be...

...And by discussing it amongst ourselves, we may arrive at a better, wider appreciation than we would on our own...

...And over time, generations hence, catastrophes excepted, we might indeed converge ever more closely on God's Will, objective morality. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 21, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

I think you are avoiding the central contentions I have put to you. I am sure you have understood it, (and no, I don't think you are attempting any sort of trickery), but for the benefit of casual readers of this thread I will spell it out again.

Objective morality exists, and it is God's Will for us.

Because God loves us, His Will is our best interests, individually and collectively.

However, humanity does not know, and would be absurd to claim to know, God's Will.

But we do have our several intimations as to what that Will might be...

...And by discussing it amongst ourselves, we may arrive at a better, wider appreciation than we would on our own...

...And over time, generations hence, catastrophes excepted, we might indeed converge ever more closely on God's Will, objective morality. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Okay, this is great. And thank you for saying this - You believe in God. You believe He wants what's best for us, so my question is

Why do you think God simply will not tell us what He wants? Is it because He is incapable? Or is it because He doesn't care if we know? Or could it be some third thing?:

[2ndRateMind]

1 minute ago, FunkyTown said:

Why do you think God simply will not tell us what He wants? Is it because He is incapable? Or is it because He doesn't care if we know? Or could it be some third thing?:

I think God doesn't spell it out for us a) because that would compromise our freedom, b) because we are incapable of encompassing that infinity anyway, and c) because He thinks it is better for us to work it out for ourselves, so far as we are capable.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[FunkyTown]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think God doesn't spell it out for us a) because that would compromise our freedom, b) because we are incapable of encompassing that infinity anyway, and c) because He thinks it is better for us to work it out for ourselves, so far as we are capable.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Those are all great reasons. So I want you to consider something:

Do you believe God is omniscient?

[2ndRateMind]

Yup. Despite it's internal contradictions and incoherences, I am drawn absolutely to the philosopher's 'omnimax' conception of God, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni- pretty much everything good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Yup. Despite it's internal contradictions and incoherences, I am drawn conceptually to the philosopher's 'omnimax' conception of God, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omni- pretty much everything good.

Best wishes, 2RM.

If God knows everything, then he knows how to talk to you. You're right - he wants free agency, and if he were here waiting for us to make the wrong move, how could we grow up?

 

So I want you to think about two mothers: Both mothers have daughters. Daughters they love more than themselves, and who they will do anything to be happy.

 

The first mother raises her child, lets her go to school. Teaches her to walk. She falls down occasionally, scrapes her knee - Has her heart broken. Has pain, but the mother is there to kiss her forehead and hold her and comfort her.

 

The second mother decides that she just wants her child to be happy at any cost, so she works all day to purchase enough opiates that the child will never have to learn, or be hurt, and only lives in a dull haze of mindless bliss.

 

Who was the good mother, in your estimation, and why?

[2ndRateMind]

I'm more than a little suspicious of folksy analogies, when what is required is rigorous argument, but I am going to humour you, on this occasion. I would say that the first mother is the better mother, because she is teaching the child to deal with the world as it is, and not as we might sometimes complacently wish it to be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[2ndRateMind]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'm going to go for electrical injection to the conversation...

@2ndRateMind, the alternative paradigm you are seeking is easy.  We can just blurt it out.  I can even do it here - the Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost.  See how easy that was?  But, as you can see, it's not something that fits your overarching framework because you don't "see" it (like the blind man analogy FT mentioned earlier).  So, it is super duper useless to give you that paradigm you're looking for because you won't accept it as truth.  So we have to figure out how to put the Holy Ghost in the framework that you can accept as truth... so, that's why the conversation can't move forward until you give us that framework.

Okay, carry on...

Dear @anatess2

I am sure the 'Light of Christ' and the 'Holy Ghost' have a lot to do with making the world a better place. I just don't accept these concepts as proving we know we know what is moral. Seems to me there are plenty of people, quite sure of their moral rectitude, who are quite wrong in their comfortable, complacent assessment of themselves, and who still cite God in various ways to justify their prejudices. You might like to meditate on the idea that it is not my conceptual framework that prevents me from seeing the 'truth', but yours that leads us to differ. But, if you want to disagree with that, I am willing to listen to all reasonable points of view. I just don't necessarily guarantee to be persuaded by them, unless they are more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my own position.

Sorry to be difficult, but as the rhyme has it 'He convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still.'

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited June 20, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

On 6/19/2018 at 1:06 AM, prisonchaplain said:

so what do you make of the phrase, "There is a hell to shun?"

I'm waiting for "And Gilder to frame for it."

EDIT: Dang it.  JAG beat me to the first PB reference.

Quote

Next, LDS emphasis the importance of good works more than most Protestant churches. How does the Holy Spirit help one accomplish all that fruitful labor?

The Holy Ghost is the source of strength to accomplish those.  The Holy Ghost is the guide in our daily lives to remind us of right and wrong.  He is there to give clarity when fear and doubt cloud our relationship with God and our understanding of truth and right.

EDIT: I guess Zil already said this with proper references and quotes and stuff.

I guess I'll go away now.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Guest

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Dear @anatess2

I am sure the 'Light of Christ' and the 'Holy Ghost' have a lot to do with making the world a better place. I just don't accept these concepts as proving we know we know what is moral. Seems to me there are plenty of people, quite sure of their moral rectitude, who are quite wrong in their comfortable, complacent assessment of themselves, and who still cite God in various ways to justify their prejudices. You might like to meditate on the idea that it is not my conceptual framework that prevents me from seeing the 'truth', but yours that leads us to differ. But, if you want to disagree with that, I am willing to listen to all reasonable points of view. I just don't necessarily guarantee to be persuaded by them, unless they are more comprehensive, cogent, coherent and consistent than my own position.

Sorry to be difficult, but as the rhyme has it 'He convinced against his will, holds the same opinion still.'

Best wishes, 2RM.

We can slap you with truth smack across the face and it would matter not because you just lump it with "plenty of people" who may not even have any relation with anything we're saying or you just dismiss it as not "rational, comprehensive, cogent, and consistent" - whatever subjective measure you apply to it.  Besides, we have zero credentials that put any weight on what we say.  We have Priesthood Authority to speak of truth but what does that matter to somebody who doesn't believe Priesthood Authority is rational?   So, like @FunkyTown says, it's a waste of time.  That's why we are taught that it is not the way we testify of truth.

If you want to know truth, you SEEK IT.  With pure humility.  It's not something people can tell you or argue their way with you.  It's something that you FIND.  I'll give you an example - plenty of prominent people are telling you the world is going to end due to Global Warming.  They say it was supposed to end years ago.  Lots of people show you all kinds of comprehensive, cogent, coherent, and consistent data making you believe Global Warming is true.  Lots of people show you all kinds of comprehensive, cogent, coherent, and consistent data making you believe Global Warming is NOT true.  So which one is true?   Why do you believe it to be true?

God's truth is knowable.  It is imprinted in the history of man.  It is imprinted on our souls.  You have the truth in you.  You simply need the Holy Ghost to confirm it to you when you are ready to recognize it.  So yes, it requires faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  We send thousands of missionaries across the planet not so we can convince you of truth.  Rather, we send missionaries to help you build your faith.  Then you can find the truth for yourself.

Edited June 21, 2018 by anatess2

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting, @anatess2 And thank you for not giving up on me, as 'a waste of time'.

It may be that now we have established that humanity does not know what is moral, we can move on to wonder about whether, and how, we might know what is true.

Your example of the global warming controversy is a good one. We can look at the evidence and arguments for, and the evidence and arguments against, and seek to arrive at some tentative or certain conclusion. So, for example, we can note that 5 of the hottest years on record globally have been in the 2010s, that the spring season in Washington DC arrived 22 days earlier this year than it did a decade ago, that sea levels are rising as the ice caps melt, that the ranges of various plants and animals (in the Northern Hemisphere), are expanding to the north and receding from the south, and that more extreme weather events are occurring across the globe. It seems that the evidence is that global warming is happening, and happening now, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, the evidence against seems largely disinformation and propaganda from those organisations and individuals with a vested interest to keep on burning fossil fuels and increasing the CO2 and methane emissions that cause these effects.

So, which are we to believe? Surely, those with the evidence and rationale to quantify and explain these various phenomena, rather than those who object to these inconvenient truths on the grounds that their jobs and earnings might be affected if the world stopped mining coal and drilling oil and natural gas.

David Hume* (1748) put it well: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." So, I merely ask for evidence and explanatory rationale before I commit to believing anything at all, and I think most sensible people would.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Hume, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 2004, Dover Publications, New York USA

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

 

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Interesting, @anatess2 And thank you for not giving up on me, as 'a waste of time'.

It may be that now we have established that humanity does not know what is moral, we can move on to wonder about whether, and how, we might know what is true.

We have not established such a thing.  We DO know what is moral because we claim to know that which is true.

 

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Your example of the global warming controversy is a good one. We can look at the evidence and arguments for, and the evidence and arguments against, and seek to arrive at some tentative or certain conclusion. So, for example, we can note that 5 of the hottest years on record globally have been in the 2010s, that the spring season in Washington DC arrived 22 days earlier this year than it did a decade ago, that sea levels are rising as the ice caps melt, that the ranges of various plants and animals (in the Northern Hemisphere), are expanding to the north and receding from the south, and that more extreme weather events are occurring across the globe. It seems that the evidence is that global warming is happening, and happening now, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, the evidence against seems largely disinformation and propaganda from those organisations and individuals with a vested interest to keep on burning fossil fuels and increasing the CO2 and methane emissions that cause these effects.

So, which are we to believe? Surely, those with the evidence and rationale to quantify and explain these various phenomena, rather than those who object to these inconvenient truths on the grounds that their jobs and earnings might be affected if the world stopped mining coal and drilling oil and natural gas.

And this is the PERFECT example.  You believe that 5 of the hottest years on record is in 2010 and an early spring indicates Global Warming.  Notwithstanding that the earth is billions of years old and you only analyzed data from the past 200 years.  Yet you dismiss other contrary viewpoints as "propaganda" because of "fossil fuels".  You have established a very narrow framework from which you derive truth and who you trust as its authority as those who "have evidence" while others do not.  This does not give you truth.  This gives you, at the very most - confirmation bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[2ndRateMind]

Hello again. Claiming to know what is true does not, in my experience, @anatess2, amount to a proof that one knows what is moral. I have stated previously in this thread the criterion for knowing what is moral, and that is, a justification. We need to know how we know what is moral, before we can claim to know what is moral. So far, despite my promptings, no one has attempted to provide that justification, and so I am inclined to think the forum lacks that knowledge altogether.

As for global warming, I wonder if you have actually read the various references I went to some trouble to include in my above post. If so, you give no indication of that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hello again. Claiming to know what is true does not, in my experience, @anatess2, amount to a proof that one knows what is moral. I have stated previously in this thread the criterion for knowing what is moral, and that is, a justification. We need to know how we know what is moral, before we can claim to know what is moral. So far, despite my promptings, no one has attempted to provide that justification, and so I am inclined to think the forum lacks that knowledge altogether.

As for global warming, I wonder if you have actually read the various references I went to some trouble to include in my above post. If so, you give no indication of that.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if there's a communication barrier here.  Morality is that which is in the right of Truth.  Knowing the Truth allows you to know Right from Wrong.  Doing what is Right is morality.  Therefore, it follows that if you know what is True, you know what is Moral.

Yes, I have read those references and then some.  I have a quadzillion other references both supporting and refuting those references.  But we are not discussing Global Warming.  We are discussing the process of knowing what is true.

Edited June 21, 2018 by anatess2

[2ndRateMind]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure if there's a communication barrier here. 

Maybe. I could be a paedophile child murderer (which I assume we would both think immoral) and still know perfectly accurately that the capital city of France is Paris. Truth is not morality; morality is not truth. It is only when you phrase a moral attitude as a proposition (eg; murdering innocent children is wrong) that it becomes either true or false. But once you have done that, it is perfectly in order for some difficult individual to ask: 'But why is murdering innocent children wrong?' And if you have no answer to that question, said difficult individual is perfectly entitled to think you actually do not know whether murdering innocent children is right or wrong at all; you are just expressing your own preference that innocent children should not be murdered.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Maybe. I could be a paedophile child murderer (which I assume we would both think immoral) and still know perfectly accurately that the capital city of France is Paris. Truth is not morality; morality is not truth. It is only when you phrase a moral attitude as a proposition (eg; murdering innocent children is wrong) that it becomes either true or false. But once you have done that, it is perfectly in order for some difficult individual to ask: 'But why is murdering innocent children wrong?' And if you have no answer to that question, said difficult individual is perfectly entitled to think you actually do not know whether murdering innocent children is right or wrong at all; you are just expressing your own preference that innocent children should not be murdered.

Best wishes, 2RM.

The truth that Paris is the capital city of France is morally neutral until one who knows the truth tries to peddle a t-shirt that says, "Rome is the capital city of France".  Fact is a fact.  Morality involves an ACTION in light of that fact.  Therefore, first you need to know Truth then you can act on it.  And that's when morality comes in.

We are God's children.  That is Truth.  We don't kill God's children unless God tells us to is a morality based on that Truth.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Interesting, @anatess2 And thank you for not giving up on me, as 'a waste of time'.

It may be that now we have established that humanity does not know what is moral, we can move on to wonder about whether, and how, we might know what is true.

Your example of the global warming controversy is a good one. We can look at the evidence and arguments for, and the evidence and arguments against, and seek to arrive at some tentative or certain conclusion. So, for example, we can note that 5 of the hottest years on record globally have been in the 2010s, that the spring season in Washington DC arrived 22 days earlier this year than it did a decade ago, that sea levels are rising as the ice caps melt, that the ranges of various plants and animals (in the Northern Hemisphere), are expanding to the north and receding from the south, and that more extreme weather events are occurring across the globe. It seems that the evidence is that global warming is happening, and happening now, whether we like it or not. Meanwhile, the evidence against seems largely disinformation and propaganda from those organisations and individuals with a vested interest to keep on burning fossil fuels and increasing the CO2 and methane emissions that cause these effects.

So, which are we to believe? Surely, those with the evidence and rationale to quantify and explain these various phenomena, rather than those who object to these inconvenient truths on the grounds that their jobs and earnings might be affected if the world stopped mining coal and drilling oil and natural gas.

David Hume* (1748) put it well: "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." So, I merely ask for evidence and explanatory rationale before I commit to believing anything at all, and I think most sensible people would.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Hume, D. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 2004, Dover Publications, New York USA

 

 

I am sorry but I must respond.  40 years ago, I was involved with the defense department of our government.  Part of my classified work involved global magnetic variation tables.  I will not go into all the reasons why; both for space as well as some things are still classified.  But the sun generates a great deal of electrical power and propagates a great deal of electrical energy in solar winds (charged ions).  This electrical energy causes magnetic variations that we measured and tracked.  We also knew that this energy had effects on weather and climate – not just on earth but all the planets in our solar system.  We also were aware the global warming has been taking place for over 20 thousand years.

I bring this up because politics often has more to do with public perception than actual truth and viable information.  I do not dispute that there is climate change – but I do dispute that it is proven and conclusive that man causes have a greater propensity to change global climate than does the sun.

But how does this all play into a discussion about right and wrong?  Historically, is mankind kind and just or evil and selfishly unjust?  We see elements of both.  There are ideas and deeds of justice and kindness and there are deeds of war, injustice and hatred.   My point is – that mankind does indeed know the difference and exercises a choice – not a genetically engineered choice but intelligent based choice made or acquired through a process learned with understanding of cause and effect.

My point is that mankind does know good from evil but knowing the difference does not guarantee the choice one way or the other – this proving the choice is both possible and known.  In a court of law when there is an insanity plea it can be proven that the person had knowledge something was evil when they attempt to conceal or mislead the truth of their choices and action.

 

The Traveler

[2ndRateMind]

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I am sorry but I must respond...

...My point is that mankind does know good from evil but knowing the difference does not guarantee the choice one way or the other – this proving the choice is both possible and known.  In a court of law when there is an insanity plea it can be proven that the person had knowledge something was evil when they attempt to conceal or mislead the truth of their choices and action.

Thankyou, @Traveller, for your input. It kind of demonstrates my point, though I don't think that was your intention.

Thus, we disagree about global warming, diagnosis, prognosis, and correcting therapy. I think global warming is happening, and is caused by human activity. I think that it will lead to many undesirable effects, and the poor will suffer them disproportionately. I think we should (not so) gradually switch our energy provision from fossil fuels to renewables; wind, wave, solar, tidal and hydro. You seem to think that, if there is a problem, it is not driven by human activity, and therefore we can do nothing about it, and therefore we should persist with the current carbon heavy energy model.

Which of us is right? Which of our 'therepies' is more moral? Unless we know how we know what is moral, we cannot decide that. And so far, no one on this thread (except me, tentatively) has proposed a solution to this question, though I have asked it of the forum several times; how do we know we know what is moral?

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited June 22, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

On 6/20/2018 at 9:15 PM, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm more than a little suspicious of folksy analogies, when what is required is rigorous argument, but I am going to humour you, on this occasion. I would say that the first mother is the better mother, because she is teaching the child to deal with the world as it is, and not as we might sometimes complacently wish it to be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

But is she? After all, the subjective reality of the daughter is that the universe is a mindless bliss, fogged by pleasure. She never grows. She never learns. She never becomes anything more than a vaguely pleasure-filled object that barely even interacts with the world.

 

Why is it good, do you think, that the universe be taught?

I can tell you that of the hundreds of responses I've gotten to that, every single time the answer has been the mother that let the child feel pain occasionally. But why do you think that the child needs to learn when learning implies pain?