Everyone has heard people quarrelling.
Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it
sounds unpleasant, but however it sounds,
I believe we can learn something very
important from listening to the kind of
things they say.
They say things like this:
"how would you like it if someone did the
same to you"
"leave him alone he isnt doing you any
harm"
"why should you shove in first"
"give me a bit of your orange, I gave you
a bit of mine"
"come on you promised"
people say things like this every day...
Educated as well as uneducated children as
well as adults.
What is interesting about these remarks
is that the person who says them is not
merely saying that the other mans
behaviour does not happen to please him.
He is appealing to some kind of standard
of behaviour he expects the other man to
know about and the other man very rarely
replies "to hell with your standard"
nearly always he tries to make out that
what he has been doing does not really go
against the standard or that if it does
there is some special excuse.
He pretends there is some special reason
in this particular case why the person who
took the seat first should not keep it, or
that things were quite different when he
was given the bit of orange, or something
happened that lets him off the hook in
keeping his promise.
It looks in fact that both parties have in
mind some sort of law or rule of fair play
or decent behaviour or moralitiy or
whatever you like to call it about which
they really agreed. And they have, if
they had not they would be able to fight
like animals, but they could not "argue"
in the human sense of the word.
Arguing means trying to show the other man
is in the wrong and there would be no
point in doing so unless you and he had
some sort of agreement as to what
consitutes right and wrong, what is fair
and unfair, just as there would be no
sense in saying a footballer had commited
a foul unless there was some agreement
about the rules of football.
Now this law or rule about right and wrong
used to be called "the law of nature"
nowadays when we talk about the laws of
nature we think about gravity, chemistry,
hereditary. But when this law of right
and wrong was given the name "the law of
nature" the older thinkers really meant
"the law of human nature"
the idea was that just as all bodies are
governed by the law of gravitation and
organisims by biological laws, so the
creature called man also had his law -
with this great difference, that a body
could not choose weather to obay the law
of gravitation or not, but a man could
choose to either obay or the law of human
nature or to disobay it.
We may put this in another way. Each man
is at every moment subjected to several
sets of laws but there is only one which
he is free to disobay. As a body, he is
subjected to gravitation and can not
disobay it, if you leave him in mid air he
has no more choice of falling than a stone
has.
As a organisim he is subjected to various
laws which he can not disobay no more than
an animal can. That is he can not disobay
those laws he shares with other things,
but the law that is peculiar to his human
nature, the law he does not share with
animals or vegitables or inorganic things,
is the one thing he can disobay if he
chooses.
This law was called "the law of nature"
because people thought everyone knew it by
nature and did not need to be taught it.
They didnt mean of course that you wouldnt
find the odd individual here and there who
did not know it, just as you find people
who are colour blind or tone deaf. But
taking the race as a whole they thought
that the human idea of decent behaviour
was obvious to everyone and I believe they
were right.
If they are not then all the things said
about world war two are nonsense. What is
the sense in saying the enemie was in the
wrong unless "right" is a real thing which
the nazis at the bottom of them knew as
well as we did and ought to have
practised?
If they had no notion of it then we still
would have had to fight them but we could
not have blamed them any more than we
could blame the colour of their hair.
I know that some say that the idea of a
"law of human nature" is unsound, because
different civilisations, different ages,
different cultures, different religions
have different moralities.
But this is not true, there is of course
differences between their moralities, but
these have never amounted to anything like
a total difference. If any of you have
taken the time to study the moral
teachings of the ancient egyptians,
babylonians, hindus, chinese, greeks and
romans what must really strike you is how
very much alike they are to each other and
to our own.
What would a tottaly different morality
mean?
Imagine a country where people were
admired for running away in battle or
where men felt proud at double crossing
those people who had been the kindest to
him. Men have differed as regards to what
kind of people we should be unselfish
towards, maybe your own family, your
fellow country men or everyone but they
have always agreed that you ought not to
put yourself first. Selfishness has never
been admired. Men have differed as to
weather you should have one wife or four,
but they agree you must not simply take
any woman you like.
But the most remarkable thing is this.
Whenever you find a man who says he dosnt
believe in a "real" right or wrong, you
will find that same man going back on this
a moment later. He may break a promise to
you but if you break one to him he will be
complaining "its not fair" a good example
of this from my field ...Abortion... You
will find those in favor of abortion
saying "personhood is a right granted by
the state" while at the sametime arguing
that germany were wrong for gassing the
jews.
A nation may say treaties dont matter, but
the next minute they spoil there case by
saying the treatie they want to break is
an unfair one. But if treaties do not
matter and if there is no such thing as
right and wrong, in other words if there
is no law of human nature what is the
difference between a fair treatie and an
unfair one, have they not let the cat out
of the bag and shown that they know the
law of human nature just like anyone
else?
It seems then that we are forced to
believe in a real right and a real wrong,
people may sometimes be mistaken about
them just as sometimes we get our sums
wrong but they are not a matter of taste
or opinion any more than the
multiplication table
none of us, not one of us are keeping the
law of human nature, if there are any
exceptions among you then I appologise,
you had better read something else because
nothing contained in this concerns you.
Now turning to the ordinary human beings
who are left:
i hope you dont misunderstand what I am
going to say, I am not preaching and
heaven knows I am not any better than
anyone else. I am only tring to call to
attention a fact, the fact that this year,
this month, this week or more than likely
this very day we have failed to practice
ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect
from others, there maybe all sorts of
excuses for us. That time you were harsh
to the children was when you were tired,
the shady business about the money came at
a time when you were hard up and that time
you promised old so and so and never done
well if you had known how busy you were
going to be, you wouldnt have promised and
as for your behaviour tyo your wife,
husband, brother, sister, father, mother,
if I only knew how irritating they can be
I wouldnt wonder at it..And who the hell
am I anyway? Iam just the same, just the
same in that I do not succeed in keeping
the law of human nature very well and the
moment someone tells me I am not keeping
it, there start the escuses as long as
your arm.
The question at the moment is not if they
are good excuses, the point is that they
are one more proof of how deeply weather
we like it or not we believe in the "law
of human nature" if we do not believe in
decent behaviour why should we be so
anxious to make excuses for not having
behaved decently...."i only had an
abortion because my husband left me.. I
was raped, I lost my job, my contraception
failed.
The truth is, we believe in decency so
much that we feel the rule of decency
pressing on us so much so that we can not
bare to face the fact that we are breaking
it, and consiquntly we try to shift the
responsiblity. For if you notice its only
our bad behaviour we find all these
explanitions and excuses for , its only
our bad temper we put down to being hungry
or tired or worried, we put our good
temper down to ourselves.
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2378 Location: North Carolina
Thanks: 11
Thanked:1
Posted: 03-30-06 19:24pm
Izzy I like you but I really don't
understand what is the point of this long
post. I didn't read it completly. Can
you be shorter and go straight to the
point so that we can debate?
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 03-30-06 20:03pm
Hey, I agree .Nightangel.
The best to ya!
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-31-06 00:22am
Well I actually read the whole post. It
is full of some very good advice and
ideas, and really, most of them should be
taken to heart. Humn nature is a
complicated thing; which is why we must
all try our best to be impartial and
logical...
Izzy, you do make some good points... But
of course I must debate a few ;)
first of an obvious one for me is this:
abortion versus the holocaust... I must
say that I feel there is a major
difference that none of the pro-lifers
agree with: the holocaust was the mass
homicide of born people (not just jews
either). Fetuses, being unborn do not (in
my opinion and the opinions of many
pro-choicers) have the same rights as
someone who is born or who can survive
outside of the womb. To this extent, I
believe that abortions begin to become
immoral if they are "on-demand" at around
five and a half months, and definately by
six. However that is just my personal
feeling on the matter. Obviously
life-saving abortions may be done at any
point to save the mother.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-31-06 06:24am
"first of an obvious one for me is this:
abortion versus the holocaust... I must
say that I feel there is a major
difference that none of the pro-lifers
agree with: the holocaust was the mass not
a nice act of born people (not just jews
either). Fetuses, being unborn do not (in
my opinion and the opinions of many
pro-choicers) have the same rights as
someone who is born or who can survive
outside of the womb. To this extent, I
believe that abortions begin to become
immoral if they are "on-demand" at around
five and a half months, and definately by
six. However that is just my personal
feeling on the matter. Obviously
life-saving abortions may be done at any
point to save the mother"
first of all erie thank you for taking the
time to read it, thank you.
My post dosnt argue the point of if
abortion is akin to the holocaust, my
point was based on the idea of reletivism
and objective truth. My example of the
statement often made by pro choice about
"personhood is confered by the state" was
to highlight the idea of it being right
for some but not for others.
Pro choice argue that personhood is
confered by the state but at the sametime
they argue germany was wrong not to confer
personhood on the jews, thus they know at
a deeper level that personhood is not
confered by the state but by something
else, otherwise the nazis could not have
been wrong.
I was not saying anything other than the
statement "personhood is confired by the
state" is something we all know to be
wrong. Obviously those who belive it does
for any certain group has its excuses, for
the germans, it was because jews were not
pure german race, for pro choice its
because the fetus is unborn. I am not
debating if these are good excuses or not
the point is both the germans and
prochoice know deep down that the
statement is wrong and that personhood is
confered not by the state but by something
else.
They at once support the idea for one
group and then at the next turn oppose it
for another, thus showing deep down that
they dont believe personhood is confered
by the state if they did they would
believe it to be so for all groups. So
they let the cat out of the bag that deep
down they believe in a real right and a
real wrong about how personhood is
confired and that they believe the
statement "personhood is confired by the
state" to be a real wrong.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-31-06 10:25am
izzy
wrote:
"first of an obvious one for
me is this: abortion versus the
holocaust... I must say that I feel
there is a major difference that none of
the pro-lifers agree with: the holocaust
was the mass not a nice act of born people
(not just jews either). Fetuses, being
unborn do not (in my opinion and the
opinions of many pro-choicers) have the
same rights as someone who is born or who
can survive outside of the womb. To this
extent, I believe that abortions begin to
become immoral if they are "on-demand" at
around five and a half months, and
definately by six. However that is just
my personal feeling on the matter.
Obviously life-saving abortions may be
done at any point to save the mother"
first of all erie thank you for taking the
time to read it, thank you.
My post dosnt argue the point of if
abortion is akin to the holocaust, my
point was based on the idea of reletivism
and objective truth. My example of the
statement often made by pro choice about
"personhood is confered by the state" was
to highlight the idea of it being right
for some but not for others.
Pro choice argue that personhood is
confered by the state but at the sametime
they argue germany was wrong not to confer
personhood on the jews, thus they know at
a deeper level that personhood is not
confered by the state but by something
else, otherwise the nazis could not have
been wrong.
I was not saying anything other than the
statement "personhood is confired by the
state" is something we all know to be
wrong. Obviously those who belive it
does for any certain group has its
excuses, for the germans, it was because
jews were not pure german race, for pro
choice its because the fetus is unborn.
I am not debating if these are good
excuses or not the point is both the
germans and prochoice know deep down that
the statement is wrong and that personhood
is confered not by the state but by
something else.
They at once support the idea for one
group and then at the next turn oppose it
for another, thus showing deep down that
they dont believe personhood is confered
by the state if they did they would
believe it to be so for all groups. So
they let the cat out of the bag that deep
down they believe in a real right and a
real wrong about how personhood is
confired and that they believe the
statement "personhood is confired by the
state" to be a real
wrong.
i personally think that abortion should be
deemed legal by the nation as a whole, and
not by the state. And I feel that the
obvious physical and biological
differences between a fetus and a born
person make the argument almost null and
void.
Fetuses are not ( im my opinion) "one
group" of "people", they are all unborn
humans of every kind; so they only way to
group them is as unborn and undeveloped
which; unlike what jimmycrackers believes,
does not make them a cultural subgroup,
and ethnicity, or a race. As such,
abortion cannot be "genocide" in any way
shape or form.
I feel that abortion is right for all; it
is every woman's choice. As the fetus is
not a person with it's own thoughts or
opinions, nor is it capable of such
things, I deem that it has no rights until
it reaches suc point as to be able to
survive without the womb. Just (again) my
opinion.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-31-06 10:58am
"i personally think that abortion should
be deemed legal by the nation as a whole,
and not by the state. "
lol, thats what I mean by "the state" not
a particular state of the united states, I
mean the state as in the whole country,
the german state, the british state, the
south african state etc... Lol
"i feel that abortion is right for all; it
is every woman's choice. As the fetus is
not a person with it's own thoughts or
opinions, nor is it capable of such
things, I deem that it has no rights until
it reaches suc point as to be able to
survive without the womb. Just (again) my
opinion."
like I said in the op right and wrong are
not a matter of taste or opinion any less
than getting the multiplication table
right or wrong is a matter of taste and
opinion, I believe people can believe they
have their sums right when they have them
wrong just as I believe people can believe
they are in the right when they are in the
wrong, but there is on every issue a right
and a wrong, its just a matter of who has
there sums right and who has them wrong.
Now I am certainly not talking about the
rights and wrongs of abortion in either of
my posts, just the right and wrong of a
particular statment that of the government
i.E the state confering personhood on
human beings, I am not stating or making
any other remark about abortion I am
merely suggesting that deep down those who
use this as an argument for any reason not
just abortion but also for killing jews or
killing blacks or whatever, the issue is
not what is important, what the point I am
trying to make is that people who use this
statement believe it is wrong just as much
as those who oppose the notion of the
government confering personhood on human
beings.
Weather or not the fetus is a human bering
or not is irrelevent and a totally
different argument to what I am saying,
this is not about abortion but reletive
truth and objective truth, take the
statement out of context of abortion, if I
were to say to you, you are only a person
because the government says you are and
should they change their minds you would
no longer be a person and devoid of any
rights you would find that a erronious
statement, therefore it is safe to say in
the matter of personhood that it is not
the state but something else that confers
personhood on human beings and that is all
I am saying.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-31-06 14:29pm
izzy
wrote:
"i personally think that
abortion should be deemed legal by the
nation as a whole, and not by the state.
"
lol, thats what I mean by "the state" not
a particular state of the united states, I
mean the state as in the whole country,
the german state, the british state, the
south african state etc...
Lol
someone somewhere, some group of people
has to make the final desicion on
something. Who do you
think should decide if abortion is legal?
The individual? I feel so too; that's
what being pro-choice is. But that does
mean that you cannot make it illegal for
hospitals and clinics to give abortions;
the option must stay open in order for the
women who chose to abort to get safe,
proper care.
Quote:
"i feel that
abortion is right for all; it is every
woman's choice. As the fetus is not a
person with it's own thoughts or opinions,
nor is it capable of such things, I deem
that it has no rights until it reaches suc
point as to be able to survive without the
womb. Just (again) my opinion."
like I said in the op right and wrong are
not a matter of taste or opinion any less
than getting the multiplication table
right or wrong is a matter of taste and
opinion, I believe people can believe they
have their sums right when they have them
wrong just as I believe people can believe
they are in the right when they are in the
wrong, but there is on every issue a right
and a wrong, its just a matter of who has
there sums right and who has them wrong.
what about the fact that we do have rules?
Who decided that stealing was wrong? Why
is it wrong? Why do we all accept this as
wrong? Ethics are subjective; they change
depending on locale, peoples, cultures.
Rules, countries, governments... They
attempt to help unite a set of people who
all have the same set of ethics. To let
them live in harmony freely. But it comes
down to the fact that someone (or a group
of someones) had to make the final
desicion and say "stealing is wrong". And
everyone must obey.
Abortion has not been labeled as totally
wrong or totally right by our government;
it lets smaller bodies determine whether
abortion is ethical. I know it's not
exactly what you're talking about, but is
it not the main issue?
Quote:
now I am
certainly not talking about the rights and
wrongs of abortion in either of my posts,
just the right and wrong of a particular
statment that of the government i.E the
state confering personhood on human
beings, I am not stating or making any
other remark about abortion I am merely
suggesting that deep down those who use
this as an argument for any reason not
just abortion but also for killing jews or
killing blacks or whatever, the issue is
not what is important, what the point I am
trying to make is that people who use this
statement believe it is wrong just as much
as those who oppose the notion of the
government confering personhood on human
beings.
so who do you believe should have the
right to determine whether women should be
able to abort? The mother? The mother
and father?
Quote:
weather or not the fetus is a human bering
or not is irrelevent and a totally
different argument to what I am saying,
this is not about abortion but reletive
truth and objective truth, take the
statement out of context of abortion, if I
were to say to you, you are only a person
because the government says you are and
should they change their minds you would
no longer be a person and devoid of any
rights you would find that a erronious
statement, therefore it is safe to say in
the matter of personhood that it is not
the state but something else that confers
personhood on human beings and that is all
I am saying.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Izzy Posted: 03-31-06 19:01pm
Qui worrying so much about the holycaust
and the nazi's, at least bring yourself
upto the 1950's until now and in the
future. Women died because they had to
go to these backyard butchers that could
not afford children in that day and age,
they were not given all off this free
housing, free utilities,free this and
that, they were given very little money
and commodities and later on some food
stamps but nothing what they are given now
to support these children and some medical
attention, like I said I had a friend in
the 60's that died because she needed a
medical abortion but the dr's would not do
it because it was illegal, to me that was
no excuse, she ran out of time and bled to
death because of the idiotic no abortion
polotics that would have saved her live
and you are asking for that law to come
back and the backyard butcher could not
handle her inthe right way that she needed
to be aborted. What child wants to grow
up knowing sooner or later that it took
the mothers life for her/him to live, I
sure would not want to and I know about
the man above giving his life for us and
blah, blah, blah but this is different
that was a man we need our mothers and I
can understand that more because of the
people that I have talked to and after
loosing my mother at the age of six, but
abortion should be their for thise that
need it such as my friend and others, it
should be open as it is not an easy
decision justlike raising a child is but
it is part of bein pro-choice.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-31-06 19:09pm
This thread has nothing to do with the
morality of abortion, it deals with a
particular statement used by pro choice
people, I am not saying abrotion is wrong
only that the statement "the government
confers personhood" is wrong, that is all
I am dealing with it dosnt even have to be
in context of abortion it is still wrong
and what is more everyone knows it is.
As this thread pans out you will begin to
understand.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 03-31-06 20:06pm
Begin to understand that a lot of it deals
with politics. Begin to understand that
if abortion was legal then that more women
would be alive and less botched abortions.
Begin to understand that women have
rights and choices too. Begin to
understand that it is not killing, that it
is terminating a pregnancy. Begin to
understand that it is not a baby, child,
kid and that it is a z/e/f. And that is
only part of it, a very, small part of it.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 03-31-06 20:25pm
izzy
wrote:
this thread has nothing to
do with the morality of abortion, it deals
with a particular statement used by pro
choice people, I am not saying abrotion is
wrong only that the statement "the
government confers personhood" is wrong,
that is all I am dealing with it dosnt
even have to be in context of abortion it
is still wrong and what is more everyone
knows it is.
As this thread pans out you will begin to
understand.
i don't think that the government should
be in charge of personhood aat all; except
for the fact that all born people are
obviously people. You can't deny a born
person any right; it's in our
constitution; it is in most of the minds
and moralities of individual people,
removed from any form of government.
If "the government confers morality" is
wrong, then I ask again... Who should?
|
nightangel73
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Posts: 2378 Location: North Carolina
Thanks: 11
Thanked:1
Posted: 03-31-06 21:09pm
sandyallen
wrote:
begin to understand that a
lot of it deals with politics. Begin to
understand that if abortion was legal then
that more women would be alive and less
botched abortions. Begin to understand
that women have rights and choices too.
Begin to understand that it is not
killing, that it is terminating a
pregnancy. Begin to understand that it
is not a baby, child, kid and that it is a
z/e/f. And that is only part of it, a
very, small part of
it.
what is the difference between terminating
and killing? Isn't killing terminating
someone's life against their will? Don't
you realize that a zef can fully become a
full fledged human being? Somebody who
can bring good things to our race? Why we
need to see it becomes baby or child to
realize it's life has value? It surprises
me sandyallen from what I have read you
that you think that way. Is this what
life is about? Where halting a life of a
zef has no value but a $100 piece of
paper does have a value?
I don't want abortions to happen, what I
would like is that girls avoiding risky
behaviors so they don't have to get into
this type of situation. If it happens
then let's help them.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 04-01-06 05:38am
You all just wont stop and just take 10
minutes out of the pro life vs the pro
choice argument, this thread is not about
the morality of abortion, please dont
think it is, and no sandy those are not
the things or the opposite of those things
that I am hoping you will begin to
understand from this thread, like I said
this is not a thread about the moralityof
abortion.... You will begin to understand
as the thread progresses.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 04-01-06 07:33am
Errie please keep this which you said in
mind when reading my next post
"i don't think that the government should
be in charge of personhood at all"
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 04-01-06 07:37am
Lets recap on the .O.P. In the op I came
to 2 basic conclusions.
1. Human beings have all over the world
have this curious idea that they should
behave in a certain way and can not really
get rid of it, no matter how much they
try.
2. That in fact human beings do not
behave that way.
In other words they know the law of human
nature and they break it.
These two facts are the very foundation of
.A.L.L clear thinking about ourselves nd
the universe we live in.
If these are the foundation I had better
make that foundation firm before I go
on.
Now some of you may find it difficult to
understand just what this law of human
nature or moral law or rule of decent
behaviour is. For example some of you may
think that this moral law is just our herd
instinct and been developed like any other
instinct.
Now I do not deny that we may have a herd
instinct but that is not what I mean by
the moral law. We all know what it feels
like to be prompted by instinct, by mother
love, sexual instinct or the instinct for
food.
It means you have a strong want or desire
to act in a certain way. And of course,
we sometimes do feel just that sort of
desire to help another person: and no
doubt that desire is due to the herd
instinct. But feeling a desire to help is
quite different from feelinh you
.O.U.G.H.T to help whether or not you want
to or not.
Supposing you hear a cry for help from a
man in danger. You will probably feel two
desires.
1 to give help (due to your herd
instinct)
2. To keep out of danger (due to the
instinct of self preservation)
however you will as we all know find
inside you, in addition to these two
instinctive impulses, a third thing which
tells you that you ought to follow the
impulse to help...And suppress the impulse
to run away.
Now this thing that judges between two
instincts, that decides which should be
encouraged, can not be either of them.
You might as well say the sheet of music
which tells you at a given moment to play
one note on the piano and not the other,
is itself one of the notes on the
keyboard.
The moral law tells us the tune we have to
play, our instincts are merely the keys.
Another way of seeing the moral law is not
simply one of our instincts is this,. If
two instincts are in conflict and there is
nothing in a creatures mind except those
two instincts, obviously the stronger of
the two instincts must win. But at those
moments when we are most conscience of the
moral law, it usually is telling us to
side with the weaker of the two impulses.
You probably want to be safe much more
than you want to help the man who is
drowning, but the moral law tells you to
help him all the same. And surely it
often tells us to make the right impulse
stronger than it naturally is?
I mean we often feel it our duty to
stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up
our imaginations and arousing our pity and
so on, so as to get up enough steam for
doing the right thing. But clearly we are
not acting from instinct when we set about
making certain instincts stronger than
they are.
The thing that tells you your herd
instinct is asleep can not be the herd
instinct. The thing that tells you which
note on the piano is to be played can not
be that note.
Here is the third way of seeing it. If
the moral law was one of our instincts, we
ought to be able to point to some one
impulse inside us which was always what we
call good, always in agreement with the
rule of right behaviour. But you
cannot.
There is none of our instinctive impulses
the moral law may not sometimes tell us to
supress and none which it may sometimes
tell us to encourage.
It is a mistake to think that some of our
impulses - say mother love or patriotism
are good and others such as sex or the
fighting instinct are bad. All we could
mean by such statements is that the
occasions on which the fighting instinct
or the sexual desire need to be restrained
are rather more frequent than those for
restraining mother love or patriotism.
However there are also situtions where it
is the duty of a married man to encourage
his sexual impulse and of a soldier to
encourage his fighting instinct and there
are also occasion where a mothers love for
her own children or a mans love of his
country need to be suppressed or they will
lead to unfairness towards other peoples
children or countries.
Strictly speaking there is no such thing
as good or bad impulses, think once again
of the piano, it has two kinds of notes on
it, the "right" notes and the "wrong"
ones. Every single note is right at one
point and wrong at another. The moral law
is not any one instinct or set of
instincts, it is something which makes a
kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or
right conduct) by directing the
instincts.
By the way the point s of great practical
consequence. The most dangerous thing you
can do is take any one impulse of your own
nature and set it up as the thing which
you ought to follow at all costs. There
is not one of them which will make us into
bad bad people if we set it up as an
absolute guide.
You may think love of humanity in general
was safe, but it certainly is not, if you
leave out justice you will find yourself
breaking agreements and faking evidence in
trials "for the sake of humanity" and
become in the end a cruel and treacherous
person, you can see this is often pin on
both sides of the abortion debate, the pro
choice side is charged with faking
statistics to legalise abortion in order
to legalise it "for the good of humanity"
and pro life are charged with faking
photographs to try and make abortion
illegal "for the good of humanity"
also some of you make think the moral law
is just a social convention, something
that is put into us by education, I think
that is a misunderstanding. The people
who think that usually taking it for
granted that if we have learnt a thing
from parents or teachers, then that thing
must be a mere human invention. But of
course that is not so.
We all learned the multiplication table at
school. A child who grew up on a desert
island would not know it. But surely it
does not follow that the multiplication
table is simply a human convention,
something human beings have made up for
themselves and might have made it
different if they had liked, we know it is
true since mathamatics can tell us many
things about our world and our universe.
I fully agree we learn the rule of decent
behaviour from our parents and teachers
and friends and boos ect just as we learn
maths or anything else and yes some of the
things we learn are mere conventions like
keeping to the right of the road but it
may well just have been to keep to the
left. While others like maths and science
are real truths.
The question is of course to which of
these the law of human nature belongs?
There are two reasons for saying it
belongs to to the same class as
mathamatics. The first is as I said in
the .O.P that though ther are differences
between the moral ideas of one time or
country and those of another, the
differences are not very big, not nearly
as big as people imagine and you can
recognise the same law running through all
of them, where as mere conventions, like
the rule of the road or the kind ofclothes
people wear, may differ to any extent.
The other reason is this, when youthink
about the differences between the morality
of one people and another, do you think
that the morality of one peopke is better
or worse than another? Have any of the
changes been improvments?
If not then of course there could never
be any moral progress. Progress means not
just changing but changing for the better.
If no set of moral ideals were truer or
better than any other there would be no
sense in prefering civilised morality to
savage morality christian morality to
nazi morality.
In fact we all of course do believe some
moralities are better than others. We do
believe that some people who tried to
change the moral ideas of their own age
were what we would call reformers or
pioneers, people who understood morality
better than their neighbours did.. Very
well then. The moment you say one set of
moral ideas can be better than another you
are infact messuring them both by a
standard, saying that one of them conforms
to that standard better than the other.
But the standard that messures both is
something different to either. You are
infact comparing them both with some real
right independent of what people think and
that some peoples ideas get closer to
that real right than others or put it this
way.
If your moral idea can be truer and those
of the nazis less true, there must be
something, some real morality for them to
be true about. The reason your idea of
new york can be truer or less true than
mine is that new york is a real place that
exists no matter what either of us thinks.
If when each of us said "new york" we
each meant the town we imagined in our own
heads how could one of us have truer ideas
than the other? There would be no
question of truth and falsehood at all.
In the same way if the rule of decent
behaviour meant simply whatever each
nation happens to approve of, there would
be no sense in saying that any nation had
ever been more correct or more wrong in
its approval than any other, and no sense
in saying germany was wrong for gassing
the jews.
At the sametime if the rule of decent
behaviour meant simply whatever each
individual person happens to approve of ,
there would be no sense in saying that any
one persons ideas had ever been more
correct or wrong in their approval than
any other and no sense in saying ones
approval or disaproval of abortion makes
abortion right or wrong.
So ultimatly there would be no sense in
saying that the world could ever grow
morally better or morally worse.
I conclude then, that though the
differences between peoples ideas of
decent behviour often make you suspect
that there is no real law of human nature,
yet the things we are bound to think about
these differences really just prove the
opposite.
But one more thing before I end I have met
people who exagerate the differences
because they have not distinguished
between differences of morality and
differences of belief about facts, for
example suppose someone said "300 years
ago in england people were putting witches
to death is that what you call the rule of
human nature or right conduct?"
but surely we do not execute witches is
that we do not believe there are such
things. If we did - if we really thought
that there were people going about who had
sold themselves to the devil and recieved
supernatural powers from him in return and
were using these powers to kill their
neighbours or drive them mad or enslave
humanity, surely we would all agree that
if anyone desreved the death penalty, then
these filthy people did?
There is no difference of moral principle
here, the difference is simply about a
matter of fact. It maybe a great advance
in knowledge not to believe in witches(in
the traditional sense), there is no moral
advance in not executing themwhen you do
not think they are there. You would not
call a man humane for ceasing to set mouse
traps if he did so because he believed
there were no more mice in the house.
We should not call a pro choicer inhumane
if they real believe a fetus is not a
human person and we should not call a pro
lifer anti woman if they real believe a
fetus is a human person, there is no
difference of morality of a pro choice
person and pro life person, if a pro
choice person believe the fetus was a
human person they would be against
abortion and if a pro lifer believed the
fetus was not a human person he would be
in support of giving the woman the freedom
to choose.
The difference is simply about a matter of
fact not morality
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 04-01-06 08:09am
I am not playing games or playing with
womens bodies, if you read what I have to
say instead of just assuming I am writing
pro life material you will see that my
thread only touches on the issue of
abortion so that people may get a better
understanding of the topic I am adressing
"the moral law"
i understand that my op and other posts
are by far and away not nearly enough to
help people get to grips with just what it
is, that is why I say "you will begin to
understand as the thread pans out"
and that is also why my posts are so long
and tedius, I am trying not to leave
anything to chance
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 04-02-06 00:45am
You do realise you are talking about the
.Ego, the .Super .Ego and the ".I.D",
completely well-known concepts in
psychology?
You spoke of the third "voice" that tells
the person to go against the instinct to
survive, and rescue the man in help. That
is the mediator, that helps communicate
between the other two. One of the
remaining sides is basic instincts:
survival, food, shelter, sex. The last
side is the morals we have been taught an
have developed through human contact.
When a baby is born, it only has the
basic-instints.
And yes, all those rules are learned from
other humans, humans older than ourselves.
They teach us how to control our base
instints.
But I feel that there is no "moral law",
if you mean a certain type of behavior
that all humans intinctively follow.
Humans are born with only a few instincts,
if you can even call them that. Rooting,
splaying, and crying. That's about it.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Nightangel Posted: 04-02-06 01:09am
I am not getting on your case or nothing
so please do not take me wrong! Do you
realize how many pregnant females are
killed and beaten that carry an idiots
child and they feel that if they leave the
so-called fool then they feel they are not
hurting the fetus. I do not mind helping
people, I have paid taxes sice I was 13
y/o and I am getting up there.
Terminating is stopping something that the
female feels it is not right at the time
to carry on, I had two that would noi have
been born due to an abusive ex-husband and
a iud that ended up in the fetus head, I
have no regrets, it was just a part of
life kind of like a miscarriage and I had
a couple of those but life goes on and
mine did and so do others, idid not kill
something. A near dead child on the
street has no value except pain and their
family's pain, the life of drugs.
You have to learn in life, you cannot siop
them all from getting pregnant, from
having abortions, which in away they are
better off, they cannot raise themselves,
they do not know how to say no, we go out,
we try to educate but they think they know
it all, older females too, they feel it
will not happen to them and then, boom,
their pregnant.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 04-02-06 06:02am
"you do realise you are talking about the
.Ego, the .Super .Ego and the ".I.D",
completely well-known concepts in
psychology?
You spoke of the third "voice" that tells
the person to go against the instinct to
survive, and rescue the man in help. That
is the mediator, that helps communicate
between the other two. One of the
remaining sides is basic instincts:
survival, food, shelter, sex. The last
side is the morals we have been taught an
have developed through human contact.
When a baby is born, it only has the
basic-instints.
And yes, all those rules are learned from
other humans, humans older than ourselves.
They teach us how to control our base
instints.
But I feel that there is no "moral law",
if you mean a certain type of behavior
that all humans intinctively follow.
Humans are born with only a few instincts,
if you can even call them that. Rooting,
splaying, and crying. That's about it."
no the moral law is not an instinct it is
above the instincts it tells us how to
play our instincts to make a tune called
goodness or decent behaviour, we are not
subjected to obay the moral law we can if
we want be we do not have to.
I agree we learn the moral law, but it is
not a human convention, please read the
post I refered to in my pm. You will see
I too do not believe the moral law to be
something we instinctivly follow but
something we can choose to follow or not
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used t
