[_ Old Earth _] Food for thought.

[Jayls5]

An 1800-1900 century philosopher's take on life. Try to drop your notions of morality for a bit. Just read it with an open mind.

The teachers of the purpose of existence. Whether I contemplate men with benevolence or with an evil eye, I always find them concerned with a single task, all of them and every one of them in particular: to do what is good for the preservation of the human race. Not from any feeling of love for the race, but merely because nothing in them is older, stronger, more inexorable and unconquerable than this instinctâ€â€because this instinct constitutes the essence of our species, our herd. It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it. Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the species; for he nurtures either in himself or in others, through his effects, instincts without which humanity would long have become feeble or rotten. Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called evil belongs to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species. To be sure, this economy is not afraid of high prices, of squandering, and it is on the whole extremely foolish:â€â€still it is proven that it has preserved our race so far. I no longer know whether you, my dear fellow man and neighbor, are at all capable of living in a way that would damage the species; in other words, "unreasonably" and "badly." What might have harmed the species may have become extinct many thousands of years ago and may by now be one of those things that are not possible even for God. Pursue your best or your worst desires, and above all perish! In both cases you are probably still in some way a promoter and benefactor of humanity and therefore entitled to your eulogistsâ€â€but also to your detractors! But you will never find anyone who could wholly mock you as an individual, also in your best qualities, bringing home to you to the limits of truth your boundless, flylike, froglike wretchedness! To laugh at oneself as one would have to laugh in order to laugh out of the whole truthâ€â€to do that even the best so far lacked sufficient sense for the truth, and the most gifted had too little genius for that! Even laughter may yet have a future! I mean, when the proposition "the species is everything, one is always none" has become part of humanity, and this ultimate liberation and irresponsibility has become accessible to all at all times. Perhaps laughter will then have formed an alliance with wisdom, perhaps only "gay science" will then be left. For the present, things are still quite different. For the present, the comedy of existence has not yet "become conscious" of itself. For the present, we still live in the age of tragedy, the age of moralities and religions. What is the meaning of the ever new appearance of these founders of moralities and religions, these instigators of fights over moral valuations, these teachers of remorse and religious wars? What is the meaning of these heroes on this stage? Thus far these have been the heroes, and everything else, even if at times it was all that could be seen and was much too near to us, has always merely served to set the stage for these heroes, whether it was machinery or coulisse or took the form of confidants and valets. (The poets, for example, were always the valets of some morality.) It is obvious that these tragedians, too, promote the interests of the species, even if they should believe that they promote the interest of God or work as God's emissaries. They, too, promote the life of the species, by promoting the faith in life. "Life is worth living"â€â€every one of them shoutsâ€â€"there is something to life, there is something behind life, beneath it; beware!" From time to time this instinct, which is at work equally in the highest and the basest menâ€â€the instinct for the preservation of the speciesâ€â€erupts as reason and as passion of the spirit; then it is surrounded by a resplendent retinue of reasons and tries with all the force at its command to make us forget that at bottom it is instinct, drive, folly, lack of reasons. Life shall be loved, because! Man shall advance himself and his neighbor, because! What names all these Shalls and Becauses receive and may yet receive in the future! In order that what happens necessarily and always, spontaneously and without any purpose, may henceforth appear to be done for some purpose and strike man as rational and an ultimate commandment, the ethical teacher comes on stage, as the teacher of the purpose of existence; and to this end he invents a second, different existence and unhinges by means of his new mechanics the old, ordinary existence. Indeed! he wants to make sure that we do not laugh at existence, or at ourselvesâ€â€or at him; for him, one is always one, something first and last and tremendous; for him there are no species, sums, or zeroes. His inventions and valuations may be utterly foolish and overenthusiastic; he may badly misjudge the course of nature and deny its conditions:â€â€and all ethical systems hitherto have been so foolish and anti-natural that humanity would have perished of every one of them if it had gained power over humanityâ€â€and yet, whenever "the hero" appeared on the stage, something new was attained: the gruesome counterpart of laughter, that profound emotional shock felt by many individuals at the thought: "Yes, it is worth living! Yes, I am worthy of living!"â€â€life and I and you and all of us became interesting to ourselves once again and for a little while. There is no denying that in the long run every one of these great teachers of a purpose was vanquished by laughter, reason, and nature: the short tragedy always gave way again and returned into the eternal comedy of existence; and "the waves of uncountable laughter"â€â€to cite Aeschylusâ€â€must in the end overwhelm even the greatest of these tragedians. In spite of all this laughter which makes the required corrections, human nature has nevertheless been changed by the ever new appearance of these teachers of the purpose of existenceâ€â€it now has one additional need, the need for the ever new appearance of such teachers and teachings of a "purpose." Gradually, man has become a fantastic animal that has to fulfill one more condition of existence than any other animal: man has to believe, to know, from time to time why he exists, his race cannot flourish without a periodic trust in life! Without faith in reason in life! And again and again the human race will decree from time to time: "There is something at which it is absolutely forbidden henceforth to laugh!" The most cautious friend of man will add: "Not only laughter and gay wisdom but the tragic, too, with all its sublime unreason, belongs among the means and necessities of the preservation of the species!" And consequently! Consequently! Consequently! Oh, do you understand me, my brothers? Do you understand this new law of ebb and flood? There is a time for us, too!

 

[cyberjosh]

The teachers of the purpose of existence. Whether I contemplate men with benevolence or with an evil eye, I always find them concerned with a single task, all of them and every one of them in particular: to do what is good for the preservation of the human race. Not from any feeling of love for the race, but merely because nothing in them is older, stronger, more inexorable and unconquerable than this instinctâ€â€because this instinct constitutes the essence of our species, our herd.

This presupposes some sort of moral uniformity, universally driving motivation, or in-built mechanism (a "uniform instinct" - however unexplainable it may be). Where pray tell is the source of this?

It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it. Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the species;

Funny how a concept of ironic fate creeps in here. The people who deliberately do bad are in fact doing good. Quite ridiculous. Also how is preservation of species inherently a "good thing"? Preservation must have a goal else it is pointless. One of two extremes should be expected given time and galvanization: No people do "bad things" anymore, or else everyone falls into the "harmful" category. Now which one is a good thing for human preservation again? Which is the goal of our "preservation" against which it can be gauged "good"?

for he nurtures either in himself or in others, through his effects, instincts without which humanity would long have become feeble or rotten. Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called evil belongs to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species.

Humanity to begin with has always been "feeble" and "rotten". Such people as mentioned are products of that, so really what you are getting is more of the same during times when morals and "goodness" try to develop, and the evil people who are the cancer that keeps humanity at that level of feebleness only act as a somewhat convenient, temporary backdrop to moral excellence, but infact ultimately are great hindrances to it. What you are praising here is that we can walk in a circle (without really progressing) and still survive just to walk around it yet again. Survival just for survival's sake is really pointless without progression. But just because something bright stands out because of something else that is dark, doesn't mean the darkness is to be desired nor is necessary. And just because struggle against an opposing force may make you feel better, it doesn't mean we should laud the opposing force. We first have to learn to have personal integrity and stamina before we can gauge how to survive a struggle external to us to develop inter-personal integrity and stamina. I think if there is any stagnation in society that needs an "upstart" (which you would propose crime, etc. is useful for) it is infact a stagnation to moral progression and to living in a crimeless environment.

~Josh

 

[Jayls5]

The teachers of the purpose of existence. Whether I contemplate men with benevolence or with an evil eye, I always find them concerned with a single task, all of them and every one of them in particular: to do what is good for the preservation of the human race. Not from any feeling of love for the race, but merely because nothing in them is older, stronger, more inexorable and unconquerable than this instinctâ€â€because this instinct constitutes the essence of our species, our herd.

This presupposes some sort of moral uniformity, universally driving motivation, or in-built mechanism (however unexplainable it may be). Where pray tell is the source of this?

"Where pray tell is the source of this?" - typo? I don't know what you're asking.

It doesn't presuppose some sort of moral uniformity at all. In fact, it overtly denies it. He spoke vaguely about "good" for the preservation of the species, but his use of the world "good" was merely a synonym for "beneficial." There was no intent on assigning morality to survival of the species as a whole.

It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it. Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the species;

Funny how a concept of ironic fate creeps in here. The people deliberately do bad are in fact doing good. Quite ridiculous. Also how is preservation of species inherently a "good thing"? Preservation must have a goal else it is pointless. One of two extremes should be expected given time and galvanization: No people do "bad things" anymore, or else everyone falls into the "harmful" category. Now which one is a good thing for human preservation again? Which is the goal of our "preservation" against which it can be gauged "good"?

You're now basing your entire analysis of this text on the assumption that he meant survival of the species was morally "good." You might want to go back and read it again with the thought in mind that he wasn't speaking morally at all so much as speaking about morals.

He doesn't literally mean that people who do "bad things" are doing "good." He meant that people who do bad things may contribute, by themselves or in others, to the preservation of our species. They inadvertently may BENEFIT the species even when doing things we perceive as bad. I can quickly give my opinion why this might be the case, but this would be my personal perspective and not the author's.

for he nurtures either in himself or in others, through his effects, instincts without which humanity would long have become feeble or rotten. Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called evil belongs to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species.

Humanity to begin with has always been "feeble" or "rotten". Such people as mentioned are products of that, so really what you are getting is more of the same during times when morals and "goodness" try to develop and the evil people who are the cancer that keeps humanity at that level of feebleness only act as a convenient backdrop to moral excellence. But just because something bright stands out because of something else that is dark, doesn't mean the darkness is to be desired nor is necessary.

~Josh

Ehh, that seems like a fairly intense moral Christian spin on it all.

Like I said from the very first post, drop your notions of "moral excellence," as you put it. Things we perceive as bad in many cases are necessary for improving chances of survival, objectively speaking. We see murderers and the herd takes action against murderers. We see diseases and we take action against further possible diseases. We do things in lots of cases as a result of things we consider bad from our personal perspective. Our reactions to these things as a whole save lives. We see the results of intellectual stagnation and laziness, and we proclaim to our followers, "Laziness is not good. It does not help us. We must rise up above it!"

Now, let's assume that a single "bad" man (by your standards) inspired thousands to do "good" in spite of him. Can you really say that the bad man did no good on the grand scheme of things? More importantly (as described by the author), we often see these "bad" people inspire many to benefit the species in spite of them. For we are all probably in some way a promoter and benefactor of humanity and therefore entitled to our eulogists - but also to our detractors.

 

[cyberjosh]

It doesn't presuppose some sort of moral uniformity at all. In fact, it overtly denies it. He spoke vaguely about "good" for the preservation of the species, but his use of the world "good" was merely a synonym for "beneficial." There was no intent on assigning morality to survival of the species as a whole.

But it goes back to the question of what constitutes "beneficial". Why is survival beneficial? What's the goal? And aside from that, I'm not sure the logic follows. Why would some people who do bad things increase the survival/preservation of people? Short of all those people being murderers (a small subset of all the people who do "bad things") the rest would only affect the quality of life (such as if they robbed you blind and you lost alot), and that certainly doesn't benefit society - even if you have to "make due" under tough circumstances. And also looking at those things, people like that rob people of their livelihood & murderers rob people of life. Who are we to judge that it is beneficial that others suffer in order to help us as a whole survive? And if you ask me that was only true on one occasion, once and for all: The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. But from any other perspective that sounds either selfish - if we would prefer that bad things still happen for the survival of the race, or too impassive and cold to say "well that's just how it is, yet it works out for the better".

My question: Why do you care? What's your point?

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Now, let's assume that a single "bad" man (by your standards) inspired thousands to do "good" in spite of him. Can you really say that the bad man did no good on the grand scheme of things? More importantly (as described by the author), we often see these "bad" people inspire many to benefit the species in spite of them. For we are all probably in some way a promoter and benefactor of humanity and therefore entitled to our eulogists - but also to our detractors.

No infact, he would not have done anything good in the grand scheme of things. The drive and reaction for good lies solely in the person/character of those who took action to do good, and lies completely in their response and how they respond morally or conscientiously in a situation. So in your analogy if that person inspired more people to do bad than good (or who even cares if it inspired more - how bout even one person inspired to do bad?), but infact both occurred (bad and good reactions) how then would you qualify it? The person who did the damage deserves no credit. Chance or natural tragedies (Great Grandparents die, etc.) as well could also spur similar responses to do good, and also a person that has that potential good in them may not even need an occasion to do good. So people doing bad cannot be an unequivocal source of spurring people to do good, and only the reaction of the people affected can be credited for good (if they indeed react by doing good) and not the causer of what ever happened to spur it on. You are looking at a small anomaly in the human ability to make the best out of a bad (or even "neutral") situation and applying it only to when someone does bad, when infact humans can make the best out of a bad situation in "chance" or natural situations as well. In addition those who actually react good are only a subset themselves of all people, the other major subset being those who infact react badly, violently, maliciously, etc. to bad situations. And a big question must be, is the good that may possibly come out of this situation really beneficial in light of the other bad things that could happen because of it. People who commit crime inspire others to commit crime, that is a fact. And the crime it self wouldn't inspire anyone to do good, but perhaps helping a person who, for example, was a victim of a crime and was robbed, could spur you to do some good by giving some money to them - which would be primarily done most directly in light of that the person needed some financial help, not in the fact that the person got robbed (although that may be an indirect reason for your contribution - that situation didn't result in good, you making the best out of an already bad situation resulted in good).

I just don't see from what demented perspective we would see bad things in a good light. Sure if you can make some good come out of an already bad situation, do it, but don't dwell on it, and certainly don't praise the cause of the tragedy/bad situation!

~Josh

 

[Jayls5]

It doesn't presuppose some sort of moral uniformity at all. In fact, it overtly denies it. He spoke vaguely about "good" for the preservation of the species, but his use of the world "good" was merely a synonym for "beneficial." There was no intent on assigning morality to survival of the species as a whole.

But it goes back to the question of what constitutes "beneficial". Why is survival beneficial? What's the goal? And aside from that, I'm not sure the logic follows. Why would some people who do bad things increase the survival/preservation of people? Short of all those people being murderers (a small subset of all the people who do "bad things") the rest would only affect the quality of life (such as if they robbed you blind and you lost alot), and that certainly doesn't benefit society - even if you have to "make due" under tough circumstances. And also looking at those things, people like that rob people of their livelihood & murderers rob people of life. Who are we to judge that it is beneficial that others suffer in order to help us as a whole survive? And if you ask me that was only true on one occasion, once and for all: The sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. But from any other perspective that sounds either selfish - if we would prefer that bad things still happen for the survival of the race, or too impassive and cold to say "well that's just how it is, yet it works out for the better".

My question: Why do you care? What's your point?

~Josh

You ask: who are we to judge that it is beneficial that others suffer in order to help us as a whole survive? First of all, judgment is not necessary, nor is even being aware of the fact that "bads can lead to goods." Most of the time, we do not have this mindset at all. We wipe out all thought that a bad man is inspiring us to progress. We merely deem him "bad," which is discussed in the beginning of the text. "It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it." We abandon it when we view it on the grand scale, but we don't on the small scale. We still call the thief bad when he steals your wallet. Knowledge of this grand perspective in no way inhibits us from wanting to stop a thief from stealing your wallet, a rapist from raping your wife, or a murderer from killing your loved ones.

In many occasions it takes a dramatic action to shake people out of apathy. This is a text that draws attention to the fact that the world is a bit more complex than we lead on to believe initially.

Like I said, let's take the most simple example of "laziness." People see that the lazy man has a hard time in life. He must mooch off of others, and he is not self sufficient. This creates a burden on everyone else due to his laziness. In response to it, people proclaim, "One shall work hard! One shall be fruitful in their labor! One shall strive towards the good!" People see the consequence of an act they do not like, and we label it "bad." This bad act in this case inspires people to be more likely to survive a famine (due to stocked up food) for example. This is obviously simplistic, and the world is far more complex than this, but I still think that this applies in a lot of cases.

 

[cyberjosh]

You ask: who are we to judge that it is beneficial that others suffer in order to help us as a whole survive? First of all, judgment is not necessary, nor is even being aware of the fact that "bads can lead to goods." Most of the time, we do not have this mindset at all.

And yet here we are talking about it. That's why what I am saying is relevant, because we are talking about it.

And those that take ill notice of problems in society and how people react borders on the possibility (as I wrote in my post) of that person being "impassive" and saying "well that's just how it is".

We wipe out all thought that a bad man is inspiring us to progress. We merely deem him "bad," which is discussed in the beginning of the text. "It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it." We abandon it when we view it on the grand scale, but we don't on the small scale. We still call the thief bad when he steals your wallet. Knowledge of this grand perspective in no way inhibits us from wanting to stop a thief from stealing your wallet, a rapist from raping your wife, or a murderer from killing your loved ones.

I'll agree that this can create some temporal good in society, that's how laws developed, etc. against crime - by observing basic interactions in society and seeing what works and what doesn't. But needless to say on a Christian forum, and myself being a Christian, I am looking for a goal of this progression, and there can be no goal without any presence of absolutes. The ultimate conclusion of this line of thought I fear is social relativism which can go in circles (as I pointed out before). I believe in absolute moral right and wrong, and asking me to not bring it into the discussion is unrealistic. I don't care if bad can lead to good down the road, I don't think bad is necessary nor beneficial - on any scale - and I have already explained why not. Please go back and read if you missed it.

In many occasions it takes a dramatic action to shake people out of apathy. This is a text that draws attention to the fact that the world is a bit more complex than we lead on to believe initially.

But why do I need to know this? What practical lesson are you trying to convey? That I really shouldn't worry or be discriminate against evil, wrong, and bad deeds since on the whole is just helps us anyway?

Like I said, let's take the most simple example of "laziness." People see that the lazy man has a hard time in life. He must mooch off of others, and he is not self sufficient. This creates a burden on everyone else due to his laziness. In response to it, people proclaim, "One shall work hard! One shall be fruitful in their labor! One shall strive towards the good!" People see the consequence of an act they do not like, and we label it "bad." This bad act in this case inspires people to be more likely to survive a famine (due to stocked up food) for example. This is obviously simplistic, and the world is far more complex than this, but I still think that this applies in a lot of cases.

Well, like I said, this is obviously a source of some temporal good and laws that have developed across many cultures and societies, because of these basic observations, and I especially attribute that to (from my Biblical perspective) God making basic right and wrong apparent to all people. The thing is though learning from mistakes (and if that's what you were talking about all along this changes the discussion considerably) and learning lessons from those who squander their lives in decadence (lazy people who mooch off of others) isn't quite the same as saying that when bad things happen in society (including stealing and physical violence) that it helps others. And there most certainly are different degrees of wrong things people can do, for the lazy person they are genrally non-threatening enough to where you can just shut the door in their face and tell them they can't mooch off of you (probably a good lesson for them - and now that I think about it, maybe that's where this thread should go next: people who do bad or harmful things learning from themselves out of shame to rectify it by doing good - self "rebirth" or rehabilitation in a sense), whereas a murderer is an entirely different type of problem that could care less about your consent and probably will attack you without your knowledge (stalking you). Little lesson is to be learned there other than common sense, like "If someone if swinging a blade at you to stab you, get out of the way". So perhaps we are getting tangled up in generalities. If you are thinking of simple lessons that are "generally" not terribly harmful (but sure, a lazy person could cause plenty of grief) when I'm thinking of a murderer, and then you say "Well, bad things can bring about good" then I'm sitting here thinking: "Why is it good again for there to be murderers so that we can learn from them?" But like I said, maybe we are getting mixed up in our conception of what is being discussed here.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Jayls5]

And yet here we are talking about it. That's why what I am saying is relevant, because we are talking about it.

I don't want to make it seem as though I'm excessively cutting apart your post to demean you, but I feel it's pretty important to isolate this and elaborate on it.

The entire part I discussed earlier covered this. We certainly are talking about it, but as I have said, it has little to no bearing on how we really approach moral situations on an individual level. We still stop the thieves from robbing us regardless of whether or not we believe that the end result of it will inspire good.

And those that take ill notice of problems in society and how people react borders on the possibility (as I wrote in my post) of that person being "impassive" and saying "well that's just how it is".

First off, thank you for putting in significant effort behind your posts. It's a refreshing thing in this forum to encounter one.

I really don't think he is in any way trying to inspire us to be complacent with what we think is bad, nor was this the purpose of what he was writing. It really seems to me to be an (attempted) objective piece analyzing our culture and morality from a neutral perspective. He's not saying that we should do anything at all as a result of the knowledge we gain from realizing that "bad" people cause us to benefit the species.

We can put our moral spin on it however we want, but the fact remains that in many cases bad people inspire things that benefit our species. Facts remain absolute regardless of the moral spin we put on it. That's pretty much where I think there's a bit of confusion, which i will elaborate on below.

I'll agree that this can create some temporal good in society, that's how laws developed, etc. against crime - by observing basic interactions in society and seeing what works and what doesn't. But needless to say on a Christian forum, and myself being a Christian, I am looking for a goal of this progression, and there can be no goal without any presence of absolutes. The ultimate conclusion of this line of thought I fear is social relativism which can go in circles (as I pointed out before). I believe in absolute moral right and wrong, and asking me to not bring it into the discussion is unrealistic. I don't care if bad can lead to good down the road, I don't think bad is necessary nor beneficial - on any scale - and I have already explained why not. Please go back and read if you missed it.

We technically all have moral absolutes whether we base them in God or relativism. Even those who admit relativistic morals have absolute stances on things. You will NEVER find a relativist who honestly does not care about any single moral issue, merely dismissing it as "oh well, it's all relative." You'd be hard pressed to find a relativist who doesn't have an imperative to stop a man from trying to kick him in the balls (trivial example, I know).

I think it's entirely acceptable to ask you not to bring morality into the discussion if the purpose is to try to be objective. You're arguing the "ifs" and the "whats" of people who might read this and base their morals off of being acceptant of "bads" because they can inspire "good." That's not what it's about though. I would happily agree that people could totally misconstrue this information as an attempt to allow "bads," but I think it's borderline shortsighted. It's a bit like not discussing evolution (assuming it were absolute truth) because of the morals that could spawn from it. We see that our base morals do not change from either perspective. We still all share a common morality, for the most part.

It's beneficial in the sense that any objective knowledge about our world can be beneficial. We can make nuclear power plants, or we can make nuclear bombs with the same objective knowledge. With many things, it's not inherently good or bad.

But why do I need to know this? What practical lesson are you trying to convey? That I really shouldn't worry or be discriminate against evil, wrong, and bad deeds since on the whole is just helps us anyway?

No no no. Strip the "oughts" you think you get from this piece of literature. It's not trying to tell you to do anything on a moral level. He's merely explaining how it "is." You cannot get an ought from an is. That's entirely up to you.

Well, like I said, this is obviously a source of some temporal good and laws that have developed across many cultures and societies, because of these basic observations, and I especially attribute that to (from my Biblical perspective) God making basic right and wrong apparent to all people. The thing is though learning from mistakes (and if that's what you were talking about all along this changes the discussion considerably) and learning lessons from those who squander their lives in decadence (lazy people who mooch off of others) isn't quite the same as saying that when bad things happen in society (including stealing and physical violence) that it helps others. And there most certainly are different degrees of wrong things people can do, for the lazy person they are genrally non-threatening enough to where you can just shut the door in their face and tell them they can't mooch off of you (probably a good lesson for them - and now that I think about it, maybe that's where this thread should go next: people who do bad or harmful things learning from themselves out of shame to rectify it by doing good - self "rebirth" or rehabilitation in a sense), whereas a murderer is an entirely different type of problem that could care less about your consent and probably will attack you without your knowledge (stalking you). Little lesson is to be learned there other than common sense, like "If someone if swinging a blade at you to stab you, get out of the way". So perhaps we are getting tangled up in generalities. If you are thinking of simple lessons that are "generally" not terribly harmful (but sure, a lazy person could cause plenty of grief) when I'm thinking of a murderer, and then you say "Well, bad things can bring about good" then I'm sitting here thinking: "Why is it good again for there to be murderers so that we can learn from them?" But like I said, maybe we are getting mixed up in our conception of what is being discussed here.

God Bless,

~Josh

Once again, you're applying your moral perspective to it all. While we might all have agreement on certain things that are of greater wrong (murder) vs less wrong (laziness), the end result is the same. Both teaches the observers of these wrongdoings the consequence of an action. We react to these things, most often in a beneficial way to our species.

Ok, so from here, I'm just going to ask you to read the beginning text again one more time. Try to keep in mind that it has NO intention of telling you any sort of moral imperative of its own. It's not trying to tell you to live your life a certain way. It's just saying how.

 

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for replying and clarifying your position. I will try to continue this discussion with as much detail as I have previously given but first I must disambiguate something. What then, if you are wanting to look at this objectively, are you wanting me to decide? Is this along the lines of whether I agree with the premise or not, a simple yes or no, or do you want me to analyze how the conclusions are drawn and determine what is objective or not?

Also, though this may go against what you are trying to do, I must state that in my opinion being objective is not entirely possible for anyone, and there is always some cause or intended result for which things are analyzed or done, even for the most mundane of physics text books. You gave me a quote without an author's name or context in which it is written (larger work, a paper, a letter, etc.). I don't know what philosophical construct or group he adheres to (since you did say the person was a philosopher), so I am stretching to understand the point this person is intending, as to the goal or thesis of such an objective approach. Using the mundane physics analogy again, even a doctoral disseration in physics with the most objective of data has a thesis. Can you summarize for me or guess at what such a thesis might be in this case?

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

One quick example here I can try to elaborate on. You said:

We can put our moral spin on it however we want, but the fact remains that in many cases bad people inspire things that benefit our species. Facts remain absolute regardless of the moral spin we put on it.

Although I tried to semantically qualify the statement that "bad can inspire good", if we want a logical statement the obvious answer is that bad things have in fact lead to people (ultimately) doing good to rectify it or fight against on at least one prior occasion, therefore it is possible yes. However for logical equivalence to exist in any kind of objective paradigm it most often occurs in a type of formula or what is called a proof. So what does the (semantically qualified) "objective" statement "bad can inspire good" actually prove or state as its logical equivalent? Does it prove - for example - that bad is necessary to cause good to react? No that does not logically follow. Does it prove that apathy would increase without such occasional bad occurances? No that does not logically follow (nor implicity either). Does it prove that people must see or know of bad to do good? Not really, either way it does not directly logically follow, but this is getting more into a realm of objective absolutes and societal behavior. Those are just sample logical questions and answers. But what indeed is the logical equivalence proof set before us by such objective observations as in the opening post is my question?

 

[Jayls5]

Thanks for replying and clarifying your position. I will try to continue this discussion with as much detail as I have previously given but first I must disambiguate something. What then, if you are wanting to look at this objectively, are you wanting me to decide? Is this along the lines of whether I agree with the premise or not, a simple yes or no, or do you want me to analyze how the conclusions are drawn and determine what is objective or not?

Also, though this may go against what you are trying to do, I must state that in my opinion being objective is not entirely possible for anyone, and there is always some cause or intended result for which things are analyzed or done, even for the most mundane of physics text books. You gave me a quote without an author's name or context in which it is written (larger work, a paper, a letter, etc.). I don't know what philosophical construct or group he adheres to (since you did say the person was a philosopher), so I am stretching to understand the point this person is intending, as to the goal or thesis of such an objective approach. Using the mundane physics analogy again, even a doctoral disseration in physics with the most objective of data has a thesis. Can you summarize for me or guess at what such a thesis might be in this case?

Thanks,

~Josh

Ok, for starters, I absolutely agree that nobody can be objective. People often toss around the word "objective" in the colloquial sense of striving to eliminate our subjectivity, even if we can't entirely. By analogy, we cannot 100% prove a thing in science because it's inductive, but we still toss around notions of "laws" as though they were effectively 100%.

I purposefully omitted the author's name and title of his work to avoid having it immediately be ignored by what people had preconceived about him. It's Friedrich Nietzsche, and it was the introduction to "The Gay (odd) Science."

I see you tried to elaborate on your other questions below, so I'm going to attempt to fill in on them there:

One quick example here I can try to elaborate on. You said:

We can put our moral spin on it however we want, but the fact remains that in many cases bad people inspire things that benefit our species. Facts remain absolute regardless of the moral spin we put on it.

Although I tried to semantically qualify the statement that "bad can inspire good", if we want a logical statement the obvious answer is that bad things have in fact lead to people (ultimately) doing good to rectify it or fight against on at least one prior occasion, therefore it is possible yes. However for logical equivalence to exist in any kind of objective paradigm it most often occurs in a type of formula or what is called a proof. So what does the (semantically qualified) "objective" statement "bad can inspire good" actually prove or state as its logical equivalent? Does it prove - for example - that bad is necessary to cause good to react? No that does not logically follow. Does it prove that apathy would increase without such occasional bad occurances? No that does not logically follow (nor implicity either). Does it prove that people must see or know of bad to do good? Not really, either way it does not directly logically follow, but this is getting more into a realm of objective absolutes and societal behavior. Those are just sample logical questions and answers. But what indeed is the logical equivalence proof set before us by such objective observations as in the opening post is my question?

My example of "bad" morals inspiring "good" by our own standards was only an example to help illustrate what Nietzsche was saying. I realized that you are a Christian, and I assumed you believe your subjective morality is beneficial for the species on an objective level. Ehh, perhaps it's easier if I break it down in sentential logic:
1) Assume your morality is in fact beneficial for humanity, objectively
2) "bad" people (by your standards) often inspire "good" (by your standards)
C: Bad people are objectively beneficial for humanity.
(of course, bad acts would really be both good and bad to varying degrees)

I'm having a terrible time understanding what you're talking about by, "logical equivalent." If you could briefly define that i'd be happy to answer your questions.