Polytheism and monotheism

[IoshkaFutz]

He is your son, you know him and he knows you, both he and you have expectations. You've probably talked over the phone.

But hey, a Mrs. Vigilotti who lives in Greenland is also cooking dinner for your son. This is closer to the scenario. Is there Interplay? Your son has never met Signora Vigilotti. If so, please describe it.

More nonsense. You admitted that Smith has been living a normal life as a member of his community, shopping, discussing the weather, etc. So he does know his community and his community knows him. He might be technically alone right now just as I'm technically separate from my son but the interplay of interests has not changed one iota for that.

Compassion is an optional Cutecoot. Go to the nihilism page of Wikipedia. He has decided to switch off the interplay of interests which anyhow are based on unproveable assumptions. He does not feel their pain... and they (humanity), being in the dark, do not / cannot feel his ambition.

Is it some sort of Universal "hum" or "vibration" that the stone-out hippies used to rap about? Is there some sort of "dinner-for-Cutecoot's-son-DOM" tha exists and INTERplays.
As I wrote above, it's bleeding obvious and doesn't require any special hum.

It's not bleeding obvious despite your statement to the contrary. Is it bleeding obvious that people feel each other's pain? Refer to Huxley's own Avatar... it's a proud statement to the contrary.

Did that offend you? I would say SORRY... but I'm not. There is even jaunty enjoyment. There is no objective "ought"... something is prescriptive only if it has been prescribed, not because it is right, good, etc. Those that prescribe are those in power (tyrant, community, law, etc.).

In my scenario all the power is on one side. Therefore Dr. Smith prescribes. He is the sole arbiter. The pain he should feel (for others) is entirely up to him.

Unaware interests interplay. Fine.
Smith is not unaware of others' interests. He can see the bleeding obvious even if you can't.

Awareness does not automatically presuppose care. Please tell Dr. Smith why he should care in a normative way, outside the atheists' view of morality. Good luck. I saw not a trace. I saw why under more normal circumstrances he could be MADE to care, or at least to SUBMIT, but those circumstances are gone. Now the ball is entirely in his court. There is no community, no preponderant force, no consensus, except his interpretation of them... his willingness to sacrifice his overwhelming power... in the name of what? It doesn't matter, because whatever the reason, it will be "life." It might be something we deem noble, like the "happiness of humanity" or it could be something selfish, like his love of strawberry ice cream.

But I say that the interplay, of interests is in the mind of the perpetrator. For instance, I want to build a dam to provide drinking water to a community. I imagine the interests, the "good" of the community, meaning even the unborn, and I operate in this imagined interest. The unborn are not Interplaying with me. Notions of right and wrong, harmful and beneficial are interplaying in my mind.

Well, the interplay would be in his mind. And in my view there is a real sense in which the unborn are indeed interplaying with him (though this may not be nor does it need to be Hux's view). Well, if all that *is* interplaying in your mind are mere notions then it may be because you lack any love whatever. It's also very likely that you're an absolutist as experience has taught me that absolutists tend to lack love (compassion) for their fellow creatures since they are instead obsessed with transcendental notions.

I am an absolutist obsessed with transcendental notions? For wondering how and by what right one can call the wanton destruction of the world on the part of someone who is not an absolutist but a moral relativist, "immoral?" This is rich. I think anyone of any human philosophy can lack love. As a matter of fact, I think the moral relativists are far deeper into that bog. They don't have any Corinthians harping at them. They have no one or anything higher than themselves. No sense of the sacred. I am not nearly as free as they.

If an ecological group - say - "Friends of the Earth" objects to my plan and calls for changes or alternatives, then one may speak of Interplaying. Otherwise, my plan for the dam is INTERplaying with ALL opinions near and far, pro and con, serious and facetious... a "hum" a "vibration"... Please don't bogart the joint,

Inside your head, your plan for the dam is interplaying with those opinions you're aware of and that is all. You may be aware of the objections of "Friends of the Earth" but just not talking with them right now. So their objections are in play in your head. However, ignorance is no excuse before the law. Certainly not before God's law.

God's law? What God? God doesn't exist Cutecoot. That should be bleeding obvious. (so we're told).

Before taking such drastic action as anihilating the entire planet you should have done a little research regarding a wide range of interests. Including, in this case, potentially ALL opinions near and far, pro and con, serious and facetious.

SHOULD. Our friend Huxley and prescriptions again. Please don't use that word. SHOULD is not accepted. It is sent back to the sender.

And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether Smith knows or cares about what he is doing. If he does destroy us all, he will have acted immorally, that is, against all of our interests.

At the end of the day "should" might need to be accepted in a way that the atheists are loathe to admit. Or at the end of the day, Dr. Smith's action is just meaningless... but that raises a question: "Why bother to talk of morality at all... if even the wanton destruction of every living creature cannot be called immoral?

I think it boils down to that. All the "processes" described by the atheists here have been made moot. Talk of community and consensus are just code words for "power"... That power has been totally neutered. Now - in my scenario - the need to sacrifice power and include compassion, to feel "shoulds" as normative in and of themselves is the only means of calling the act immoral. The atheists' description of morality (what it is, how it works, etc.) simply cannot apply to Dr. Smith, short of going uncharacteristically spiritual.

So don't say "should." Don't talk about "God." Go right ahead and talk about prescriptions being only prescriptive if prescribed. Sing to me about communities and consensus. Once again insist on mediation of conflicting insterests. And all the rest.

They present morality as a process. That they can do. But as soon as they dare tread on what is actually moral, their pretty little schemes fall apart. And in the biggest mama-whopper of all immoral acts imaginable... they've got nothing to say unless they break out of their definitions.

[THHuxley]

Well you wrote this: "There absolutely is contact and interplay between interests in your scenario."

I did. You are equivocating again. It is your worst habit, but it appears to be all that you have going for you.

There is interplay between interests. That does not require any interplay between the individuals involved.

[THHuxley]

Divergent interests doesn't mean that they are INTERplaying, especially when the action is extreme and unilateral.

Not always no. But in your scenario, yes.

[charleslemartel]

The discussion about morality is always fascinating. Another scenario came to my mind:

Imagine two men on an island where food is extremely scarce. A situation arises where there is only a small quantity of food available which is enough to make only one of them survive. The stronger man is obviously faced with two choices:

1. He should take that morsel of food and let the weaker man die.
2. He could give that food to the weaker man and sacrifice his life.

Which of the choices do you, Hux and Ioshka, think is "more" moral?

[IoshkaFutz]

Divergent interests doesn't mean that they are INTERplaying, especially when the action is extreme and unilateral.

Not always no. But in your scenario, yes.

Example SVP?

[IoshkaFutz]

The discussion about morality is always fascinating. Another scenario came to my mind:

Imagine two men on an island where food is extremely scarce. A situation arises where there is only a small quantity of food available which is enough to make only one of them survive. The stronger man is obviously faced with two choices:

1. He should take that morsel of food and let the weaker man die.
2. He could give that food to the weaker man and sacrifice his life.

Which of the choices do you, Hux and Ioshka, think is "more" moral?

They should flip a coin and abide. Generally it would be more moral to sacrifice. But now things are perfectly equal. Then there's also the possibility of one losing his humanity, but that is - I guess - forgiveable, under the circumstances. So I'd vote for the coin flip.

[Idesigner]

The discussion about morality is always fascinating. Another scenario came to my mind:

Imagine two men on an island where food is extremely scarce. A situation arises where there is only a small quantity of food available which is enough to make only one of them survive. The stronger man is obviously faced with two choices:

1. He should take that morsel of food and let the weaker man die.
2. He could give that food to the weaker man and sacrifice his life.

Which of the choices do you, Hux and Ioshka, think is "more" moral?

They should flip a coin and abide. Generally it would be more moral to sacrifice. But now things are perfectly equal. Then there's also the possibility of one losing his humanity, but that is - I guess - forgiveable, under the circumstances. So I'd vote for the coin flip.

Its not moral but strong man would have not only taken the meager food ratoion but might have practiced canibalism, eating small one. If big one had some moral he would have eaten just the dead body.

The situation is not un herard off in case people trapped in snoww storm or plane crash.

[IoshkaFutz]

Well you wrote this: "There absolutely is contact and interplay between interests in your scenario."

I did. You are equivocating again. It is your worst habit, but it appears to be all that you have going for you.

There is interplay between interests. That does not require any interplay between the individuals involved.

"Disembodied Interests" clash and collide, and interplay? Wow! You mean there is Good and Evil with capital G and Capital E out there and they provide the necessary "Should"?

Spare me the comments. When I asked about one of your statements, you called it a strawman. That was equivocating.

Now you simply come out with a statement, but we're still waiting for an example of how disembodied interests interplay when one holds absolute and unilateral power and the other side is in the dark.

So granted that humanity (though in this case totally in the dark) has an interest to live. Granted and hyper-granted. How do do you have it INTERplaying without a normative SHOULD vis-avis Dr. Smith's determination to run the experiment. Cutecoot scolded me for being an unethical bastard. And she answered talking about God and saying "Should".

I can understand that IT SHOULD INTERplay: I'm a religious fanatric, after all and since I am a moral absolutist, I have no doubt concerning the righteousness of the blood on my blade.

But I sheathed my blade and for the time being I agree that God doesn't exist and that prescriptions are not prescriptions unless prescribed. The only one who can prescribe is the one in the know and who has all the power. The community doesn't know and is powerless.

Is that equivocating or trying to get to the bottom of things?

See if you can avoid talking about me. I already admitted that I'm a witless, foul-hearted stinker and ugly and a monster, full of faults and anything else you can come up with multiplied by a million. Just please, answer the question.

But you can't, can you? Who's in a knot, Huxley? Who's equivocating?

How does Humanity's interest in seeing tomorrow, the rightness and goodness of it, INTERplay with Dr. Smith. Can you provide an answer without saying "Should"?

All the reasons behind your "shoulds" have been neutered and nullified; the previous "mediation" was rendered by your own admission awhile back "irrelevant."

I am willing to accept - as an intellectually consistent answer - that Dr. Smith's act is meaningless in the spirit of Nihilism

Wikipedia
(Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical position that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented.[1] Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[2] is without meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist, and subsequently there are no moral values with which to uphold a rule or to logically prefer one action over another.)

For all its horror to me (and I'm already unsheathing my blood-spattered sword), I must admit that it's respectable.

But if that is your view, don't go inventing moralities.

[CuteCoot]

I am willing to accept - as an intellectually consistent answer - that Dr. Smith's act is meaningless in the spirit of Nihilism

I'd like some clarification here. Is Smith a nihilist? Because if so, he would have no reason to destroy the world because his experiment would have no value either. He might toss a coin over it but then even religionists are happy to do that.

All along in this discussion, I see an insinuation that an atheist (or non-religionist) must be a nihilist. Wrong. Anyone can be a nihilist, even a religionist. In the context of morality, nihilism is simply a denial of the interests of others. Religionists do that all the time by placing God's supposed interests above those of living humans. That's how their blades become soaked in blood.

[CuteCoot]

I'm a nice guy, just look at my Avatar and compare it to [Hux's]:

Hux pours painful acidic criticism all over people's poorly thought through opinions. What might remain will be a husk of truth and if nothing remains then it wasn't worth the (electronic) paper it was written on.

If your avatar is accurate then you, by contrast, smoke incessantly thereby polluting your own body and the atmosphere around you, sending tar-laden vapour into the lungs of your loved ones whenever you kiss or hug them.

On a smaller scale you are yourself this Smith of your fantasy.

[CuteCoot]

God's law? What God? God doesn't exist Cutecoot. That should be bleeding obvious. (so we're told).

I am not Hux and I have no issues about invoking God's name. I am defending Hux's moral position and the process he is advocating. I happen to believe his position can be directly derived from that of Jesus of Nazareth who was an utter humanist and hated the religionists of his own day. I happen to believe that there is a sacred or transcendental quality to that utter humanism that warrants the term "God's law". I don't think this eternal quality is currently embodied in the outdated laws compiled in an ancient text. The law is in the human heart and mind and Hux is trying to purify both (by this cleansing in an acid bath). Only when the mirror is clear can you see the God therein. In your case the truth is clouded by ancient tribal notions of God, notions that Jesus himself was lashing out at.

[CuteCoot]

Why is it unethical to insist? What's wrong with the question?

Time and again, you are denying the interplay of interests in your scenario. Time and again, you are insisting on a material interplay (my son must phone me first if he wants his dinner).

At the end of the day, what you are denying is the existence of those interests. Not only as represented in Smith's mind (for he now has no conscience to speak of) but in the world at large (or la-la land as you would have it). Those interests are there whether you or Smith acknowledge them or not.

It is you, absolutely and emphatically, you who are the nihilist here.

[IoshkaFutz]

Ciao CuteCoot,

I have not denied any interests. I granted and hyper-granted humanity's interest in seeing another day. What I denied - playing the Devil's advocate - is that it interplays. In order for it to Interplay, if one is to be a materialist / atheist, there must be a moral agent at work motivated by a "SHOULD"...

In my scenario, the only moral agent (being the only one with awareness of what is going on) is Dr. Smith. Dr. Smith SHOULD know and appreciate the fact that Humanity has a very strong interest in seeing another day and that SHOULD cause him to cease and desist.

Whence this should? I am not really arguing with you, but with Huxley and his merry gang of atheists who are in the habit of discussing morality and deriving all their "Shoulds" from community, consensus and whatnot... that is to say from "power"

All interests can be seen to exist "out there"... not just "A" and its opposite "X" but also everything in between... all choices, all attitudes, all potential, every shade, every subtelty. Awareness is required.

Today - for moral reasons - there is a push to have broadband made available throughout the world. This, in the times of the Ancient Greeks was merely potential. It was not at INTERplay, because there were no moral agents with the necessary awareness. If it was at Interplay, in any meaningful way, kindly tell this ex-smoker how.

Or perhaps Huxley could illustrate it for us.

What did Socrates think about Broadband? The same thing your son thinks about Mrs. Vigilotti of Greenland's dinner for him. Nothing.

For Socrates, Broadband didn't exist, for your son, Mrs. Vigilotti of Greenland, a mysterious woman who prepares dinner for Australian men whose names she randomly looks up on the Internet doesn't exist, for the world (humanity) Dr. Smith doesn't exist.

In lala land, there is all potential. The potential for Broadband existed even back in the days of Socrates, the potential for the women of Greenland cooking up dinners for Australian men exists, and will one day probably even come about just as strangers are already serving spam to one another.

We live in a realm of great potentials, but there are no moral Interplays without awareness. There are theoretical contrastiting and non-contrasting concepts, there is ALL POTENTIAL (not just contrasting choices, but ALL choices) but they do not clash or complement each other or add or subtract to one another outside moral agents, just as a chunk of marble doesn't become a Pieta' without Michelangelo's fine hand or flooring slabs under the fine hand of someone else.

Hence with one side of the equation lacking awareness, the interplay is entirely on the other side, or to be more precise, that INTERplay is entirely an INTRAplay, inside Dr. Smith's head. It is entirely between what he wants and what he SHOULD want.

But our friends the great and mighty Atheist thinkers, the Huxleys, the Crazymonies and the SwordsofTruth, in their sordid realism, get their "Shoulds" from material forces: communities, or a thing called "Consensus." One doesn't need to be a genius, to understand that these are just code words for "coercion" - that is to say: "might." And normally coercion works.

A thief, whether the street corner variety or a Mugabe with all the officialdom of a state, has coercion: a knife, gun, an Army. A judge also has coercion. But what happens when the evil, the "no-no" (call it what you will) is entirely in the hands of one man? When the INTERplay is entirely INTRAplay?

The standard Atheist means of obtaining morality "coercion" (of community and consensus) cannot apply without a value - a "good" plucked from the realm of ALL Potential.

The whole purpose of the exercise was precisely to make all the normal moral agents inert except for the "Bad Guy." And what a bad guy he is! A super-stinker, who for the satisfaction of knowledge is willing to destroy the world, himself included! The ultimate no-no!

I impatiently await an answer from our brilliant atheists. Yes there are conflicting interests. In fact, there are all sorts of interests, conflicting, complementary, pro, con, in between, facetious, serious, brilliant and idiotic. There is full potential.

By their declared standards of morality (a mere process in which "good" is chosen by various forms of power), they would now have us believe that this enormous deposit of INFINITE possibilities INTERplays. I humbly beg to differ.

Interests unto themselves don't interplay outside of aware moral agents. Potential (chunk of marble) doesn't become actual (Pieta' or floor slab) without a moral agent (stone-cutter). If it does, I most humbly, ask for examples.

I am fairly certain that the nihilism of the "honest" atheists will become manifest. Either that or we'll enjoy the spectacle of them become spiritualists. Like Huxley, we will hear talk of contrasting interests Interplaying. The chunks of marble will become amazing scuptures without a trace of a stone-cutter!

The honest atheist is the nihilist. He will only say that Dr. Smith's action is meaningless, that all morality is ultimately meaningless.

But at this point, I think that their status as members of FFI should be reviewed. Who needs nihilists? If their view of morality cannot even cogently call the destruction of the world "immoral"... why should they discuss moral questions with Muslims, or anybody else for that matter?

This is troublesome. I am reflexively a democrat, a liberal (old European sense of the word). But nihilism that "preaches" is a ghastly spectacle in line with all the worst sort of scum the earth has ever seen. They are the ideologically dangerous ones.

But we are taught to love the sinner and hate the sin. We are also taught that we too are sinners and often prey to nihilism. So we go on existing as one big and bickering family. If you read the scriptures correctly, you'll find the ultimate answer to your fear of absolutism.

[crazymonkie_]

But our friends the great and mighty Atheist thinkers, the Huxleys, the Crazymonies and the SwordsofTruth, in their sordid realism, get their "Shoulds" from material forces: communities, or a thing called "Consensus." One doesn't need to be a genius, to understand that these are just code words for "coercion" - that is to say: "might." And normally coercion works.

And your morality, coming from a being of infinite power, simply *given*, enforced if you will, on all human beings, ISN'T coercion?

If we're arguing for a covert 'might makes right' morality, you are arguing for an out-and-out obvious one.

In any case: No. Unless you want to argue that ALL human relations are coercion, and that ALL disputes in human relations ultimately are solved by appeal to brute force. You have reduced a model of great complexity to one of simplicity, said that's what we believe in, and then set about knocking it down.

Making and destroying straw men seems to be a hobby of yours.

Additionally- as Huxley pointed out earlier- you're confusing morality with justice.

I totally agree that *justice* is a matter of 'might makes right.' But consensus CANNOT be forged on that same basis. Why? Might makes right ignores minorities- in fact, can ignore anything it wants to- and is thus NOT consensus.

Your argument actually reminds me of the neo-Marxist Structuralists. They too thought that all human relations were about might making right. They were wrong, but they were insistent.

I am fairly certain that the nihilism of the "honest" atheists will become manifest.

Or we'll just do what we've been doing these past few pages and ignore your idiotic strawman in favor of an argument we *actually* made.

The honest atheist is the nihilist.

Nonsense. This is just the atheist you wish you were debating.

[IoshkaFutz]

Yes, fine and good. But by your standards of morality, (what you've stated here), and allowing those same standards to Dr. Smith, tell him that his act is immoral. Go ahead.

Finished? Do you feel better? Have you expressed your opinion of why he should cease and desist? Care to share it?

Now "untell" him everything you've said, because you're unaware of his very existence. It's just Dr. Smith and the "interests" out there. We are to rely entirely on Dr. Smith's beliefs, aren't we... his values, his interpretations, his strawmen, his arguments?

Oh and please, if I am guilty of strawmanism, please indicate where, how and why. My last strawman, to Huxley ("They absolutely INTERplay" wasn't really much of a strawman after all).

[IoshkaFutz]

How is consensus - whether it ignores or embraces minorities, unattached to power? Consensus is just groups of people in agreement. It is blank and neutral, morally inert. Consensus about what? Agreement of any value? Any opinion?

How is it relevant to the scenario?

You say:
"But consensus CANNOT be forged on that same basis. Why? Might makes right ignores minorities- in fact, can ignore anything it wants to- and is thus NOT consensus."

Forged? To shape by heating and hammering? Consensus may be voluntary. I choose to consent. If instead it is not voluntary, I am "forged" into consent... heated and hammered - so to speak.

[IoshkaFutz]

Your argument actually reminds me of the neo-Marxist Structuralists. They too thought that all human relations were about might making right. They were wrong, but they were insistent.

This is an argument? Allow me to paraphrase: "Your argument reminds me of a discussion of belly dancers I once overheard in Agadir. They too thought that all human relations were about might making right. They were wrong, but they danced real well.

[IoshkaFutz]

And your morality, coming from a being of infinite power, simply *given*, enforced if you will, on all human beings, ISN'T coercion?

If we're arguing for a covert 'might makes right' morality, you are arguing for an out-and-out obvious one.

Though a tu quoque, this to me is a valid objection. I will get to it in the next days, (supposing that you or someone is interested in my answer). Give me a few days. I've over-indulged and am behind in my work.

All I can at present anticipate is that the answer has to do with Usain Bolt and the hundred meter race.

[THHuxley]

The discussion about morality is always fascinating. Another scenario came to my mind:

Imagine two men on an island where food is extremely scarce. A situation arises where there is only a small quantity of food available which is enough to make only one of them survive. The stronger man is obviously faced with two choices:

1. He should take that morsel of food and let the weaker man die.
2. He could give that food to the weaker man and sacrifice his life.

Which of the choices do you, Hux and Ioshka, think is "more" moral?

Why is this only the "stronger" man's decision? By that standard alone, neither of these options can make any claim to being moral.

First off, there are more than two options. Here are at least three more:

3. Decide together who is to live and who is to die.
4. Draw lots.
5. Decide to both die.

All three of these are a "more moral" decision than any unilateral decision as reflected in the first two.

While the second option might be the most "selfless"... that does not necessarily mean it is the most moral. For example, what if the stronger man has a larger family somewhere depending in him to eventually return? What if the weaker person is a 95 year old man and the stronger has his whole life ahead of him? What about the old "Saving Private Ryan" conundrum?

If held to the first two choices, I vote neither. I simply don't have enough information.

[THHuxley]

Example SVP?

Uhhh... your scenario is the example.

Physicist Smiths interest and the interests of the rest of the world are mutually exclusive. They are thus in direct interplay.