literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org

Sitaram · Site Admin Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 1079

We must remember "Hume's gap" between "is" and "ought",

namely that nothing which "is" implies any "ought" in

the sense of some absolute ethics or morality

Hume stated the problem for morality and ethics as

Hume's Gap: from factual knowledge of the greatest good

for the greatest number it does not follow logically

that we ought to pursue that good.

Hume is saying: One cannot move directly back and forth

between propositions of fact and ethical commands,

because "this is" cannot, even if true, lead directly to

"therefore you have a moral duty to do that."

In my mind, Hume's gap is related to Plato's famous

"Euthrypro problem"

and we must remember that Kant said it was Hume who

awoke him from his dogmatic slumber

Regarding the issue of ethics or morality, consider the

curious, significant difference between the so-called

christian "golden rule" (do unto others as you would

have them do unto you) with the so-called jewish "silver

rule" (that which you find hateful to yourself, do not

do that unto another)

The "golden rule" presumes that you know WHAT the good

IS, for yourself, and for others (and easily leads to a

colonial mentality of aggression, imposing ones

will/laws upon others)... while the jewish maxim (that

which you find hateful, do not unto others), makes no

presumption that you know the good, but only that you

realize what is undesirable

Is it wise to discuss issues of ethics and ignore

landmark issues such as hume's gap, the euthyprhro

problem, or even the centuries of debate and

disagreement among the many religions in world history

(even plato spoke of religion, and quoted poets)

It is interesting how often people misquote and say that

"MONEY is the root of all evil", when the what was

actually writtin in the epistle of timothy was : "the

LOVE of money is the root of all evil" (not the money

itself)

The word "fungible" is an interesting word which i

learned about only recently

Fungible: Capable of mutual substitution in use or

satisfaction of a contract. A commodity or service whose

individual units are so similar that one unit of the

same grade or quality is considered interchangeable with

any other unit of the same grade or quality.

Examples—tin, grain, coal, sugar, money

The concept of "contract", which we see in the

definition of fungible, is also interesting, since there

are "social contracts" in writings on the philosophy of

government, and a contract is also a "testament" (as in

old and new)... and these several things are intimately

bound with the notion of "quid pro quo" (something done

in exchange for or expectation of something else)

Talmudic authors divide all people into four classes,

based on their relationship to things of a fungible

nature:

1. the just person says "what is mine is mine, and what

is yours is yours."

2. the unrighteous person says "what is mine is mine and

what is YOURS is mine"

3. the saintly person says "what is yours is yours and

what is MINE is yours.", and

4. the businessperson/entrepreneur who says "what is

mine is yours and what is yours is mine" (which gets

back to motivations which are "quid pro quo")

Regarding silence and solitude (i am just now reminded),

the trappist, thomas merton said: "it is not your

words/speech which disturbs your silence/tranquility,

but rather your ANXIETY to be heard."

I hope you wont mind if i make a point about wealth and

poverty which shows the foolishness of Rome, but there

was, some few years ago, a papal encyclical written on

"elminating world poverty", and yet...

... Moses in the old testament, when forbidding the

gleaning of the fields, said as an afterthought "for the

poor shall always be with you", and that sentiment is

echoed in the new testament, when a women used precious

ointment to anoint Jesus' feet (and Jesus said, the poor

shall always be with you)

I am simply pointing out that there seems to be a

categorical biblical statement that the elimination of

poverty is as impossible as squaring the circle

and yet, ironically, those who take such writings as

"gospel", then proceed to speculate on how one might go

about eliminating poverty... (clearly there is some sort

of contradiction here)

I have always felt that hunger is only a symptom of some

deeper underlying problem or malady, rather that the

problem itself... i.e. throwing money or food at the

poor does not really help the problem (the real problem)

Nor is any problem helped by throwing rhetoric at it, or

pleasant sentiments, or politically correct agendas, yet

we often see people doing precisely that, throwing

rhetoric at problems

I am especially thinking of all the television and radio

"moralists" who broadcast such rhetoric 24/7, with the

promise that it will transform your life (or transform

our nation),... and certainly it helps some people to

improve or change slightly (if only for a season), but

the daily newspapers seem to perennially display the

deplorable nature of individuals in particular and

society in general

America has been a nation for something like 300 years

now (appx), and how many politicians have come and gone

spouting their "chicken in every pot" agendas and plans

(or the countless 5-year plans of the communist

countries), yet boom and bust, prosperity and financial

collapse, war and peace, is a perennial cycle

Both communism and capitalism (and the industrial

revolution) have had more than a fair chance now, (and

the theists and atheists have had over 100 years to take

a crack at solving the problem).... so what progress has

been made in all this time, by all these diverse

ideologies

I ask that question in all sincerity! I truly wish I had

some answers, but I have none!

I think it is important to observe regarding human

nature that we understand 'intellectually' how to solve

many problems (e.g. aids is abstinance, monogamy,

protection)... (or diet for various disorders), but

"emotionally" we cannot practice what our intellect

preaches

It is an amusing fact that only one president has been a

union leader (Regan, who headed the actors guild), but

that has more to do with our penchant for electing movie

stars than it has to do with the nature of unionized

labor

stop and think, it is the majority of the consumer

public whose tastes and desires dictate what is

available,... if people loved lincoln/douglas and policy

debates as much as they love

baseball/basketball/football/soccer... then the nation

would abound with debating societies (and philosophy

bars instead of cigar bars, sports bars, juice bars,

etc)... and there would be hundreds of PBS educational

channels, and only a few sitcom/movie/M-tv channels

you mention alaska,... women their have an amusing

saying (since men outnumber women by 10 to 1): Women say

"the odds are good, but the goods are odd"

yet the people who frequent sports bars, to watch

athletes, are themselves overweight and out of shape,

but it seems not to bother them.

and think how many homely people flock to see gorgeous

movie stars and performers,... nor are they bothered by

the stark contrast between themselves and their idols..

In the Philippines, people suffer from "colonial

mentality", the "mestisa" (part caucasian) is highly

desirable in the movies, the thinner the lips, the

lighter the skin, the rounder the eye, the more

romanesque the nose (prominent)... a european definition

of beauty in a predominantly asian society

Get your own free IRC Chat room