| Subject: Now we are talking... |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/ 3/02 4:18pm
In reply to:
ozboy
's message, "Leave my underpants out of this!" on 03/ 3/02 9:48am
>
> Fundamentally you are correct...there is no
>difference between me killing your cat or me killing a
>person, but the ramifications are far different. A
>similar outcome is applied to us by killing a rain
>forest or the air quality or a blade of grass… it is
>all interconnected an thus will affect us in the long
>run … just as executing killers does.
As you know, I think the main thing that needs to be examined is the amount of harm apparent in the system. However, I think that one of the main pieces of harming something is integral on consciousness, and I think there are many degrees of that. A blade of grass would rank pretty lowly, because it doesn't seem to be self-concious. Neither does killing an old rain forrest, but it would harm future generations of human beings who cannot enjoy the wilderness. So, I think I agree with you fundamentally, but the mechanisms that make it work I'm not sure that I do.
>
>There seems to be a direct conflict between things
>like medicine and bombs or the love of god and killing
>in his name or building a prison but killing the
>people you put in it…. I mean we build bigger and
>better hospitals so we can care for the people who
>have been blown-up by the bigger and better bombs we
>made the day before! Doesn’t this seem futile to you
>... or at least a contradiction in terms .. or
>philosophy or ethics?
It's irony, but I don't think because we make something that we must necessarily use it for its intended purpose. For example, I'd hope that we never have to use a nuclear warhead with a high yield, because the results would be disastrous. By the same token, even if we make a prison for people who break the law, I don't think it obligates us to use it for the sole purpose of keeping all law breakers there, for there are degrees of broken law as evidenced by the different charges associated with each crime. Further, no one is saying we are going to kill everyone who goes to prison, but those who are inflicting more harm than good.
>
>Now after saying that I will redily agree that all
>this killing we do may very well be part of evolution
>and probably is! … that is to say that perhaps it is a
>natural culling of our species in order to protect it!
> If we look back at the deaths of 6 million jews 60
>years ago or Stalin’s estimated 40 million killed or
>even the sudden disappearance of the ancient Minoan,
>Mayan civilizations or even the Roman Empire, the
>exponentional growth of offspring of these otherwise
>dead people would make life very difficult for me and
>you today!
Well, it's hard to say that those people would have all of had children, or if those people wouldn't have been killed by some other event, but if they all had children at an expoential rate, it wouldn't be pleasant.
>
>>>> You can't!?! ... well here's why! ...
>
>I think I’ve done this before here but I’ll do it
>again … pick any culture from any time in history and
>among many traits they will exhibit are the belief in
>an afterlife and the maintenance of a place of worship
>which gains you acceptance to this afterlife.
>
>While cross-cultural contact can account for similar
>ritualistic behaviour among different civilizations
>generally speaking the traits develop independently. …
>a quick example would be the Australian Aborigine and
>the Ancient Egyptians … they never met each other yet
>they both display these two traits.
>
>What I’m trying to say is that all cultures (human
>intellegence) develop this as a safety net in order to
>cope with life, it just manifests in different ways!
>It shows that we are predisposed to be religious…
>which in turn helps us get through the day and gives
>us eternal life when it’s over ... our reward.... our
>evolution.
That's one theory as to why they are as they are, and perhaps humans do like the idea of going on after they die. Maybe that is there way of fighting against it or a safety net. There is another option though, and that is that we are genetically programmed to have such a response because there does exist an afterlife, just not any as defined by any religion. Perhaps it prevents shock from thinking that when you die it all ends. Either way, what happens after death no one knows for certain, and if they claim they do they are probably fudging a bit.
>
>... because those same two traits develop but are
>derided by one cultures interpretation of them toward
>another cultures interpretation of same, conflict is
>created. Why is there the different interpretation of
>the same ideal? ... because we all want the same thing
>but we create an interpretation to suit our societal
>structure and technology.
Could be, but this still implicitly assumes that nothing happens after we die. I don't really see any support for that idea.
>
>If the god thing was real it would all be the same for
>everyone! ... but it is simply a Chinese whisper that
>originates from a dream!
I think this is a weak point in your commentary. If a God existed who were all powerful, I'd think he could pretty much do whatever he wanted. I'd expect if it were a life changing scenario that made people on the whole better that we could see the difference in these people versus other people in society, but I wouldn't think God would be the same experience for everyone anymore than I would think that everyone feels the same when they look at Niagra Falls.
>
>While we are alive we are extremely intelligent... but
>is that very intelligence that makes it impossible for
>us to conceive that we will not go on after death… it
>is we who created the afterlife… therefore there is no
>god…. and therefore when we die we do not go on but
>cease to exist… therefore dead people receive no
>punishment… therefore murderers should be imprisoned
>for all their natural lives as punishment!
This argument doesn't hold if nothing else but for the shear fact that there are people who are alive and are intelligent who do not think there is anything after they die, therefore it must not be impossible. Further, the idea of punishment for a wrong is very similar in theory to an eye for an eye. I don't view death in itself as a punishment, because to do so would be to presuppose that I know what death is, and I don't. What I view it is is keeping that person from inflicting anymore harm forever. I don't care if they rot and suffer for what they did, I just don't want for it to happen again, or for them to inflict terror beyond their cells.
>
>What Abram dreamt about was revolutionary to the human
>condition... the next and final revolution in thought
>… atheism.
>
>
I think if people became atheists that they would probably be forced to do more genuine thought on their own behalfs, but I've met atheists who are complete jerks just as I've met christians who are complete jerks. I don't think atheism is the panacea for all of life's problems, and I don't think we can ever say, "There is no life after death!" unless we just enjoy tricking ourselves into thinking we have knowledge that we do not.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply more carefully and thoroughly to this post. It allows me to see more clearly what your perspective is, and at the same time allows critical review of both my thoughts and yours.
Damoclese
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 