Moral clarity.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

What if there was a man who was generally a good man but he had a weakness.

And that weakness was despite his goodness whenever he passed a certain house of prostitution he couldn't resist going in.

No matter what he tells himself before hand, he cannot resist.

Nothing can dissuade him, not the shame, nor the fear of disease, nor the negative effect it will have on his marriage.

Can we understand this man? Yes I think we can.

Now let's say that a gallows is placed in front of the house of prostitution and it is made clear to him that when he comes out of the house of prostitution he will be executed.

At this point if we imagine that we are in this man's shoes, or perhaps pants, we probably know what we will do.

Because all the ordinary desires for sex or wealth or fame or any other worldly pleasure is trumped by life itself.

Now let us say this same man is called in front of an unjust ruler.

The ruler wants to execute and innocent man, but to do that with some semblance of legality he needs someone to write a letter denouncing the innocent man so he will be executed.

The unjust ruler tells the man that he must write that letter or else he will be executed himself.

Now, if we find ourselves in this man's shoes none of us can really know what we would do in that situation: but we know what we should do. We should refuse to write the letter.

We all know that we could refuse to write the letter, but we do not know if we would do it or not.

We understand justice. We may not live up to our convictions enough to sacrifice our life in the name of justice, but we know what justice is.

But some people, knowing what they should do, will refuse to write the letter for the sake of truth and justice and thereby lose their own life.

We probably would look upon these people as heroes.

This thought experience is from the book "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant.

One or two people on this board who probably never read the book often mock Kant, even though they do not know what he said.

But the reason I put this here is because this is Kant's answer to the leading question philosophers are asked: is anything absolutely right, or absolutely wrong, and if so, how would we know it?

Kant answers that moral principles are never true, because true means it corresponds to what is in the world.

Kant states that the process of determining a factual truth like "snow is white" is different than the process of determining a moral statement like "slavery is wrong."

The distinction between what is and ought is the most important distinction we make.

"Is" is the way life is; "ought" is the way the life should be.

The way to make the human race better is to hold out as an example the one who sacrifices life itself for truth and justice.

This is the highest vision of human dignity to which nothing else compares.

There is such a thing as right or wrong, justice or injustice, and truth or lies.

In our hearts we know this is right, but in our culture and in our expediency we try to convince ourselves it isn't so.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Enthetan]

The ruler wants to execute and innocent man, but to do that with some semblance of legality he needs someone to write a letter denouncing the innocent man so he will be executed.

The unjust ruler tells the man that he must write that letter or else he will be executed himself.

In many cultures around the world, the moral response would depend upon whether the other guy is a member of the same tribe/religion/group as the man being asked to denounce him, or whether the mans death would help or hinder some particular ideology.

Western/Christian culture is one of the few world cultures whose morality would demand one not facilitate the death of an innocent, regardless of the group membership of the innocent in question.

Consider Scientology. Would an MAA encourage a contributing Scientologist to sacrifice himself to save a non-Scientologist?

 

[TG1]

Thanks for this, TAJ.

Am currently facing something that has absolutely nothing obviously in common with this story. But somehow, upon reflection, it did.

TG1

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

...

The ruler wants to execute an[STRIKE]d[/STRIKE] innocent man, but to do that with some semblance of legality he needs someone to write a letter denouncing the innocent man so he will be executed.

The unjust ruler tells the man that he must write that letter or else he will be executed himself.[SUP]1[/SUP]

Now, if we find ourselves in this man's shoes none of us can really know what we would do in that situation: but we know what we should do. We should refuse to write the letter.

We all know that we could refuse to write the letter, but we do not know if we would do it or not.

We understand justice. We may not live up to our convictions enough to sacrifice our life in the name of justice, but we know what justice is.

But some people, knowing what they should do, will refuse to write the letter for the sake of truth and justice and thereby lose their own life.

We probably would look upon these people as heroes.[SUP]2[/SUP]

This thought experience is from the book "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant.

...

I am equally ignorant of Kant.

1. "Kill or be killed," was the rational that drove many of the Nazi soldiers, followed by, "If I stand up for a principle by not killing, someone else will do the killing anyway." It was this secondary mind-set that allowed many soldiers to commit the same war-crimes, but also secretly to allow (when no one else was looking) the escape of innocents.
   
2. We would never hear anything of these unsung hereos.

 

[Gadfly]

Great Post TAJ!

I often point out how IDEAS act to cause chaos and havoc on the world. I point out how fanatics often push their IDEAS of their vision of a better world on us all - to all of our detriment. I can talk long about this and provide endless examples. This aspect of the relationship between mind/ideas and reality is valid. In many ways the thought realm of Man tries to mold reality into its image - and leaves a long line of destruction in its wake.

But there is a flip side to this coin.

Nearly every great and wonderful thing also stems from thoughts. Every building was first an idea in someone's head before it became a blueprint on a piece of paper - to be built. Any great book was first an idea in the head of some writer. While much chaos and harm in this world has been due to the ideas (fantasies, ideals, visions) of some being foisted upon the rest of us, reversely, much of the great and wonderful things follow the same pattern. An IDEA came first, it developed and when followed through this idea changed the world for the better.

Such a thing as the American Constitution is an example of something that grew from the well-reasoned IDEAS of intelligent and caring people. But these founding fathers were also acutely aware of some of Man's baser tendencies, and they tried their best to take that into account and prevent such recurrences of abuse by Church and State. They tried to guarantee as much freedom as possible, while limiting the harm more despicable types might cause to the rest of us.

What you are talking about TAJ also involves the difference between these two realms - THOUGHT and REALITY.

It has to do with the gulf between 1) WHAT IS, and 2) WHAT CAN, MIGHT OR SHOULD BE.

Many people have visions of a better world, of better people, and on an individual level, or being a better person. What is KEY is HOW you go about bringing that dream or vision (idea) into reality. Too many do it without class - with force and deceptions. And some do it . . . artfully, deserving of respect.

In a very real sense the mind and thoughts of Man have been the KEY shaping factors of civilization (and many components of civilization) since the advent of human language.

I suspect that this long and arduous segment of human evolution is designed to teach us a lesson. It is designed to allow us the chance to experiment with IDEAS, and to see how they play out in reality. Some play out fairly well - and others not so well. And often, sadly, foisting new ideas on reality results in force, pain and suffering, because change is nearly always resisted (even when the change is for our betterment).

There is a reason why Man cannot, at this stage, just imagine something and have it become reality. The reason involves his inability to take into account and foresee all of the consequences, for all involved. This ability to create ideas and impinge them upon the reality around us is evolving. It is a slow process. Sadly, it seems that the pain and destruction may be part of the learning process. I find Hegel's view of evolution useful in this regard, and it well explains the seemingly necessary and attendant conflict, tension and pain that all growth seems to involve.

For example, a set of ideas such as Hubbard's involves trickery, deception and results in failures and harm to various people (sooner or later). This set of ideas is heavily foisted upon the world. But we as individuals, and people as a civilization LEARN from such shenanigans. Yes, there are many crimes and harms committed in the name of some glorious idea, ideal or vision for a better tomorrow, but also, many better tomorrows have been brought about by great IDEAS.

The common aspect to all of this is that reality is altered and built from the creations of MIND. The arrangement of the physical world around us is shaped by the invisible IDEAS originating in our heads. Hubbard was not entirely incorrect about the Theta-MEST theory, because the realm of MIND most surely functions in one regard to bring about MAJOR changes in the reality within which it operates.

So much bad has come from the minds of Men. But also, so much GOOD has also come from the minds of Men. Without IDEAS directing the course of the evolution of human civilization, we would remain a stagnant instinctive animal. But, the slow learning and growing process can be painful.

IDEAS direct it all. In both good and bad directions.

Ideas are what make Man the worse of what he has been, but also, ideas are what make Man the BEST of what he has been and can be in the future.

Examples:

1) The ideas of Hitler's National Socialism played out horribly for a great many people. That entire realm of history involved various IDEAS foisted upon the world. The details of the brutality originated within the minds of Men and were there forced upon others in the physical reality.

2) The Civil Rights Movement began as small ideas in the minds of a few men and women in the 1940s and 1950s, and blossomed in the early 1960s. Such ideas literally changed the world!

One thing about this is that ideas NEVER play out exactly as envisioned. There are always unanticipated side-effects and unknown consequences. Always. Understanding THAT is part of the learning process. When it comes to human beings and societies, one can never adequately take into account ALL of the forces and variables at work. That is why planned societies and utopias will always fail.

It is an endless cycle. The world affects, changes and influences the mind of any person, and then the mind affects, changes and influences the world. And on and on it goes.

 

[degraded being]

Great Post TAJ!

I often point out how IDEAS act to cause chaos and havoc on the world. I point out how fanatics often push their IDEAS of their vision of a better world on us all - to all of our detriment. I can talk long about this and provide endless examples. This aspect of the relationship between mind/ideas and reality is valid. In many ways the thought realm of Man tries to mold reality into its image - and leaves a long line of destruction in its wake.

But there is a flip side to this coin.

Nearly every great and wonderful thing also stems from thoughts. Every building was first an idea in someone's head before it became a blueprint on a piece of paper - to be built. Any great book was first an idea in the head of some writer. While much chaos and harm in this world has been due to the ideas (fantasies, ideals, visions) of some being foisted upon the rest of us, reversely, much of the great and wonderful things follow the same pattern. An IDEA came first, it it developed and when followed through changed the world for the better.

Such a thing as the American Constitution is an example of something that grew from the well-reasoned IDEAS of intelligent and caring people. But these founding fathers were also acutely aware of some of Man's baser tendencies, and they tried their best to take that into account and prevent such recurrences of abuse by Church and State. They tried to guarantee as much freedom as possible, while limiting the harm more despicable types might cause to the rest of us.

What you are talking about TAJ also involves the difference between these two realms - THOUGHT and REALITY. It has to do with the gulf between 1) WHAT IS, and 2) WHAT CAN, MIGHT OR SHOULD BE.

Many people have visions of a better world, of better people, and on an individual level, or being a better person. What is KEY is HOW you go about bringing that dream or vision (idea) into reality.

In a very real sense the mind and thoughts of Man have been the KEY shaping factors of civilization (and many components of civilization) since the advent of human language.

This long and arduous segment of human evolution is designed to teach us a lesson. It is designed to allow us the chance to experiment with IDEAS, and to see how they play out in reality. Some play out fairly well - and others not so well. And often, sadly, foisting new ideas on reality results in force, pain and suffering, because change is nearly always resisted (even when the change is for our betterment).

There is a reason why Man cannot, at this stage, just imagine something and have it become reality. The reason involves his inability to take into account and foresee all of the consequences, for all involved. This ability to create ideas and impinge them upon the reality around us is evolving. It is a slow process. Sadly, it seems that the pain and destruction may be part of the learning process.

For example, a set of ideas such as Hubbard's involves trickery, deception and results in failures and harm to various people (sooner or later). This set of ideas is heavily foisted upon the world. But we as individuals, and people as a civilization LEARN from such shenanigans. Yes, there are many crimes and harms committed in the name of some glorious idea, ideal or vision for a better tomorrow, but also, many better tomorrows have been brought about by great IDEAS.

The common aspect to all of this is that reality is altered and built from the creations of MIND. The arrangement of the physical world around us is shaped by the invisible IDEAS originating in our heads. Hubbard was not entirely incorrect about the Theta-MEST theory, because the realm of MIND most surely functions in one regard to bring about MAJOR changes in the reality within which it operates.

So much bad has come from the minds of Men. But also, so much GOOD has also come from the minds of Men. Without IDEAS directing the course of the evolution of human civilization, we would remain a stagnant instinctive animal. But, the slow learning and growing process can be painful.

IDEAS direct it all. In both good and bad directions.

Ideas are what make Man the worse of what he has been, but also, ideas are what make Man the BEST of what he has been and can be in the future.

Examples:

1) The ideas of Hitler's National Socialism played out horribly for a great many people. That entire realm of history involved various IDEAS foisted upon the world. The details of the drutality originated within the minds of Men.

2) The Civil Rights Movement began as small ideas in the minds of a few men and women in the 1940s and 1950s, and blossomed in the early 1960s.

One thing about this is that ideas NEVER play out exactly as envisioned. There are always unanticipated side-effects and unknown consequences. Always. Understanding THAT is part of the learning process. When it comes to human beings and societies, one can never adequately take into account ALL of the forces and variables at work.

Do you think we are all going through a painful learning process involving thinking and using thinking to affect reality or even create reality to eventually come out in a better world, a good world where we have gotten past the painful process and can live in this better world free from all the suffering that went into bringing it about?

 

[Gadfly]

Do you think we are all going through a painful learning process involving thinking and using thinking to affect reality or even create reality to eventually come out in a better world, a good world where we have gotten past the painful process and can live in this better world free from all the suffering that went into bringing it about?

I really don't know. But, I sure hope so . . . . it would be nice.

I have a strange theory about this. If we are each basically a spiritual being, that exists originally and before all else, and who creates the world around him or her, then as YOU EVOLVE, you move on and find yourself in different places (worlds, universes, realities). "This place" is still here, still changing as it itself evolves, but YOU have "moved on" to an entirely different reality (once YOU have learned whatever it was you needed to learn from "this place").

Part of this involves the notion that we each attract realities that resonate with who we are on the inside (on the deepest and most consistent levels). This involves the theory of Karma.

My view is one of some amazingly complex dynamic set of relationships, where all beings, things, events, situations, relations, contexts, and worlds are each changing and evolving. Everything is changing into something it now is not. The dance of Life. The dance of Existence. The unfolding of all universes over nearly endless time.

And, for us, now, IDEAS are a key part of it all. Ideas and HOW they act to re-arrange, build upon and alter the stuff of this world.

 

[degraded being]

I really don't know. But, I sure hope so . . . . it would be nice.

I have a strange theory about this. If we are each basically a spiritual being, that exists originally and before all else, and who creates the world around him or her, then as YOU EVOLVE, you move on and find yourself in different places (worlds, universes, realities). "This place" is still here, still changing as it itself evolves, but YOU have "moved on" to an entirely different reality (once YOU have learned whatever it was you needed to learn from "this place").

Part of this involves the notion that we each attract realities that resonate with who we are on the inside (on the deepest and most consistent levels). This involves the theory of Karma.

My view is one of some amazingly complex dynamic set of relationships, where all beings, things, events, situations, relations, contexts, and worlds are each changing and evolving. Everything is changing into something it now is not. The dance of Life. The dance of Existence. The unfolding of all universes over nearly endless time.

And, for us, now, IDEAS are a key part of it all. Ideas and HOW they act to re-arrange, build upon and alter the stuff of this world.

Basically a spiritual being. That seems like an idea. I think people are something before they are any idea about what they are.

 

[Gadfly]

Basically a spiritual being. That seems like an idea. I think people are something before they are any idea about what they are.

Well, yes, it IS an idea. But it also may be an idea that corresponds to an accurate description of the way things are. And, maybe not.

I like how you said it:

"people are something before they are any idea about what they are".

That which can think and entertain notions. The "something" it is BEFORE it thinks about what it is.

But also, I act differently and view the world differently when I envision myself as this "spiritual being". I make different "choices" . . . . based on how I conceive myself to be. Our thinking does affect us in a great many ways - one way or the other.

From a strictly utilitarian view, if thinking certain thoughts results in a better and happier life, even if those ideas are "false", is doing so wrong? :confused2:

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I am equally ignorant of Kant.

1. "Kill or be killed," was the rational that drove many of the Nazi soldiers, followed by, "If I stand up for a principle by not killing, someone else will do the killing anyway." It was this secondary mind-set that allowed many soldiers to commit the same war-crimes, but also secretly to allow (when no one else was looking) the escape of innocents.
   
2. We would never hear anything of these unsung hereos.

Actually that was not the Nazi policy.

If a soldier refused to the killings he was removed to that unit and given an isolated desk job with no chance of future promotion.

Himmler did not want to start a rebellion nor make martyrs of these guys for anyone with a conscience.

There was one SS soldier who was transfer to a death camp. His job was to drop the poison gas canisters into the vents.

He refused to do that by saying he was a soldier not a murderer.

He was simply transferred.

There is a memorial to this SS soldier in Israel I am told.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Leon]

All truth is contextual, i. e. any given datum can be either true or false as the context it is placed in changes.

Ditto with Right and Wrong.


Do our concepts of "justice" surpass contexts? I don't think so.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

All truth is contextual, i. e. any given datum can be either true or false as the context it is placed in changes.

Ditto with Right and Wrong.


Do our concepts of "justice" surpass contexts? I don't think so.

It is a good question, but I think it does.

That is, if you are talking about Justice with a capital J.

To some justice is simply revenge, and I don't think that is true Justice.

Actually, Truth with a capital T isn't contextual either.

In our day to day lives we run across things that are true, or half true, or seemingly not true at all.

But anything we experience I would say is not the world in itself but simply our impressions and we give interpretations of things we experienced as true or not.

If Truth with a capital T was present I doubt any of us would see or experience it.

And that is what life is all about; getting as close as we can to Truth.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Leon]

That's fine, but then with that Truth and Justice you are getting outside this universe and into some sort of original Logos, or whatever you choose to call it. But even there I reckon there is a context. A purer one for sure, but still a context.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

That's fine, but then with that Truth and Justice you are getting outside this universe and into some sort of original Logos, or whatever you choose to call it. But even there I reckon there is a context. A purer one for sure, but still a context.

That's true, it is outside this universe.

But, in my view, we should act like spiritual beings that exist outside of the universe and base our aspirations and values on that Logos.

That's what I try to do, although I very often slip back out of it.

And many individuals and institutions have tried to do this too.

Although the individuals and institutions slip back due to trying to survive in the universe.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Do you think we are all going through a painful learning process involving thinking and using thinking to affect reality or even create reality to eventually come out in a better world, a good world where we have gotten past the painful process and can live in this better world free from all the suffering that went into bringing it about?

Yes. This is what the Enlightenment was all about.

That idealism will improve things.

Idealism is the belief that the world can be improved by means of expressing states of reality that are better than the ones we currently experience.

And yes, ideas and ideals do conflict with reality. They are supposed to conflict with reality.

If they didn't we would still be cavemen.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[degraded being]

Yes. This is what the Enlightenment was all about.

That idealism will improve things.

Idealism is the belief that the world can be improved by means of expressing states of reality that are better than the ones we currently experience.

And yes, ideas and ideals do conflict with reality. They are supposed to conflict with reality.

If they didn't we would still be cavemen.

The Anabaptist Jacques

When I asked the question, although I might not have expressed it clearly enough, I meant to ask Gad if he considered that an improved world is some sort of predetermined scheme; because that is what I thought he was inferring. I suppose the best way I can express it is the "Divine Plan" idea, although using the word 'Divine' might be awkward. It does seem to be an idea that many people have: that evolution is 'teaching' us things and the end result may be a better world.

The idea that the world may be improved with ideals does not seem to be disputable to me. Going beyond that simple statement is something else.
The world may also be made worse with ideals. It may be a long process where eventually the good ideals finally win out and we are in in a better world. I don't see how that is guaranteed though. However, that is not a reason not to have ideals. I also think that it is what it is and we have to damn well put up with it. This also does not mean (to me) that anyone is wasting their time with ideals.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

When I asked the question, although I might not have expressed it clearly enough, I meant to ask Gad if he considered that an improved world is some sort of predetermined scheme; because that is what I thought he was inferring. I suppose the best way I can express it is the "Divine Plan" idea, although using the word 'Divine' might be awkward. It does seem to be an idea that many people have: that evolution is 'teaching' us things and the end result may be a better world.

The idea that the world may be improved with ideals does not seem to be disputable to me. Going beyond that simple statement is something else.
The world may also be made worse with ideals. It may be a long process where eventually the good ideals finally win out and we are in in a better world. I don't see how that is guaranteed though. However, that is not a reason not to have ideals. I also think that it is what it is and we have to damn well put up with it. This also does not mean (to me) that anyone is wasting their time with ideals.

Generally and traditionally, philosophy has been about the nature of being. But in the 20th century it made a turn from being to human knowing.

And rather than make use of the capacity for humans beings to know the truth, modern philosophy has concentrated on the ways this capacity is limited and conditioned.

There are basically five directions or views going on right now.

There are the neo-Kantians who seek to revive the Enlightenment, the critical theory (specifically I am talking about Adorno and Horkheimer's book "Dialectic of Enlightenment" which says that Enlightenment inevitable leads to totalitarianism (and I should add Jergen Habermaus), the pre-Moderns (Hannah Arendt and Aladair MacIntyre) who say that the ancient Greeks had the right idea and the Enlightenment took a wrong turn, and the post-Modernist (Foucault, Derrida, Braudrillard, and I should add our own Gadfly) who can argue anyone out of their pants and believe that there is no possibility of objectivity and that everything is relative. And then there is the neo-pragmatist (Richard Rorty).

Only Habermaus and MacIntyre are still alive and they are in their late 80s.

But there are younger philosophers carrying on in all these schools of thought.

All of them have significant merit.

Personally, I am reading all of those authors now and trying to find syntheses of them all.

Existentialism is pretty much defunct, but it is still taught as he has a tremendous cultural influence and important in the evolution of ideas.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Commander Birdsong]

moral clarity?????????

a nonesuch

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

moral clarity?????????

a nonesuch

You are sooooo wrong about this one.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[shanic89]

Now let us say this same man is called in front of an unjust ruler.

The ruler wants to execute and innocent man, but to do that with some semblance of legality he needs someone to write a letter denouncing the innocent man so he will be executed.

The unjust ruler tells the man that he must write that letter or else he will be executed himself.

In no way I read this does it make sense. The unjust ruler wishes to execute a person, but with some semblance of legality. So he wishes to have a written statement condemning the accused. He threatens death, to a person if they do not provide written testimony condemning the accused. Under what semblance of legality would he put to death the person that refuses to condemn the innocent?

The unjust ruler would have to create a law, to be seen for it to be a legal execution, of those that did not supply affidavits at his command.

No matter which way you look at it, the ruler is not doing anything under any semblance of legality.

It is a dictator telling his people to do or die.

Of course the overall question only changes slightly, would you lay your life down for the innocent?