From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 10:02:20 AM | Message Detail

I have an ethical conundrum for you, LUE.

What is the nature of the boundary between those iniquities that are inalienably ours to commit, and those that are sufficiently criminal that our desire to commit them is overridden by law?

If you answered “the U.S. legal system,” then you are wrong, because the debate centers not on the way things are but on the way they ought to be, and, more specifically, the direction in which things ought to trend. This is a philosophical question more so than a legal one.

For instance, consider the issue of gender equality, which I have written about at length here before. Suppose I were to point out that women cannot be equal to men so long as they have the damning reminder of their physical height there to literally “keep them down.”

The only way to rectify this inequity would be for tall women—and to a lesser extent tall men—to have disproportionately more children. But because the human sex drive is not known to correlate with one’s physical height, the only way to achieve this imbalance in the birthrate would be to legislate a solution such that, in the generations to come, women would become taller at a faster rate than men, thereby narrowing the height gap between the sexes and contributing to gender equality.

Women under the female median height in their respective countries would be discouraged from having more than one child, whereas women over the mean would be encouraged to have three or more. Men would be similarly treated, since stature derives from both parents in both sexes of child. Penalties would probably take the form of taxes, fines, or in the extreme case, a court order banning further conception. We don’t need ten-child households anymore.

Isn’t it interesting how one must discriminate in the short run in order to achieve a greater equality in the end, because by not discriminating, any current inequalities would face no direct pressure to dissipate, and thus would be more likely to endure indefinitely?

So, we come back to my original question, and give it a new form: Just how much iniquity can be reasonably committed in the name of a greater good?

I believe the answer depends on the nature of the greater good. In the case of gender equality, it would be a difficult sell to most people that we regulate the birthrate simply to make women taller. (I’d be all for it, but I recognize I am in the minority.) Contrastingly, if the “greater good” at stake were more desperate, or superior in scope, we would be justified in committing far deeper iniquity in its accomplishment, such as the actions of war, where destruction is perpetrated presumably in hopes of securing a better future.

In the United States, this boundary is defined by the government, and by the courts. Ordinary people are not permitted to exceed the law without facing penalties for so doing, but government at its highest has the power to change the law, to strike it down, and to create it. And, importantly, the government has the power to enforce law. But philosophy is not a very important practice in the government, nor is it most anywhere else. People simply cannot be bothered to ask such “impractical” questions of themselves. Many cannot even be assumed to be capable of asking such questions in the first place. And, thus, political expediency, cultural traditions and entrepreneurial institutions dictate the course of the country.

But in the meantime, the cogent and wise citizen is obliged—as always—to ponder better solutions that would more justly draw the boundary between justifiable iniquity and unjustifiable depravity. Hence, the topic.

~ Josh

From: Taernoch | Posted: 9/13/2004 10:15:00 AM | Message Detail

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

From: Superboc | Posted: 9/13/2004 10:18:50 AM | Message Detail

Use of thick language <> Intelligence

Contrastingly?

 

From: Mr gonzo | Posted: 9/13/2004 10:30:00 AM | Message Detail

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he just used all those pretty words to cover up the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about, and he just wants someone to hold him, and tell him everything is going to be O.K.

 

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:07:10 AM | Message Detail

I know that to truly appeal to the masses you've got to speak in their language, but I'm not trying to pander like that. LUE is large enough that some pretty bright lights hang around, and those are generally the people to whom I speak. The mindless teeming millions aren't going to be swayed by any direct comments I could make, and I don't bother trying if I can help it.

At some point, I decided that I would respect myself more if I behaved as though the world was full of respectable people rather than fools. So I speak, I write, and I think as though I have a point to make before a cogent audience. The world doesn't need another mindless screamer.

~ Josh

From: Goatpuzzle | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:07:16 AM | Message Detail

Well, part of the problem is that a concept of the "greater good" is so subject personal whim... what's good for the goose will not necessarily be seen as good for the gander, though I suppose that's just common sense. I have a lot of ideas for improvement of the human condition which, if made president of the United States, I would implement immediately. I'm also aware that the moment what I had done came to light, I would be tried and likely executed for crimes against humanity. I wonder though; does it make me a fanatic, or insane, that I would willingly take steps that may involve some horrible things if given the power to do so? Even knowing that while my vision may be made manifest, it would also result in the loss of freedom or life for myself and others?

Perhaps the most refined example of this internal struggle can be found in the act of killing another man during times of war. You are tasked with deciding upon the course which you will believe shall bring about the best result, at the final cost of someone else. I've come to think that there probably is really no true greatest good. We must all ask ourselves, however, if we are willing to make that call for what we believe in and openly accept the consequences for the path we choose to lead humanity down.

 

From: Mystic998 | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:09:07 AM | Message Detail

The nature of the boundary would depend on the society, wouldn't it?
---
Anything too stupid to be said is sung.

From: Mr gonzo | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:09:11 AM | Message Detail

Alright, I salute you for being an intellectual, if that's how you choose to view yourself.

But there's no denying that you're an elitist.

 

From: MarylandBluesfan | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:09:33 AM | Message Detail

Indeed, on LUE there are only a handful of people who would be willing to read even that much text. Of that handful, there are even fewer who will comprehend this (or any of your other essays).

As for the topic at hand, if you could earnestly prove that the unpleasantries of today would necessarily lead to a "greater good" I'm not sure there is any action that isn't worth taking. You'd be hard pressed, however, to prove that claim (even if you were without my personal opinion that there is no greater good, if you're willing to look far enough ahead).

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:09:51 AM | Message Detail

But there's no denying that you're an elitist.

To the devil, his due.

~ Josh

From: Mr gonzo | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:11:15 AM | Message Detail

I don't know. I fully understood your argument, but I just don't like your attitude. I apologize if I offended you, none the less.

 

From: MarylandBluesfan | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:11:34 AM | Message Detail

Hurray for making a post that was almost entirely obsolete as a result of the posts that arrived between my deciding to write it and the time I posted it...

-_-

From: Mystic998 | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:11:55 AM | Message Detail

Eh, I read it, but I don't really want to get into a long discussion. So I just figured I'd say something simple and direct.

 

From: Karma Hunter | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:13:58 AM | Message Detail

Wow, these people getting upset have OBVIOUSLY never seen a post from Polemos.

 

From: Mr gonzo | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:14:59 AM | Message Detail

Who's Polemos? Does he talk like a combination of The Architect and Ignatius J. Reilly too? :-P

 

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:25:27 AM | Message Detail

Goatpuzzle: (quite the username…)
I have a lot of ideas for improvement of the human condition which, if made president of the United States, I would implement immediately. I'm also aware that the moment what I had done came to light, I would be tried and likely executed for crimes against humanity.

I hear a lot of this among intellectual circles. In all honesty, I don’t consider myself a classical intellectualist. I am not interested in having complete disregard for the compassionate side of the human condition. A good leader is not comprised of bold ideas alone; a good leader has goals that will benefit people both in knowledge and material. In all honesty I wouldn’t dare write a long essay detailing my personal beliefs for LUE, because not even I would expect anyone to give proper consideration. LUE is an environment for arrogance…people are very arrogant here, far beyond their personalities in the heavily inhibited physical world. But by the same token, LUE is more attentive in certain regards, and if you package your ideas properly, you can make a difference. In the end, building a power base is harder to do than commanding one. Before anyone can be trusted to impose his bold ideas, he or she must first successfully convey them, and find resonance. The alternative is to completely disregard the wishes of people in general, and that’s just asking for trouble. Anyhow, that’s a rambling response I gave, but I hope my point comes across intelligibly.

I've come to think that there probably is really no true greatest good.

That’s a relativist attitude that presumes that the journey—the means—is greater than the destination, or the ends. I have never encountered anyone who could argue that premise successfully without adopting a number of unpalatable positions, including anarchism and perhaps even outright nihilism.

Suffice it to say, there is a greatest good. If it doesn’t exist inherently, then someday we shall create it. Let’s not be so arrogant to presume that there is not one simply because we have yet to find or fashion it.

Mystic998:
The nature of the boundary would depend on the society, wouldn't it?

Entirely true, but as a fervent believer in E Pluribus, Unum, I dismiss cultural disparity as a valid source of diversity, let alone an irreconcilable force.

MarylandBluesfan:
As for the topic at hand, if you could earnestly prove that the unpleasantries of today would necessarily lead to a "greater good" I'm not sure there is any action that isn't worth taking. You'd be hard pressed, however, to prove that claim (even if you were without my personal opinion that there is no greater good, if you're willing to look far enough ahead).

That’s the big question, isn’t it. That’s worth a fuller response, which I shall compose in a bit.

Mr gonzo:
I don't know. I fully understood your argument, but I just don't like your attitude.

If that’s all, then the feeling is mutual and we can get on with business. =)

~ Josh

From: Immoral Pimp | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:30:33 AM | Message Detail

*Starts to read*

hey... a butterfly....

From: Zeroflowne | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:31:31 AM | Message Detail

Optimal solution is that which creates the greatest good for the greatest number, if you're a utilitarian. And I can't see why anyone cannot be one. That said, the (rather meaningless, IMO) equalization of height is a miniscule benefit compared to the detriment of denying countless people their desired family.

 

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 11:40:45 AM | Message Detail

Zeroflowne:
Optimal solution is that which creates the greatest good for the greatest number, if you're a utilitarian. And I can't see why anyone cannot be one. That said, the (rather meaningless, IMO) equalization of height is a miniscule benefit compared to the detriment of denying countless people their desired family.

I would start off by pointing out that I do not necessarily agree with the premise of “greatest number” as a valid interpretation of human ascension, because it presumes that people have different conditions for the fulfillment of “good” within them or by them. Instead, I prefer to take it from the point of view that truly good things are universally applicable, and that humanity should converge on these points, and you will note upon closer inspection that this idea makes no statement one way or the other as to the absolute number of people by or to whom we should be doing “good” at a given time. Thus, I consider utilitarianism to be misguided not in its reasoning, but in its premise.

Nevertheless, there are a good many useful points of the utilitarianism model that overlap with my own, personal “-ism” for achieving a better world. Utility itself is certainly worth considering, for example.

~ Josh

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 1:02:48 PM | Message Detail

MarylandBluesfan:
As for the topic at hand, if you could earnestly prove that the unpleasantries of today would necessarily lead to a "greater good" I'm not sure there is any action that isn't worth taking. You'd be hard pressed, however, to prove that claim (even if you were without my personal opinion that there is no greater good, if you're willing to look far enough ahead).

That’s the big question, isn’t it? How do we direct a world whose intricacies defy explicit understanding toward a world whose idealism we cannot fathomably define? It sounds almost like searching for buried treasure without a map.

Indeed, ask people to define “paradise,” and you would be unlikely to get a reasonable answer. Most people would describe a place where their greatest known wishes are fulfilled, without a second thought given to whether or not the place they have described is self-contradictory, or even possible. In almost every case, it surely will be highly contradictory and patently impossible. This is because changing even a single thing about the world, changes the entire world. Declaring new conditions upon the world by fiat is guaranteed to create inconsistencies. Suppose some demigod came upon us and offered to build each person a paradise to the very letter of his or her description. I imagine that most people would end up with custom-made Hells for themselves.

Who among us is qualified to define paradise? The question has no safe answer, regardless of whether we decide everyone is qualified, or only a few, or but one person, or no one at all. Instead, we are better off trying to spell out our own vision of paradise, and marking down the inconsistencies we find. Most people, especially those without their share of wisdom, are best suffered to go no further and will no doubt not even realize they have been left behind yet again, but what about the rest of us? Ask anyone whether he believes his ideology to be consistent and reasonable, and no matter the answer you will hear a lie. The very question itself is unanswerable without universal knowledge. The only solution is healthy skepticism administered by a method of logic.

Logic suggests that if universal knowledge will illuminate any problem, then we must accomplish the absolute power necessary to attain this knowledge. This immediately necessitates the study of all natural sciences, and pre-necessitates the understanding of any arithmetic and literacy skills necessary to engage the sciences. The social sciences and arts quickly follow, not necessarily as necessities in the absolute sense, but as prerequisites by virtue of the world as it presently exists.

Thus, education comes first. I have long held that the graduation requirement for high school students be that they understand enough about the world to want to learn more about it, and to have the means and desire to begin doing so on their own volition. But this in itself demands the nurturing of curiosity within children, so in fact we have the difficulty of being unable to address the issue of bettering the world before understanding the workings of the world and moving to attain more knowledge of the world, which itself cannot be undertaken without first wanting to do so.

Perhaps you might say that life begins with curiosity. Perhaps no one is truly alive until he or she desires to know—not to know things, but to know, without any object. All knowledge serves the cause of universal knowledge.

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 1:03:05 PM | Message Detail

(concluded)

For the fomentation of curiosity, I have no concrete technique. Curiosity is not something humanity has yet learned to teach. Even to this day, it mostly comes by the result of favorable environmental circumstances in one’s earliest years, the particulars of which remain undefined almost in full—although obvious ones like reading and music and constructive toys like building blocks all stand out as good bets.

But assuming an inherent and flourishing curiosity, and presuming at least a high-school-graduation-equivalent (by my definition) of scientific ability, then logic suggests that to understand the way ahead, toward a better world, we must first identify what is wrong with the here and now. Everyone’s opinion is valid—although not necessarily correct or complete—when it comes to seeing wrong in the world, because we are each of us the final judge of our own contentedness.

Simply by considering what I have said, then it is evidently that if you can answer what you think is wrong with this world, you are already ahead of the curve. Identifying ills affords us the opportunity to rectify them, bringing us, if not necessarily happiness, then one less source of unhappiness. No doubt many of our solutions will simply give rise to new maladies, but at least there has been some measure of progress, and with an increasing understanding for the intricacies of the world and the capacities of the universe, we can almost assure that our time will be productively spent.

Nevertheless, this form of self-betterment is not the desirable limit of any self-respecting Renaissance man. We all of us want not simply to eliminate maladies but to reach out our hands and keenly touch the world, and improve upon it directly.

Given the pre-established importance of education and scientific acumen, I believe that a good place to start sculpting the world by your own hand is to desire that others be educated as well. This is the reason I post such weighty material in a place like LUE—not because I arrogantly want to bring enlightenment to the masses (although that is undeniably a plus)—but because I see an opportunity for many people all at once to get their hands on fascinating ideas they may not otherwise have considered. So, you see, it is important to learn, and to spread your desire for learning.

And that is my answer to the big question. How do we search for buried treasure without a map? Not by digging as many holes as it takes, but by learning, by piecing together the clues until the point where any map is unnecessary. And my answer has the additional benefit of directing our energies toward a productive end and bypassing the pragmatic difficulties of “[not being] sure there is any action that isn’t worth taking.”

In higher circles of learning, of course, education is not the goal but just another prerequisite, yet in the context of LUE, it is enough to start here, with my proposal that the measure of iniquity in the name of justice is definable in terms of the desire for knowledge, with the rule of law consigned in this domain to merely forestall the cruelest avenues of learning. (Human cruelty is a thorn that shall remain in our sides for a long time to come.)

~ Josh

From: Taernoch | Posted: 9/13/2004 3:26:36 PM | Message Detail

Optimal solution is that which creates the greatest good for the greatest number, if you're a utilitarian. And I can't see why anyone cannot be one. …

If I am not mistaken - from what little I can remember about utilitarianism, circumstances [or priorities] may be overridden provided that the end result benefits the majority. Should this be the case, there are going to be situations where benefit is gained at the expense of others. [I believe that may have already been said; if so, then I apologize.]

… Suppose some demigod came upon us and offered to build each person a paradise to the very letter of his or her description. …

Chances are that there will eventually be a point where one person’s variant of ‘paradise’ conflicts with that of another’s. This in turn may demonstrate [albeit to a weak extent] that everyone can [or may] never be fully satisfied with whatever conditions they are provided.

Furthermore, should I be allowed to bring it up - the focus of either subject (that being iniquity / justice and concept of paradise) appears to be [or is, rather] solely on humans. Is there [going to be] any consideration placed upon other creatures inhabiting the planet with regards to performing transgressions for the sake of a ‘greater good,’ or do humans have top priority, no matter what?


Thus, education comes first. I have long held that the graduation requirement for high school students be that they understand enough about the world to want to learn more about it, and to have the means and desire to begin doing so on their own volition. …

From what I have observed, students place much more attention on socializing as opposed to learning. Although that social aspect is certainly necessary, it is as if the pursuit of knowledge has become more of a group effort, rather than an individual desire.

Additionally, whether it is merely personal opinion or not, I would not be surprised if most institutions have more concern for processes (or ‘techniques’), marks, and grades instead of one’s personal interest in the subjects being studied. The instructors may provide the foundation necessary for learning, but the desire to learn [at any level] really depends upon the individual, as you have covered.


These are just my thoughts, however, so please excuse me if they do not relate at all to the matters being discussed. I suppose I found the extension of the topic to be worthwhile in reading and pondering about, but I digress.

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/13/2004 5:52:03 PM | Message Detail

Taernoch:
Is there [going to be] any consideration placed upon other creatures inhabiting the planet with regards to performing transgressions for the sake of a ‘greater good,’ or do humans have top priority, no matter what?

Ultimately, humanity will develop a valuation methodology of life forms that assigns worth in a defensible fashion. However, that remains well into our future. There is a lot of popular sentiment today, as has been throughout human history, that life itself is precious inherently. I think a more astute conviction would be that sentience is a higher standard of measurement above and beyond plain life, and the higher the sentience, the greater the value of the life form holding that sentience. I suppose it becomes a matter of “It’s not your life that’s precious so much as what you do with it.” Those who are sentient have the power to choose their fate; those without sentience behave on instinct alone. This must all be taken into consideration when we pass judgment on the blades of grass, our pet kittens, and our wicked stepmothers.

In any case, the valuation of living (and sentient) creatures is not something we ought to try undertaking just yet, simply because it would almost certainly be hopelessly futile beneath the weight of so much modern human prejudices and ignorance. I don’t trust mankind of the 21st century to put a price tag on non-human life; we as a whole are apt to overvalue or undervalue lesser life forms. I have yet to see even a remote semblance of any rational attempt.

From what I have observed, students place much more attention on socializing as opposed to learning. Although that social aspect is certainly necessary, it is as if the pursuit of knowledge has become more of a group effort, rather than an individual desire.

There is something to be said of the human nature that compels us toward competition in most circumstances and cooperation in others. Human social structures are the most elaborate and complex on the planet, but they all speak to the underlying desire of individuals to do well by themselves, i.e., by their own standards. Humanity, and human civilization thus, have evolved individualistically, and that entails a competitive spirit. It’s the reason people waste so much time and energy boasting, playing themselves up, and denigrating those who displease or offend them. Civilization has always endured the intricacies of individualism, and a good deal of the depravity (and colorful texture, I might add) in our societies owes to this.

I would say that the underlying mechanisms here, at least in the United States and all Western societies, remain solidly individualistic, despite all our glorification of social groups, teamwork, and cooperation. Thus, the search for knowledge at least for the time being within the context of these societies ought to remain the domain of the individual. Will that be at odds with our cultural preferences? I’m not sure. I’m not sure which will pull the other along. In any event, group learning will continue to have its limits so long as members of groups maintain dominant individual identities. The most likely result of reaching these limitations would be manifest, I believe, in the form of knowledge plateaus, reached when the group decides it no longer wishes to pursue a subject, or otherwise loses interest therein prematurely.

I would not be surprised if most institutions have more concern for processes (or ‘techniques’), marks, and grades instead of one’s personal interest in the subjects being studied.

This is one of the major travesties in education today.

~ Josh

From: Taernoch | Posted: 9/13/2004 7:03:36 PM | Message Detail

… There is a lot of popular sentiment today, as has been throughout human history, that life itself is precious inherently. I think a more astute conviction would be that sentience is a higher standard of measurement above and beyond plain life, and the higher the sentience, the greater the value of the life form holding that sentience. I suppose it becomes a matter of “It’s not your life that’s precious so much as what you do with it.” Those who are sentient have the power to choose their fate; those without sentience behave on instinct alone. …

Point taken, though there are speculations to consider through that which may require attention. An example would be humans who are mentally incapacitated. Another one might be that of the divine, or the supernatural, should one happen to acknowledge the existence of such. If acknowledged, are humans able to pass judgment upon beings of a higher level, or are humans subjected to what they have applied to ‘lower’ forms? Or, is this area of consideration rendered invalid or unnecessary?


In any case, the valuation of living (and sentient) creatures is not something we ought to try undertaking just yet, simply because it would almost certainly be hopelessly futile beneath the weight of so much modern human prejudices and ignorance. I don’t trust mankind of the 21st century to put a price tag on non-human life; we as a whole are apt to overvalue or undervalue lesser life forms. I have yet to see even a remote semblance of any rational attempt.

Though I personally disapprove of that appraisal of sorts, I do agree that the commencement of it should not happen yet. In my mere opinion – besides factors such as individual sentiment and preference, I cannot help but think that having such a level of authority would potentially be tantamount to parading arrogance.

… Thus, the search for knowledge at least for the time being within the context of these societies ought to remain the domain of the individual. … In any event, group learning will continue to have its limits so long as members of groups maintain dominant individual identities. …

How fortunate. [I have no intention of being once again in a place full of clans, particularly with regards to academic institutions. But I digress, so please excuse me.]

This is one of the major travesties in education today.

Indeed. Oh, how pleasant spoon-fed education must be. I do not know whether it is a good thing or not that no method currently exists where one can ‘download’ all required information into his or her brain. Then again, given the nature of humans, it must be a positive case. Again, however, that might just be my opinion.

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/14/2004 9:25:03 AM | Message Detail

Taernoch:
An example would be humans who are mentally incapacitated.

This is a classic example indeed, and one that has never been satisfactorily resolved. I have never been able to bring myself to accept that we should just dismiss the mentally handicapped as an inferior subset of the human race, but neither have I been willing to accept that we shouldn’t. Most people tend to be very strong in whichever of these two opinions they take, and the topic becomes heated quickly.

I do have an answer to your example, one that tolerates the disparity between the mentally nominal and the mentally handicapped temporarily without taking a permanent stance. In my view, mental incapacitation is an iniquity that mankind of today simply cannot overcome. Handicapped folks are here, and we can’t send them back to the abyss, so we may as well skim a bit of our civilization’s great wealth from the top and take care of these people as best we’re able. And, more importantly, in the meantime we can study the disciplines of neuroscience, neuropsychology, and bioengineering toward the day when mental incapacitation becomes reversible. Thus it is not in the present but in the future that the conflict becomes resolved, not by assigning equal value or lesser value to these folks, but by removing the stigma that brings about the dilemma in the first place.

Another [example] might be that of the divine, or the supernatural, should one happen to acknowledge the existence of such.

Ah, you’ve raised an even more controversial example than the last! I must concede right from the start that religious conviction outranks just about all other convictions in those who harbor true religious faith, thus abrogating the prudence of contemplating the issue I raised at the start of this thread. The mature religions on Earth all have considered this question in great detail over the centuries, and have reached substantive conclusions long before the modern era.

Without commenting on the usefulness of considering the ideas raised by the world’s great religions, which I grant are often sources of utility and deep fascination, I have frankly never respected the concrete rules and laws laid out for mankind by these religions, because all of them cut off human curiosity in some integral capacity. A religion cannot function amongst curious people, because religions rely upon absolute truths while humanity has a penchant for discovering new “absolute” truths to replace the old ones with the passing of every generation. In order to keep pace with the times, the religion must be reformed, and in my estimation that removes a great deal of its right to claim a monopoly on the truth.

Most prominently, I would propose this simple guideline: If the reason we stay our hand in the quest for knowledge, power, and paradise should be due in any part to fear, fear of exceeding our limits, fear of becoming corrupt, fear of reaching for That Which Must Not Be Touched, then our stayed hand is indefensibly idle. Fear is a healthy source of moderation and caution, but when it stifles curiosity at the source I have nothing but contempt for it. Would God really want people to abandon the quest to become like him (her/it/them)? I cannot accept that.

If there is a God, my dream would be to meet and, if possible, exceed him. What else is worth doing? Well, if you subscribe to a particular religion, you have an answer to that question…and we’ve already addressed my disregard for religions. And if there is not a God, then the entire issue is moot.

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/14/2004 9:25:27 AM | Message Detail

(continued)

If acknowledged, are humans able to pass judgment upon beings of a higher level, or are humans subjected to what they have applied to ‘lower’ forms?

That’s a fine question. Do we have the right to pass judgment—i.e., to assign value—to that which is greater than us? Let’s consider the extremes. For that which is vastly and unfathomably greater than us, it would seem silly to try and pass, let alone execute a valuation or any other type of judgment. And for that which is only minutely greater than us, it would seem as though we could say a great deal and perhaps even reach a semblance of reasonabl3 valuation.

In the other direction, it seems pretty easy to pass judgment on those lesser life forms nearest to us, whereas there remains a wealth of (undebated and unaddressed) concerns regarding those life forms so vastly simpler than us that, once again, we have trouble fathoming their use. Surely the plankton that provides the air we breathe is worth more than its weight in gold, because all the gold in the world won’t release free oxygen into the air. But take any one microbial piece of plankton, and you have next to nothing…a tiny speck of life not worth the time it took to scoop out of the sea.

Perhaps, then, a more suitable form of your question would be, “To what extent are humans merited in passing judgment on other forms of life?” In a way, this comes very close to my original question at the head of the topic, and I do find it interesting to have come back to it after such an enjoyable discourse.

To the extent we understand ourselves, we are warranted in passing judgment on that which is like us. To the extend we understand the world, we are warranted in passing judgment on that which is encompassed by our understanding. And for all that which does fall within our understanding or upon the envelope of our science and philosophy, we are reasonable to seize upon it and pass judgment and sculpt it and shape it and delight both in it and by it. And for that which is beyond our present understanding, well, once again, universal knowledge shines out as the holy grail. We simply must have more of it. There is so much left to learn.

Knowledge is the Purpose of Life, if I may speak with such dramatic capitalization. The illumination of universal knowledge is the penultimate ambition of all sentient minds, whether they realize it or not, behind only the decision of what to do with that illumination, because hey! The more you know…the more you know.

Though I personally disapprove of that appraisal of sorts, I do agree that the commencement of it should not happen yet.

This reminds me of the difference between those who rely upon their hopes and those who rely upon their hands. I should think that we are all obliged to act toward the fulfillment of our own, personal ambitions. The universe is not so badly designed that we could break it by our meddling, and if civilization is to achieve the pinnacles of existence, someday we’ll have to find a place on the table for everything. We may as well not wait for other people to decide what we want.

From: lordjesq | Posted: 9/14/2004 9:26:04 AM | Message Detail

(concluded)

In my mere opinion – besides factors such as individual sentiment and preference, I cannot help but think that having such a level of authority would potentially be tantamount to parading arrogance.

One of life’s most dangerous truths—but still a truth—is that arrogance is not always unjustified. Earlier in this thread gonzo called me an elitist, and he’s exactly right. I can’t bring myself to respect people who don’t care about the world enough to bother themselves wondering at its wonders. That is an arrogance on my part, but it is not one that I would abandon, or even feel ashamed in. We all have our arrogances, and most of them are unjustified, but arrogance itself is not so easily pigeonholed as a detrimental passion.

I have no intention of being once again in a place full of clans, particularly with regards to academic institutions.

It would be interesting to see how the real future turns out compared to our intentions for it.

I do not know whether it is a good thing or not that no method currently exists where one can ‘download’ all required information into his or her brain. Then again, given the nature of humans, it must be a positive case.

How many of the most important things in our lives are guaranteed to remain the most important things forever? One thing I appreciated about The Matrix was that it popularized the idea of instantaneous knowledge. As humanity of the present possesses no such means, we therefore value the trials and tribulations of the educational process very highly. But knowledge is knowledge, and the experience of acquiring knowledge is also itself knowledge. Were there a way to bottle it all up and drink it down, I do not believe we would be eliminating anything from ourselves. Are we missing out on any Great Truths by not spending our consciousness on breathing and generating fresh cells and so forth? No, I do not think we are. Basic education is a necessary function. I look forward to the day when no living human needs concern herself or himself with it in the least. It occurs to me as an analogy that the human consciousness is never concerned with the running of autonomic bodily functions such as heartbeat. Someday, a basic level of education will be just as prerequisite. We will have it from the moment of our inception, because there is so much else to do, and life is short…even when it is not.

Again, however, that might just be my opinion.

As if I spoke from some Great Book of Truth. I just tells it as I sees it.