Active Players: 488
Games Played: 631572
Stats Last Updated:
2012-05-17 23:11:13
|
|
|
#16586 - 02/05/09 07:21 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
nobody
 | Nobody |
Three Daggers
Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 10
Loc: Texas
|
I am an American, and the American ideal of freedom is to be physically free to do whatever one desires. This ideal is worthless in my opinion because as far as I can tell, freedom is an illusion; the more you think you have, the less you have in actuality. No, I'm not talking about free will either. Technically, you can do whatever you want. But what you want has been indoctrinated into you by your society and culture and government from the second you were born.
You'd have to go through a heavy duty period of nihilism and revaluation to not want what you have been trained to want.
I haven't yet comprehensively thought about this illusory freedom's relationship to the eastern (Buddhist, Hindu) Maya, but I feel they are intimately related.
What I would expect is that where people are given freedom, they are also given responsibilities.
I think Immanuel Kant said something similar with his ideas on Duty. Dunno, haven't studied him yet. I also know some band (Pink Floyd comes to mind, but I doubt it) said something along the lines of "play isn't play because it comes after work". Hmm...can't remember who...
To actually answer your question: ...immaturity?
Now, for some famous quotes:
"Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. " -Bertrand Russell
"Man is so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would merely constitute another form of madness." Blaise Pascal
"Have you ever considered any real freedoms? Freedom from the opinions of others...even the opinions of yourself?" -Kurtz (the movie version)
That's all I have time for at the moment. I'll be back to continue my argument.
Edited by nobody (02/05/09 07:22 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16597 - 02/05/09 10:49 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: treellama]
|
nobody
| | Nobody |
Three Daggers
Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 10
Loc: Texas
|
If it seems like I'm reading into this too much, I'm sorry, but I've been reading a great deal of philosophy lately. It's nice to have a place to expound ideas somewhere other than my mind :). Especially when debate is involved.
3rd sentence of my previous post:
No, I'm not talking about free will either.
People can't be given freedom, that is our natural state--we can only have it taken from us.
A "natural state" of freedom, eh? Well...in the sense that we can always choose to do or not do something, perhaps. But, if one was to have those choices removed by means of mental constraint from birth would one be as naturally free? If we are trained to remove our ability to choose a given choice because of the way we are taught to think, can one be said to be naturally free?
My argument is that when one grows up, one's mind grows along the lines of what one is trained to think. Therefore, unless you can reevaluate your values (say, an inquisition), and remain open-minded afterwords, how can one be free? Even if one stays open-minded, one would be constrained to be open-minded for fear of mental slavery; the fight against fighting would still be a fight.
What I would expect is that where people are given freedom, they are also given responsibilities. This doesn’t seem to actually follow for a lot of people I have talked to in real life and seen on these forums. Without some duel freedom/expectation deal you get weird situations that annoy everyone and benefit noone.
I think you are talking of privileges, not responsibilities.
Ok, to sum up some ideas (fitting a watermelon into a nutshell here) from a modern philosopher named Robert M. Pirsig, there are four static levels of morality, each at odds with the one above it. The levels are:
Intellectual
Social
Biological
Inorganic
And each advances upward. Now, the problem as I understand is that people are acting freely, yet irresponsibly. Seems that your argument is coming from the Social level, and they are acting on a Biological one; You are looking for responsibility and order, while they act with only for their own purposes.
That's vast oversimplification and overgeneralization, but I hope it will yield some insight. The actual reasons why they might abuse their privilege is an entirely different topic.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16600 - 02/05/09 11:43 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: nobody]
|
gwarqwa
 | sharkqwa |
Shield
Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 216
|
Maybe this is the root of the problem; even Americans don't understand what they mean 
I think I understand nobody but its all a bit to cerebral for me, I'm all for fast cars and big bottomed girls, and I think I'd lump the kind of things you are talking about in with free will too.
I thought I was asking about the civil liberties side of things, but muddled it up pretty well. I mean, my example, MNA_Om cant do anything about any ones free will.
But on that score, if the choice is between a ghoulish rule of free will and the brave new world then pass the freaking soma.
Edited by gwarqwa (02/05/09 11:44 PM)
Edit Reason: he is -> you are
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16601 - 02/06/09 12:13 AM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: treellama]
|
nobody
| | Nobody |
Three Daggers
Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 10
Loc: Texas
|
You again say you're not talking about free will, and then proceed to talk about free will some more.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. The definitions of free will.
You seem to be thinking of #1, while I am talking about #2; I am not talking about destiny, or fate, or determinism, or nihilism, etc., I am talking about one's ability (especially lack thereof) to choose a particular choice of action due to implanted intrinsic values.
My point stands, this isn't what gwarqwa was talking about--he merely meant liberty in the classic sense we Americans use the word in.
I know, I just wanted to share some ideas, which I hoped would produce deeper understanding. Unfortunately, my communications skills suck.
... and the American ideal of freedom is to be physically free to do whatever one desires.
Maybe I should have cut back on my diarrhea of the mind and just directly addressed the question.
Maybe this is the root of the problem; even Americans don't understand what they mean
True, but not the root of the beast.
Warning: more diarrhea!
The root is due to Aristotle, who won the argument between Truth and Quality. He said that Quality was divided into two types: objective and subjective. (The epitome of objective quality: science. The epitome of subjective quality: art.) All conflicts can be reduced to this conflict and the system mentioned in my last post. For more info, see Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality.
So that's the core of the root. And asynchronous, single-sense communication is far more vague than normal face-to-face conversation.
But on that score, if the choice is between a ghoulish rule of free will and the brave new world then pass the freaking soma.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16616 - 02/06/09 10:40 AM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: nobody]
|
plataypus
 | PrplPplEater #@L# |
Lord
Registered: 03/31/07
Posts: 1836
|
The US constitution is based on the idea that we should be able to do whatever we want as long as we don't violate anyone else's rights.
The big problem with most people in America, especially the younger ones (25 & under) and/or ones (in my opinion) that have never served in the military --- they tend to never think about the italicized part of that quote.
They also never take time to consider that you are free to do whatever you want, but just as in physics where every action has an equal and opposite reaction, in life, every action has a consequence, be it good or bad (and that is merely a factor of perspective). You CAN do whatever you want, but by doing so you've also demanded the consequence of doing that... and lots of people, when they see a negative consequence as a result of their own actions, get all self-righteous and scream "oppression" or "that's unfair" or "woah, I didn't want that!".... because people all too often do not think about those consequences before they act.
There is way too much "I CAN do that if I want to!" and not enough "should I do that?".... because, well, where's the fun in that?
People want the great power of what they think is true freedom, but they want none of the responsibility that comes with that because they view that responsibility and it's consequences as limiting their freedom. What they don't realize is that they're living in a dream world, because there is no such place in existence where personal freedom is not balanced by the responsibility for your actions. Yin & Yang. Everything WILL find balance... the only thing that remains is whether or not you will enjoy how it gets balanced.
_________________________
PrplPplEater
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16622 - 02/06/09 12:01 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: plataypus]
|
nobody
| | Nobody |
Three Daggers
Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 10
Loc: Texas
|
Or is your argument that they are the same--the means and scale of conditioning doesn't matter?
No, the means and scale of conditioning defines a system. My argument above was that we are conditioned on multiple levels, which creates much dissonance within the individual. A defining characteristic of the individual is how it reacts to this dissonance. How an individual reacts reflects how he was trained to react, and thus, the individual has no real freedom. It's a Catch-22, and the only way to escape it is...well, a form of madness (see previous Pascal quote).
How can you simultaneously espouse a system based on personal responsibility and natural freedom (which I believe to be superior, as well, but that's my American bias), and a system based on large scale behavioral conditioning?
Our system is based upon large scale behavioral conditioning as well, it's just one of those things which is so huge, it's hard to comprehend without consciously zooming out. The Walden Two system focuses explicitly on that conditioning, because the large scale conditioning is identical to the small scale conditioning.
For example: On a family level in our society, the individual generally accepts its parent's values to be true. The problem is, different families have different values and conflict arises. In Walden Two, the family system is radically expanded to include everyone in the society, so the social and familial levels are identical, and no conflict arises. This was accomplished by equipping individuals with the same broad set of cognitive tools and values. Whereas, in America, our schools (I speak here especially of compulsory education) enforce a small set of values through negative reinforcement, and train people to imitate , not to think; we are trained to imitate specific mental tasks, and if we deviate from the accepted social norm, we get "bad grades" or "fail" and are rejected from the system as "freaks" or "delinquents".
Whereas in the Walden Two system, people are conditioned through behaviorism, to utilize rational thought instead of complying to established norms.
As much as I hate the American system for its shortfalls, I've been beginning to see that it's the best large-scale system there is. (B.F. Skinner had a good one in Walden Two, but it's not exactly feasible.)
I meant this because it's not economically feasible at this stage of humanity's development. If attempted today, it would almost certainly revert to our economic standard. It would take the majority of humanity to accept the Walden Two system for it to become firmly rooted. I can continue on this topic if you wish.
PPE posted while I was rewriting.
There is way too much "I CAN do that if I want to!" and not enough "should I do that?".... because, well, where's the fun in that?
Exactly. People are trained to act in their own interest, not to think about what is best for everyone. The beauty of the Walden Two system is that in it, the two are identical. The American system is based upon the assumption that people are fundamentally good, and punishes people who don't act within our founding fathers' definition of good. It also relies on the individual's egocentricity and greed to fuel the individual's material "success" within the system. The goals (the pursuit of happiness though material accumulation and financial "success") the individual is trained to strive toward to within the American system have been carefully chosen so as to advance the American system in general. The American Catch-22 rears it's ugly head again.
...be it good or bad (and that is merely a factor of perspective)
NOT SO! What is good is not subjective, nor objective, it is the source of BOTH!. See Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality as mentioned previously. It may not be on topic, but it is one of the most important ideas one can ever comprehend in one's life. Especially if one is a part of western civilization.
Yin & Yang. Everything WILL find balance... the only thing that remains is whether or not you will enjoy how it gets balanced.
The rest was good, but the last sentence has the same problem as:
If I wanted to gun down every one in my school and did, that would be American Freedom?
Sure, everything will ultimately end up balanced(see heat death), but if I enjoy killing other people, and do so, is that good?
I think we've already proved not.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16627 - 02/06/09 01:01 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: nobody]
|
plataypus
| | PrplPplEater #@L# |
Lord
Registered: 03/31/07
Posts: 1836
|
NOT SO! What is good is not subjective, nor objective, it is the source of BOTH!. See Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality as mentioned previously. It may not be on topic, but it is one of the most important ideas one can ever comprehend in one's life. Especially if one is a part of western civilization.
That is digging way deeper into the hole than I need to go. I know that Good and Bad is both, but your perspective on something is what will determine how you perceive and understand it. It doesn't make your perspective correct, but your perspective DOES directly shape your understanding.
The rest was good, but the last sentence has the same problem as:
No, the last sentence is just fine. It states that things WILL balance themselves out, whether you like it or not; and if you want to like/enjoy what is coming your way as a result of your chosen actions, then you need to consider the results of your actions BEFORE you act lest you fail to avoid what will surely be an unpleasant experience.
In your "gunning em all down" comparison, I would be speaking of the imprisonment, beatings and likely death that would all surely follow as a result of it. If you believe in a Heaven and Hell, then it could be construed to extend to referring to your eternal damnation for those actions as well.
_________________________
PrplPplEater
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16628 - 02/06/09 01:02 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: nobody]
|
treellama
| | Treellama |
Axes with Shield
Registered: 04/03/07
Posts: 622
|
For example: On a family level in our society, the individual generally accepts its parent's values to be true. The problem is, different families have different values and conflict arises. In Walden Two, the family system is radically expanded to include everyone in the society, so the social and familial levels are identical, and no conflict arises. This was accomplished by equipping individuals with the same broad set of cognitive tools and values. Whereas, in America, our schools (I speak here especially of compulsory education) enforce a small set of values through negative reinforcement, and train people to imitate , not to think; we are trained to imitate specific mental tasks, and if we deviate from the accepted social norm, we get "bad grades" or "fail" and are rejected from the system as "freaks" or "delinquents".
Our compulsory education system quite often conditions individuals in the opposite way it was set up to do. For example, many of us gain a healthy disrespect for authority, despite the intended conditioning otherwise. Likewise, very often the deviants from this system are the ones that rise to economic or artistic greatness.
So, if a system intentionally or accidentally set up to condition its subjects in such a way *so often* results in misconditioned individuals, in what way is Skinner's large scale plannned conditioning not destined to fail in the same way? Except where in the first case the result of misconditioning, the intended result of which being mediocrity, is often times greatness; what would be the result of misconditioning when the intended result is a superior individual?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#16648 - 02/06/09 04:30 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
nobody
| | Nobody |
Three Daggers
Registered: 08/23/07
Posts: 10
Loc: Texas
|
@ irons: heh, c'mon man, I'm taking about social and educational reform, not mental illness. I guess I did get pretty energetic, but not ridiculously so.
But I see your Gene Ray "...did you know your father is a fish?" and raise you a John Dewey "It may be seriously questioned whether the philosophies... which isolate mind and set it over against the world did not have their origin in the fact that the reflective or theoretical class of men elaborated a large stock of ideas which social conditions did not allow them to act upon and test. Consequently men were thrown back into their own thoughts as ends in themselves. "
@ PPE:
I know that Good and Bad is both, but your perspective on something is what will determine how you perceive and understand it. It doesn't make your perspective correct, but your perspective DOES directly shape your understanding.
Sure, everything will ultimately end up balanced(see heat death), but if I enjoy killing other people, and do so, is that good?
I think we've already proved not.
In your "gunning em all down" comparison, I would be speaking of the imprisonment, beatings and likely death that would all surely follow as a result of it. If you believe in a Heaven and Hell, then it could be construed to extend to referring to your eternal damnation for those actions as well.
Like I said, not good.
@ Treellama:
So, if a system intentionally or accidentally set up to condition its subjects in such a way *so often* results in misconditioned individuals, in what way is Skinner's large scale plannned conditioning not destined to fail in the same way?
1. Skinner's system is based upon scientific principles which leave room for experimentation and adaptation. In Walden Two, he argued that this lack of experimental attitude was one of the current system's major flaws. Sure, it is arguable that the American system does experiment to a degree since officials are changed out every once in a while, but they are all under a fairly inflexible system.
2.Because Skinner's system is vastly less efficient, little, if any friction occurs between the system and individual.
3. The individual is free to leave Skinner's system at any time, and the individual is taught how the outside world operates, and thus learns how to survive in it. Whereas in the American system, although the individual is free to leave as it chooses, it has little chance of survival since it has been raised upon such narrow and fundamentally useless values.
4. In Skinner's system, the individual is not subject to compulsory education, but cognitive training.
5. The American compulsory education system forces individuals into a narrow mold of values and thought. The devious rejects do tend to end up at either extreme ("delinquency" or "success"), but the rest end up with their rational thinking processes impaired. In Skinner's system, the individual is not molded, but kneaded and built up through a rigorous system of cultural engineering.
Except where in the first case the result of misconditioning, the intended result of which being mediocrity, is often times greatness; what would be the result of misconditioning when the intended result is a superior individual?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17278 - 03/02/09 06:20 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: nobody]
|
Antiochus
Two Daggers
Registered: 06/21/08
Posts: 9
|
[blam][blam]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17283 - 03/02/09 09:09 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
Stratagem36
Crossed Axes
Registered: 06/10/08
Posts: 118
|
being an american, i can tell you this.
americans have the notion that "human beings have in-born rights that others cannot take away"
being somewhat of a contrarion, i tell you this
the idea of human rights is bull####.
you arent issued rights just cuz your born.
hey! you're born! you are a eukaryotic multicellular organism with two legs and a big damn brain! congragulations!
a right is a priveledge to do something or to not have something done to you. a right is the POWER to do something or to not have something done to you. what is power? in down to earth terms, put it like this
the axiom of power: you can do anything you want as long as nobody can stop you.
that means that a right must be ENFORCED or it is nothing at all. an authority, like the state, can issue to you, and then enforce, civil rights like the right to vote, fair trial, speech, etc.
but if you are born, who is the authority who gives you and then enforces human rights? god? dont make me laugh. whos god? what god? which god?
if humans have unalienable rights, then why are those same "unalienable rights" alienated on a regular basis? you only get the right if you can enforce it.
if there is a god then he cant even prevent people from swearing on mariusnet, let alone enforce "human rights"
why are americans so obbsesed with "freedom"? i gues its jefferson's fault, or maybe kant.
the reason that people cant just go out an do whatever they want is because others will stop them if that person tries to harm them. people will protect their own interests. and besides, humans have evolved to be able to cooperate and join forces, its one reason we are so succesful. that kind of cooperation has evovled into the government. the government has to think on the behlf of its society, not just individual people, which is anthor thing that americans get wrong a lot.
Edited by Stratagem36 (03/02/09 09:56 PM)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17315 - 03/03/09 10:09 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
Stratagem36
Crossed Axes
Registered: 06/10/08
Posts: 118
|
if i make spelling or grammer errors, im sorry about that. i dont misspell on purpose.
but i do ask that you attack my argument, and not insult me.
let me clarify my arguments
consider this hypothetical scenario, you find a person by the road, he is dying and you entirely have the power to make him whole. he could have been hit by a car, stabbed, maybe he was tortured, it doesnt matter. and you can, very easily, rescue him. without your help, he would die.
what would you do?
most people would likely say, of course!
why would you? because its simply the right thing to do!
why is it the right thing to do? who said so? what makes it the right thing to do?
most people in all societies would have sympathy fro the dying man and would help him. this is because if a good samaritan instinct is present in most members of a society, then society benefits, and society becomes healthier. people who get into a really tight jam like the dying man in my scenario are saved by good samaritans. the dying man becomes healthy, and then he further contributes to society, and the society prospers more. then, this adds up in the society.
and so then, that becomes embedded into the good samaritan ethic, or the ethic of reciprocity, ("do unto others what you would have others do unto you")
the emotion of sympathy, and thus the ethic of reciprocity, are inbred into humans. THey are very helpful to building a society, especially when you are just coming out of the stone age.
when the good samaritan helps out the dying man, he is doing it because his emotions urge him to, and because society urges him to. emotions and society urges him to do so because doing so helps build a stronger society. the stronger societies tend to survive better.
thats why there are ethics and morals. not because of divine law, not because of universal code, not because "its just the right thing to do!", its because of brutal darwinism.
i mean, when you look at it from the society as a whole's point of view, sure its the right thing to do. but when you look at it from your own point of view it may or may not be good for you. that guy could be your enemy, or it might cost you a lot to help him. the point is, there is no axiom out there that says "its the right thing to do". if there is, then it was set down by society and by your own emotions, for reasons that i spent the last few paragraphs explaining
hopefully, i have explained to you how ethics and morals are meaningless. if you accept that, then the whole thing about human rights and "inalienable" rights, all that comes down like a house of cards. if you dont see the conection, or if my grammer wasnt clear, then i can try to explain to you later if you wish. for now, im tired of explaining for one day
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17323 - 03/04/09 06:03 AM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: Stratagem36]
|
gwarqwa
| | sharkqwa |
Shield
Registered: 06/24/07
Posts: 216
|
This is getting just as off topic as everyone was a few posts ago!
From what I understand the legal system seeks to reflect contemporary community values and that includes moral values, it’s tricky to do but it does try most of the time. I could probably dig up an example if you wanted one.
I don’t think Charles ever drew any conclusion about how animals he studied felt! If you want an example…
Calling natural selection brutal is totally off base too! You might as well call a storm vengeful, it sounds pretty but it doesn’t help anyone to understand how it behaves.
You say that “brutal” Darwinism what explains how the person behaved in your example, it may do but if all it takes is someone dying why do we let millions of ‘em do it every year from preventable diseases, starvation or the faeces generally hitting the fan.
This is all very interesting and for the most part unanswerable so to bring us back to the point. How does any of this undermine any human right or “Freedom”?
ps. ppletr that [blam] function is totally out of control!
Edited by gwarqwa (03/04/09 06:06 AM)
Edit Reason: got [blamed]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17333 - 03/04/09 04:56 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: Stratagem36]
|
adsix
| | Thinslayer |
Two Daggers
Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.
|
The story of the good Samaritan actually says a whole lot more than it seems to at first glance. In biblical times, the Samaritans were not pure Jews, and as such were despised by the "pure" Jews. In the story, a priest and a pharisee, supposedly good people, pass the injured man without helping him, while the lowly Samaritan was the one who helped him. I think the story was intended to show us the hypocrisy of proclaiming ourselves to be righteous without actually doing anything that is right.
However, in the context of your post, I think being a good Samaritan is actually divine law at work. Man is thoroughly corrupt and enslaved to sin. However, society could not exist if all men were allowed to be as evil as they could be. All people have God's law written in their hearts, and God restrains their evil tendencies, explaining why even atheists and evolutionists have moral standards, despite their beliefs.
I understand, though, that you probably won't accept what I've said, and I certainly don't expect you to. However, I hope that you at least understand what I'm trying to say.
Thanks for your tolerance!
_________________________
Practice makes better.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17334 - 03/04/09 05:03 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
adsix
| | Thinslayer |
Two Daggers
Registered: 02/08/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A.
|
Freedom is not being allowed to do what you want, it's being allowed to do what you think is right. For instance, why were the people living in the U.S.S.R. not free? In America, if we believe that the right thing to do is to speak out against corruption in our government, we are free to do that. Russians, however, could not. If they tried to, they could get arrested. In America, though you are free to wander freely about the country, you are not free to commit fraud. Freedom is the ability to do what is right.
_________________________
Practice makes better.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#17338 - 03/04/09 08:17 PM
Re: What is it with Americans and 'Freedom'?
[Re: gwarqwa]
|
Stratagem36
Crossed Axes
Registered: 06/10/08
Posts: 118
|
i think you can sort of discribe natual selection and darwinism as brutal. what i meant was, darwinsism doesnt care about human life, or any life. if a trait works, then chances are it will spread. if not, then everyone with the trait will die. ok, i gues your right, you cant really use human characteristics to describe laws of nature, but just let the personification or whatever go by. you get what im saying...
ok first of all, before i say anything else, an "ethic" is a rule laid down by society for the conduct of its members, or maybe even its government. no disagreement there right? i think thats a pretty basic dictionary definition. all will agree with me when i say that a moral and an ethic have pretty much the same definition right?
it may do but if all it takes is someone dying why do we let millions of ‘em do it every year from preventable diseases, starvation or the faeces generally hitting the fan.
im not sure i understood this, but ill answer. people are USUALLY charitable and sympathetic. they have an instinct to do so, if its not induced by genetics, then its by cultural pressure (as i said before), but that alone doesnt prevent all the ills in the world.
many of times, that instict can be overriden.
in my last post, hopefully ive convinced you how the ethic of reciprocity is meaningless. if not, play along for a sec
the ethic of reciprocity is the most universal of all the human ethics. if you accept that it is meaningless, then doesnt it make sense that all the rest of the morals are meaningless as well?
the ethic of reciprocity can be explained as originating from man's society building instincts, so to speak. many other ethics originate from the ethic of reciprocity, other ethics can be explained by other, perhaps similar causes.
human rights, or any rights, are ethics and morals, are they not?
the originators of the UN universal declaration of human rights prolly had sympathy for those who had their "human rights" violated. thats way too simple an explanation, but simple sympathy was likely a major reason why they passed it.
the influences that went into the american code of "rights" was more complicated than simply sympathy. this time, the colonists themselves were the ones who had been persecuted, by the british that is. they werent "sympathetic", "angry" is a better term for it. anger is another one of those evovled mechanisms. while sympathy is meant to help solely one's society and group, anger is, by my reckoning, meant to defend both yourself and perhaps your group as well depending on the circumtances. that plus a plethora of philosophical influences, induced america's founding fathers to write the bill of rights and the declaration of independance the way they did.
those two documents in turn influenced the rest of america.
this answer anything?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Myth: 0
Myth II: 28
Myth III: 0
Marathon: 3
