Friday, October 06, 2000

Entry 55 dated 20000919

willychang's question
How come nobody asks if PAP cares about ethics?

As the ruling government body of Singapore, does PAP care about ethics?

Is using National Reserves for political objectives ethical?

Is paying themselves more (when the rest of Singapore took pay cut) ethical ?

Is prosecuting opposition parties to bankruptcy ethical?

As leaders of a Country, shouldn't they be setting standards that we can all aspire to?

==================================

my answer
Isn't it obvious?

For the first generation, Macchiavelli is a major influence. So is legalism. Expediency is a keyword -- do what is necessary to remain in power. GRCs, as well as upgrading only if voted in. And there's also the ISA. Fairness? Nope...not in politics.

From "The Prince":

"Men are always wicked at bottom unless they are made good by some compulsion." Hence our emphasis on strict laws.

"It is much safer for a prince to be feared than loved, if he is to fail in one of the two." Now you know why the PAP is not too interested in being popular; more important for the people to be afraid.

Only the best deserve to rule. This idea of philosopher-king may be found in Plato's Republic. Meritocracy -- still an influential belief. Hence the induction of scholars into the civil service and high salaries for politicians.

Rulers should rule in the interest of the people. This is from Confucius. Hence the perception that our government is paternalistic. They seem to know what's good for us. Or do they?



Entry 54 dated 20000917

sky's question to me, arising from Entry 37
What Do You Expect the 'divine' to be Like???

'Pantheism', hmmm. You mentioned somewhere that some 'gods' 'resemble humans so closely' (in the 'negative' aspects), and you seem to disdain such notions concerning those 'gods'. Well, in your opinion, what do you think the 'divine' (or 'Divine') is like; or rather, should be like??

==================================

my reply to sky
I don't know actually...

...but I do feel that it is highly unlikely that any version of the divine will reward some with eternal life and condemn others to eternal torture.

In contrast, I find the idea that the whole universe is a manifestation of the divine is a fairly plausible one. In the view of some, everything in the world is made up of holons -- something which is both a part and a whole. Atoms are holons because they form a PART of molecules but they are also WHOLE entities (being made up of nucleus, protons, electrons etc). Similarly, we are holons as well: we make up PART of the members of individual families, and we are WHOLE individuals as well. Families are WHOLE entities but they are also PART of some community and so on. From the tiniest particle to the largest system....it is holons all the way up until we come to ALL THERE IS. Perhaps the intimate realisation that we are part of this ALL THERE IS is what the mystics term enlightenment -- to be one with the divine.

Something like this theory is present in many schools of Hinduism and is also explicated in the works of people such as Ken Wilber.

It's still a bit too mystical for my liking, but I am more able to relate to this view of the divine than thinking of it as a HE, who doles out eternal happiness or eternal torment, according to whether or not you choose to believe in Him.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speculate on a possible, and highly tentative model of the divine.

My personal theory of the Universe and of man's place in it is far from final and complete, of course. In the meanwhile, I still see the need for ethical reasoning to serve as a guide to daily living.

===================================

sky's rejoinder
'Knowledge', 'Wisdom', ... .... and TIME. * ... tick ... tock ... *

Dear witness,

"The world is truly a wondrous place though -- so much knowledge and wisdom to try and acquire.... but so little time."

True, though perhaps I personally wouldn't use the word "wondrous"...? So much 'knowledge', but how much of this 'knowledge' is really essential to our lives? So much 'wisdom', but how much of it is truly 'wisdom'?

And even if we want to 'know' everything (which we honestly can't) or 'know' as much as possible, how much time would that take? We have so little time. Are our precious lives simply worth all this supposed 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' accumulated together, or are they worth much more than these? Even if we eventually 'know' everything, how much of it can we put to good use? And would we end up truly happy, satisfied, ... or more frustrated, more disappointed, more helpless (or more realisation of helplessness), more sense of meaninglessness, etc.?

And do we really want the 'answers' that we claim we are looking for, or are we afraid to face the 'answers' which may not be what we want them to be? If we are serious seekers and finders, we would eventually have to settle down somewhere. Seeking and finding knowledge and wisdom is good in itself, but such should be guided by sound principles, if we are to be truly satisfied and 'fulfilled'. Just sharing my view - I'm NOT saying that only I have 'all the answers'.

For me, I personally believe (and you DON'T HAVE TO if you don't want to) that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (and the same for knowledge)". Please note that 'fear' need not be exclusive of 'love'. I personally believe 'the Lord' will satisfy me with true knowledge and true wisdom that come from Him if I seek Him first. This does not negate my own responsibilities, of course, which is a parallel issue.

I too believe that even for those who are incapable physically to understand knowledge and wisdom, 'the Lord' is able and willing (if it is His will) to do a 'saving work' in the person; with Man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible. I thank Him that I do not have to know or do everything in the world in order to stand justified before Him, because of what He has done for me, for He is gracious and merciful. (This does not mean I do not have to know anything or do anything; but this is another different issue.)

You do not have to agree with all these if you don't want to; just sharing with you about my 'philosophies' of Life, which were not of my 'original thinking' (my 'natural self' would not have wanted it!), but which I have personally come to claim 'ownership'.

==================================

my reply to sky the next day, 20000918
We all get off in different ways!

sky...

Why wouldn't you use the word "wondrous"?

It is listed in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate as:

[Main Entry: won·drous / Pronunciation: 'w&n-dr&s / Function: adjective / Etymology: Middle English, alteration of wonders, from genitive of wonder / Date: 15th century / that is to be marveled at : EXTRAORDINARY]

Firstly, I find our planet Earth wondrous because of its very fecundity. It's so teeming with life. There's life everywhere -- even in the harshest climes. There's even life in front of us that we can't see -- germs, bacteria and viruses -- and they are just so ubiquitous. But outside the Earth, so far, there is total barrenness. Absolutely remarkable.

Secondly, I am amazed by what science tells us about the size of the universe. We think of our planet as big, but we are just one of several planets revolving round our even more gigantic sun. We think of our solar system as big, but we are just one miniscule system amid a horde of others, so that distances from one galaxy to another may be measured in light years. Totally mind-blowing.

One can't help but be moved when one contemplates the aliveness of our planet and the unimaginable size of the Universe.

I am also terribly awed by how scientists are able to discover the laws governing how our Universe works. That Newton's laws of Universal Gravitation (though superseded by Einstein's theory of Relavitivy) for instance, are able to account for the movements of planets as well as the motion of tiny atomic particles is truly remarkable. Just one set of mathematical equations, but how great the explanatory power!

Some may think that all this is no big deal compared to the exploits of a superbeing who is the alpha and the omega. The only problem is that the Universe is there for all to grasp... the theories governing it may be tested and accepted or rejected but the concept of a superbeing called God is totally non-material and quite out of reach.

So yes, I may be naive in marvelling at what may be mere physical phenomena but there is such a wealth of phenomena to wonder at that the scope is large enough to last me to the rest of my life, and then some.

I suppose we all get our kicks in different ways. I wish you all the best in your search for ultimate wisdom.







Wednesday, October 04, 2000

Entry 53 dated 20000919

pgymy's message to individual
hi [individual] ...

btw I do agree with you that emotions are an illusion.

============================

my reply to pygmy
Go kick rocks!!

Pygmy, individual...

Emotions are illusions??

I suppose it depends on what you mean by illusions.

Tell you what....both of you should go kick a rock with your bare feet. Then tell yourself that the pain is only an illusion. ;-))

===============================

pygmy's reply to me

hi [witness] in the case of physical pain, if you speak to any neurologist, they will confirm that physical pain is indeed an illusion.

Have you ever experienced a cut or injury where you felt no pain till you be became aware of the wound?

Also, I differentiate 'emotions' from 'feelings'. To me they are 2 different experiences.

Whether physical pain differs from emotional pain is a different matter.

==============================

my counter to pygmy
Is anger unreal?

pygmy....

Before we can decide what is or isn't illusory, we have to define illusion and distinguish it from reality.

Intuitively, I am of the opinion that emotions are as real as anything else.

Is anger or joy unreal? I don't see how this position that emotions are illusions is defensible unless one chooses to indulge in some kind of mystical word-play.

=============================

pygmy's counter to me

hi [witness], to me the operative word in your reply is 'real'.

Real

1 of or relating to fixed, permanent, or immovable things (as lands or tenements)

2 a : not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent
Anger

an intense emotional state induced by displeasure.


The physical experience of anger is real, but anger comes from making a conscious or unconscious choice to be angry, it has to be induced and therefore is of the mind. If this is not the case than it is illogical or impractical to suggest that someone not to be angry.

If an angry person's perspective toward the same set of 'real' facts that induced the anger changes, would not the experience of anger itself change? I believe so. Anger is reversible.

Main Entry: il·lu·sion

the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled

a misleading image presented to the vision

something that deceives or misleads intellectually

perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature

HALLUCINATION 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective


Merriam-Webster Online

There is nothing mystical about this.

================================

my counter to pygmy
Get real!! ;-))

pygmy...

That one may have a choice about whether or not to be angry does not imply that anger is unreal. And in many instances, anger wells up within a person spontaneously.

You will note in the dictionary entry on illusion that the element of deception is present in most of the explanations except the last one. In this last case, the "reversible perspective" could take the form of an optical illusion, for example, of a drawing (a "pattern") which could be interpreted as that of a young lady or an old woman. It is clearly not meant to be applied to anger -- whether one can choose to get angry or not.

Somebody walks up to you and spits in your face. Are you being deceived in any way, when you become angry in this context? How is your anger unreal?

To take another example. A loved one dies and one griefs. Is that grief unreal??

A lion pounces on you and you feel fear. That fear is unreal??

Get real!!

================================

pygmy's counter to me

hi [witness] Are you aware of when your own mind is deceiving you?

If you spit in my face, I may choose to feel pity for you instead of anger. I could also be feeling remorse because I did something to hurt you badly enough so you would spit in my face.

If 2 people were placed in a perfectly safe room that only had a door and no other means of entering. The door is shut and the lights turned off. One is terrified of the dark and the other is so comfortable that he/she goes to sleep.

Which one is having the 'real' experience of the room?

This is an interesting exchange. A facet of [witness] that I have only just witnessed.

ps. if a lion pounced on me ........ WOW! what a way to go!

=================================

my counter to pygmy
Contradiction?

"If you spit in my face, I may choose to feel pity for you instead of anger. I could also be feeling remorse because I did something to hurt you badly enough so you would spit in my face" (pygmy)

Okay. So are you saying that those feelings of pity or remorse are unreal?

Actually I re-read your earlier postings and noted your comment that "The physical experience of anger is real..."

Is there a contradiction here or what?

I think what you are saying is that one may be deceived (by one's mind, by other persons etc.) into feeling certain emotions but that these emotions are real experiences. At the bottomline then, the emotions experienced are real, not illusory.

QED??

And yes, it is an interesting exchange ;-))

=============================

pygmy's counter to me

hi [witness] perhaps I should correct myself and say that the experience of emotions is real, but when these emotions are based on illusions they are as real as the illusions can be.

An easier example to illustrate what i mean is a sense of job security in a particular company or a sense of security in a particular relationship with someone. This is something many of us would like.

Without doubt, the person feeling this security is feeling a 'real' sense of security, but this sense is inspired by an illusion because the security does not really exist.

To me, there is no such thing as security in a situation where the potential outcomes are not in our own hands.

I remember some years back the GM of an American bank here in Singapore reading about the closure of his own branch in the newspapers one morning. If this manager thought he could give his staff job security and they thought they had job security, then both were experiencing illusions.

I also know of people who felt very 'secure' in their relationships until the moment their partners decided to walk.

How 'real' was the emotional sense of security in the 2 examples?

The only reality I am able to experience with regard to security is to be secure within myself. This sense of security is not an illusion. If I lose my job I know I have the ability to find another. If my partner leaves me, I know there will be someone else who would like me enough to want to be my partner. This is to me is "being real".

So how much of our emotions is real?

btw I do not consider the fear experienced while confronted by a lion the same as fear of the dark. One is a response to a very real situation involving physical danger and does not involve the imagination. The other is a response to something in your imagination.

==============================

my counter to pygmy
Fear is fear is fear

I tend to think that all emotions are real, whatever their causes, and whatever their basis.

So what causes the emotions to arise may involve trickery or deception, but whatever is felt by the individual as a result is very real.

Thus, fear is fear whether it arises because of real or imagined danger. In each case, one may be able to detect the objective signs of the emotion -- the heart beats faster, one starts to sweat, and one becomes increasingly alert. Isn't this sufficient proof of its reality?

To advocate that some emotions are real and others are illusory does not sound plausible. The causes of the emotions may be illusory, but the emotions themselves are real, unless one is acting in a play, for instance. So your original intuition that "The physical experience of anger is real..." is actually correct.












Entry 52 dated 20000917

my reply to sky
I don't really wish to speculate

skyocean...

As said before...religion is man's relationship with his god. It is beyond the material. There are some who would choose to dwell in this realm. That's fine.

I see the more pressing problem to be life on earth -- how do we get along with one another and make this place better for all beings. It may be a more modest aim, but it is focussed on an area that I am sure is there, and is important.

In my idle moments, I may sometimes even speculate on what lies beyond but always, my primary concern is this material world. That I think, is the basic humanist position.

When pressed for my position on the various religions, I am inclined to say that there is likely to be some superstition involved but I am not really interested in disproving this or that religious belief. The main thing, always, is how to make this world into a better place, for as long as we do exist.

Religious or secular, I believe that as long as there is this urge to improve the lot of all in this Universe (as far as possible), we can always work together to realise this vision. If the sentiments are right, the details can always be worked out.

Thank you for your generous contributions.

=================================

my followup message to all
About the religious background of Hitler

Here's an extract:

[[Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. Its worst doctrines never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words "perfidious jew." This hateful statement was not removed until 1961. "Perfidy" means treachery.

In his day, hatred of Jews was the norm. In great measure it was sponsored by two major religions of Germany, Catholicism, and Lutheranism. He greatly admired Martin Luther, who openly hated the Jews. Luther condemned the Catholic Church for its pretensions and corruption, but he supported the centuries of papal pogroms against the Jews. Luther said, "The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves," and "We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them." "Ungodly wretches" he called the Jews in his book Table Talk.]]


Source: John Patrick Michael Murphy, "Hitler Was Not An Atheist".

Note that this article is also interesting in its references to Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism.

For the full article, go to http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html

================================

sky's reply
The Bible vs. the religious background of Hitler

Dear witness,

Thank you for sharing these with us. According to the Bible, God and His Word most certainly do not approve of some things which the people whom you mentioned have done in their lives. Whatever they may have done, Christianity should have its authority on the Word of God and not on the lives of imperfect Man.




Entry 51 dated 20000917

sky's reply to me (see Entry 27)
'Belief' in What Sense? And Why may 'Morals' be Supposedly 'Self-Evident'?

'Belief' in 'God'? In what sense? What do we believe about 'God'? Do we believe everything He says, or just 'some' of it? If our mouths say one thing but our actions speak another, can we say that we truly 'believe'??

The Bible says that even the devils/demons believe, and tremble, but they are not "heaven-bound". We can claim to 'believe' in His existence and Rulership, etc., but we can be not for Him, but AGAINST HIM. We can 'believe' whatever we like or want about Him or anything else, but it will be futile for us if our 'beliefs' are not based on Truth.

Hitler may not have truly believed in the God of the Bible. He may have defined his own terms, or followed the terms of others, as to who God is, what He is like and so on, in whatever manners that He may have deemed favourable to some other underlying desires which He may have had.

Remember that Hitler and his 'Catholic Church' were anti-Protestantism and anti-Semitism, among other things. If you have a Bible, perhaps you could check it to see if the Bible would have approved of their views and of whatever they did. Word of reminder : the Bible is the Book of progressive revelation (from God, as it claims), so please do not merely read (NOT 'do not read'!) the Old Testament or even the time of Christ.

One more thing : while 'belief in God' and 'morality' do not necessarily go together, the reason why 'morality' seems to be 'self-evident' (as you call it) to some humanists (NOT ALL) and their like counterparts, could be because the God of all creation has overruled the affairs of morally-polluted Man and left marks of this 'morality' imprinted on our consciences (which you say is imbibed from our parents, teachers, environment, etc.... but obviously started off from SOMEWHERE or SOMEONE in the Beginning...). And 'morals' could have gone "some other way", or never existed, ... but why did it have to "go this way", so to speak? Have you considered these, and what are your views?

Entry 50 dated 20000917

my reply to sky
Fact vs Interpretation

skyocean...

In the realm of religion, there are interpretations and there are interpretations. But the evolution of the Protestant work ethic is a documented fact. Here is a relevant quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (http://www.britannica.com/):

"Protestant ethic: in sociological theory, the value attached to hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one's worldly calling, which, especially in the Calvinist view, were deemed signs of an individual's election, or eternal salvation.

The German sociologist Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904-05) held that the Protestant ethic was an important factor in the economic success of Protestant groups in the early stages of European capitalism, for, because worldly success came to be interpreted as a sign of election, it was vigorously pursued."

So it looks like if you disagree with the doctrine of election or pre-destination, you need to sort it out with the Calvinists.

==========================

sky's reply to me
Small but Important Clarifications

Dear witness,

I did not disagree with any fact that some people established certain ideas concerning what they called 'Protestant ethics'. It is only how Biblical or non-Biblical or unBiblical such ideas may be that are my primary concern. And regarding the issue of interpretations, perhaps we could discuss it some other time.

And I DIDN'T SAY that I "disagreed" with the doctrine of election or predestination. These are mentioned emphatically in the Bible (and as such are relatively essential), and to be understood in the proper contexts. I believe that God is absolutely sovereign; why should I disagree with these doctrines? Regards.

=============================

my reply to sky
Way to go, sky!

In effect, we are just simply looking at things from two different perspectives -- me from the sociological, and you from the biblical.

That's alright, I guess.

Thank you for the generous sharing. And I truly do appreciate your courtesy and understanding.




Entry 49 dated 20000917

my reply to sky
Just a homily

God helps those who help themselves is simply a traditional homily to encourage self-reliance. It is a commonsensical notion and may or may not be in line with the Bible's teachings depending on how one chooses to interpret it.

As a homily, it is in broad alignment with the Protestant work ethic. Some Christian sects believe that whether or not one goes to heaven is a matter of pre-destination. The problem is how would one know whether or not one is pre-destined to go to heaven. Some one came up with the idea that if one is successful in this life, then it implies that that person is blessed by God and that it could be taken as a sign that he is heaven-bound. From then on, many Protestants were able to strive for material success with a clear conscience.

Sociologists such as Max Weber attributed this work-ethic as one of the main reasons why the West was able to prevail against the East.


========================
sky's reply to me
Some Clarifications

To witness :

Regarding the issue of 'predestination' which you mentioned, let me clarify that in the Bible, these are among the things of God which He has chosen not to reveal, in His Grand Play of 'Good vs. Evil' on Planet Earth. God is under no obligation to reveal every single aspect or detail of His will to Man; and Man does not understand every single aspect or detail about God, and his responsibility is simply to have faith in whatever He has revealed in His Word and to obey it wholeheartedly. It is not for the people of God to know whom He has 'predestined', but for them to simply carry out faithfully whatever mandate He has given them. Why should we have to know who is 'predestined' or who is not? To make our lives easier?? No way, but away with the carnal desires of the flesh!

Regarding what you mentioned about someone coming up with the idea ..."that if one is successful in this life, then it implies that that person is blessed by God and that it could be taken as a sign that he is heaven-bound." Regardless of what this person meant, even in the Bible, God sends sunshine and rain on BOTH the righteous and unrighteous. God's common love and grace expressed in the form of His blessings pour out on every creature on Planet Earth, according to His own good will and pleasure. It is only His particular love and grace which is something different, but that has to do with 'predestination' as well as some other attributes of God.

Material and other earthly blessings and achievements on Planet Earth do not necessarily imply that a person could be heaven-bound, whether it is in the Bible or some other Books. Even the poor beggar and leper and the repentant thief in the Bible "went Home" justified by the grace of God, in spite of how much they may have owned on Earth or whatever they may have done. The coveteous rich man in the Bible, on the other hand, went "elsewhere", unjustified before God. God is 'no respecter of persons', simply because He alone is Lord over all, as claimed by the Bible. And Ultimate Justice comes beyond the ashes and the graves, which is why you do not see it being fully satisfied in this Life of ours.

Regarding the statement "God helps those who help themselves", once again let me clarify that God is no respecter of persons, and that no human being is omnipotent, and God alone has control over all-a control which human beings try to have but fail to achieve it, because they are the finite creation and not the Infinite Creator. It is NOT a commonsensical notion, whether in reference to the Bible or not. God is overall active and not passive in relation to Man. If God is gracious and merciful, He is able and willing to help even those who are unable or unwilling to help themselves, provided it is His will to do so. If God is sovereign, He is under no obligation to help even those who help themselves, or to cater to our every whim or fancy. Not by human might or power, but by the will of God (but this does not negate human responsibility, which is a separate issue). If God be God, then the statement that "God helps those who help themselves" is NONSENSICAL, NOT commonsensical.

I am so sorry that your view of 'God' is so small.




Entry 48 dated 20000916

skyocean's reply to me (see entry 23)
God does not always "help those who help themselves."

"...even the 'god' concept is fraught with so much difficulties." I agree with you on this, witness. However, I wish to clarify regarding the statement : "God helps those who help themselves" with reference to the 'God' of the Bible, not to your 'god' concept, whatever it is.

The Bible most certainly does not accept this sweeping statement. There have been instances whereby Christ (who laid claims to Himself as Deity as understood by the Jews of His time who were highly cultured and religious people) healed even those who were unable of themselves to exercise faith in His healing powers. There have also been instances whereby God did not even heal or grant help to those who had faith or who 'did whatever they could'.

Faith is Man's responsibility towards God; but God, being sovereign and omnipotent, does not need to rely on our 'faith' in order to bring about His help. He chooses to help us according to His own purposes and His most pleasing and perfect will, for His own glory, as the Bible teaches, ...not according to our own whims and fancies, or even our own power and might.

Even true Christians know from life's experiences, that God does not necessarily grant every single wish of ours, and that He does not necessarily grant us 'success' in every single thing we use our own strength to work hard on. We can 'help ourselves' all we can, but God determines the outcome, whether we realise or acknowledge it or not. True Christians also know from life's experiences, that God often helped us (and still does) in our times of need, even when we 'couldn't help ourselves', or didn't have the faith in Him to help us.

Ask ourselves, Christian or no Christian : What need is there for a 'God' to help us if we can really help ourselves?? UNLESS, deep in our heart of hearts and our mind of minds, we really realise that we are helpless and finite human beings after all, and that not everything is 'within the control of ourselves or those around us'???

To sum up the Bible's (or Christianity's) view in its proper context, it is a sweeping statement in the light of the Bible (not necessarily other Books or other 'philosophies') that "God helps those who help themselves." Rather, it should be : "Whether God helps us or not, it is in accordance with His own sovereign will and purposes, and He has His own reasons for doing so or not doing so, which are 'good' and 'perfect'. God helps even those who cannot 'help themselves'; and He also does not necessarily help those who can 'help themselves'." To a true Christian, God is the Sovereign Party; we are the ones who are subject to Him.

Entry 47 dated 20000911

stevenhern's reply to me (see entry 25)
isn't Covey a Mormon?

=============================
my reply to stevenhern
Covey is a religious person

Covey is definitely a Christian (not too sure of the denomination) but his approach in The 7 Habits is mainly secular / multi-denominational. Perhaps the only spiritual element in his approach is Habit 7 -- Sharpen the Saw, when he advised all on the continuous practice of the other six habits as well as taking care of the whole person -- physical, mental and spiritual.

I have no qualms about learning from anyone, religious or not.

Entry 46 dated 20000919

Individual's reply to me
There are no universals!

Consider: "Do as little harm as possible" If you are threatened with destruction, it makes more sense to cause as much harm as possible to your potential destroyer to ensure if you survive, it will be less capable (ideally totally incapable) of threatening you again.

What is "good" and "right" depends first on the individual, and then on the situation. In a sense, all things relate ultimately to the individual. It is after all the individual who is thrown into this world and forced to make some sense out of it. Therefore, I propose that the only "good" is that which benefits the individual. Note that this does not mean commiting a crime for self-gain is "good". Not unless you can be absolutely sure you'll get away with it. As this is statistically unlikely, then the consequences of your crime will obviously be detrimental to yourself. Nor would it be "good" to you if by upbringing and social influence, your conscience weighs on you after committing it and getting away with it. Therefore, committing a crime is "bad" in this sense.

Similarly, if an individual is forced into a situation where he/she is forced to choose between two outcomes both detrimental to him/herself, then obviously that which is less detrimental to the self is "good" in relation to the other. For example: If I kill A, I may be executed, but there is a small chance I may get away with it. However, if I don't kill A, I will definitely die (for whatever reason). Obviously the right thing to do would be to kill A.

In real life, situations aren't so simple, but Hume said all complexities can be reduced to their basic components. I say after analyzing each of these components and coming to a conclusion, we will be able to decide for ourselves whether or not something is right or wrong, but only in each particular situation. And yes, what may be right for me may not be right for the next individual.

=============================
my reply to individual:
Close to universals?

Individual...

When one destroys one's enemy, one could still be following the principle "Do as little harm as possible" (or some suitably modified proposition) if in one's judgement, not killing him would result in the greater harm he may do to others, not excluding oneself.

Perhaps even if there are no absolute universals, there could be statements that are close to that, and yes, it does depend on the situation quite a bit. So...close to universals to serve as a guide, plus more thinking, depending on individual circumstances. How's that?

Take sanctions against Iraq, for instance. Should they be continued seeing that the sanctions are also causing suffering to women and children? It's a difficult problem since the positive effects of the sanctions (as a preventive measure from Iraq becoming a bully again, as a deterrence to others etc) have to be weighed against their negative effects (harm done to the innocent). In the end, it's a difficult situation but the principle "Do as little harm as possible" could be a useful starting point to help parties concerned to come to a decision.

Of course, self-interest could also be a competing principle, (something like "Preserve the self whenever possible"?) but then, how would one make sense of altruism, or is there really no such thing?

So perhaps, what is required is not a mere listing of principles but a hierarchical list, one in which some principles may be more important than others.

In any case, whether or not there are true universals in theory, it may still be useful to attempt to draw up some sort of code, to serve as a guide to daily living.

One practical example was "The Sex Code: morals for moderns" by Francis Bennion, published in the early 90s, which is, unfortunately presently out of print.



Entry 45 20000914

my2cents message
So what is real and what is virtual?

Quote " So what is real and what is virtual?

What is ethical and what is unethical? " Unquote from 43.1

Nothing..... everything is virtual... the AIs has controlled the world.. and we are just leaving a virtual dream they have created... ahhh.....

Just my2cents.... Too much Matrix... The world is unethical... just live with it.......

===========================

My reply to my2cents
Anything goes??

Is it the case that it is impossible to distinguish between the ethical and the unethical? Or that one person's ethical is another person's unethical? Or that one culture's ethical is another person's unethical?

If any of the above is true, ethics become nothing more than relativism. Something is right because it appears to me, or to my culture to be right. And if you or your culture thinks that the same thing is wrong, why then, you are right too. In such a context, how is one to distinguish right from wrong?

Bringing God into the picture doesn't help much either. Is an action good because God says it is good? Or is an action good because God recognises it to be good? The former view leads to absurdities such as "If God had said that adultery is good, then adultery would have been good, but unfortunately he said that it was bad."

So how does one distinguish between ethical and unethical? One possible answer is...... it is self-evident. Actions that are good are recognisably so, and does not need any justification. We just know that it is so.

Consider the statement: do as little harm as possible. What is your instinctive reaction to it? Do you think it is a good or bad principle? Isn't it self-evident that it is a good principle?

The challenge for ethics is to discover such universals so that we can use them as guides to our daily lives.

Reference: Theodore Shick, "Is morality a matter of taste?" (Free Inquiry Magazine, Vol 18 No 4.) The URL of FI is http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/index.htm.

Entry 44 dated 20000911

My "farewell message" as school term re-opens
Thanks, everyone!!

School reopens today, and I may not be able to get into this board as often as I would wish. I have loads of marking to do!

Thank you so much for participating, and in such an open-minded fashion.

I am extremely grateful for your enthusiasm in discussing this topic because your messages have stimulated my thinking on this issue and I find myself learning so much from our exchanges.

This is what active learning is all about by the way -- not the teacher standing in class and delivering the facts but a participatory mode of learning through asking questions, challenging views and arguing matters out. If only this kind of vibrancy can be recreated in our classrooms!

That we all managed to conduct the discussions in such a civilized manner and on such a sensitive topic is truly amazing to me. And that we have managed to make this thread the most popular thread in the whole forum is just as remarkable.

If you had asked me if Singaporeans would be interested in discussing ethics a fortnight ago, I would say that the interest would be at most lukewarm. Looking at this thread however, in answer to the question, "Do we care about ethics?": it just has to be "Yes, yes yes!!!"

Thank you everybody and also to whoever in the ST who suggested this topic, which by the way, is one of the few that is not an offshoot arising from a letter to the Forum page.

Warmest regards.

==============================

Pygmy's reply to me dated 20000911

hi [witness], very glad to hear you are a teacher, a noble profession. It would be good if you are teaching in Singapore.

You contributions have added value to this forum and will be missed. All the secular humanistic best to you. cheers!