Sub2. Are morals to be thought of the same way as ethics then?
Sub1. Yes and no. I will explain. First of coarse, we must remember that the human race is trying, and has been trying to survive as a whole. We must remember how often humans group together. No one person can cater to his needs and wants if he lives alone. Instead, when grouped, each human plays a part in a whole system, with some specialising in administration, some in farming, and etc.
Sub2. And where do we find these sort of people?
Sub1. Everywhere, idiot! Any place on earth with humans. There is almost no such thing as men making a living away from other groups of people. For the men who do live alone die alone, and therefore are disqualified from the game of survival that is life.
Sub2. So what does morals have to do with all of this grouping?
Sub1. Everything, idiot! We must presume the ideal society of humans to be flourishing and prosperous. And for this to happen, the people must be not greedy, but selfish in the long term. As in, even when exploiting, they must be careful to not take too much.
Sub2. Because the powerful must still be responsible over the week, because both need each other in order to survive?
Sub1. Precisely.
Sub2. Then why is it that even if ethics and morals are so important to humans, being the most powerful creatures on earth, there are so many who do not follow these codes of conduct?
Sub1. You presume that humans are the same wherever you go. This is an entirely wrong way of thinking, friend, for friend I consider you to be. We must presume that genetics is a workable theory and a workable idea. Meaning, genetics may make sense the way mathematics makes sense, but isn't as universaly acceptable as mathematics.
Sub2. And why is it that mathematics is so much more acceptable than the logic behind most of the sciences?
Sub1. As I've mentioned, the problem is language. But that is a topic for another time. Genetics shows us that perfection isn't possible without human intervention. For nature, as we discussed, has no consciousness, and is therefore random and often unfair. Especially since humans hold perfection so highly.
Sub2. You have strayed off topic.
Sub1. Yes, yes I have. But I blame you. Anyway. We must presume that long term selfishness is what seperates the strong from the weak. And the weak are presumably the less evolved. With this theory, we now see that because of the randmoness and inconsistency when it comes to genetics, oppurtunity, and so many other factors, some humans are not as evolved as others.
Sub2. You mean to say they are physically lacking?
Sub1. No, I mean to say their genetic memory is lacking. People presume evolution to always be about 'sprouting new limbs'. The mind has every right to evolve too, you know.
Sub2. And by mind, you mean our way of thinking?
Sub1. More or less that.
Sub2. So, now that we've established the use of morals, what does the law have to do with all this?
Sub1. Next post, my dear.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Talking to myself - Chapter 2
Sub1. Why.
Sub2. Why? Why what?
Sub1. Why, you've forgotten haven't you? You asked me why we should think so hard instead of being barbaric and making sure only the fittest survive. And why ethics and morals exist.
Sub2. Yes, I remember now. Please, explain.
Sub1. Could we first presume that nature isn't God, as in, isn't the personal God that some people hold.
Sub2. You mean to say nature has no consciousness?
Sub1. Exactly! No ethics, no morals. Nature itself is not a being. There is no 'mother' nature. Instead, we must presume that life is a game of survival, with earth and perhaps the universe as the arena, every living organism the contestants. There are rules and goals.
Sub2. And what might these rules and goals be? And does every living thing have to follow these rules, or are they permitted to bend or break them to achieve their ends?
Sub1. You ask to many questions, boy. The goal would have to be, as we've discussed, survival of the fittest. And the rules are the same rules that we find in our sciences. As in rules of gravity apply to every creature, and so on. And I'm sorry, but we cannot allow God to be the overseer of this whole game. That would be giving nature a consciousness and every living being would have to play fair.
Sub2. But isn't that fair? As in, wouldn't it be fair if the creatures that break or bend these rules be punished or disqualified?
Sub1. And from your questions, we have inferred that life isn't fair.
Sub2. I do not understand.
Sub1. That's because you're slow. You see, in order for one species to flourish, sometimes another must perish, or at least degenerate. Say in the case of predator-prey relations.
Sub2. But surely the predator must strike a balance, or risk having overeaten and not left anything for its long term survival.
Sub1. Quite true, but we've not taken into consideration the fullness of my statement.
Sub2. Explain.
Sub1. If the predator can exploit the prey, and give the prey the illusion of luxury, as in having a rich supply of food, etc, then a balance is struck. Here we see that the predator has not been greedy by eating all its prey, instead farming it. You see where I am going?
Sub2. Almost, I still don't see how the prey is degenerated if it's survival is ensured in such a paradoxical way. As in, for the survival of the prey as a species, it must be killed for the predator.
Sub1. You see, although the prey has the advantage of surviving, so long as the predator survives, that is, it cannot develop and is therefore born to die and not born to live. Pardon the ambiguity of my words.
Sub2. So...
Sub1. My dear, the predator here is clearly the superior species. And here on earth we represent the predator. The superior species that holds the fate of every other animal.
Sub2. Oh. That would mean, we'd have to be extra careful. In fact, I should think our brains will set rules and lines to not cross so that we do not abuse this power. For our own good. As you say, if we get greedy and not think of the long term, we might swallow the prey whole.
Sub1. Precisely my point. Ethics. There isn't anything divine about not wanting to destroy every other species on the planet. Even if we could do without some. It has developed in our minds, and can sometimes be used as proof of evolution of the mind.
Sub2. How so?
Sub1. How differently cultured people treat animals. It shows the genetic instruction of 'don't be stupid, don't kill everything, your grandchildren might need this' from one generation to another. This sort of inconsistency between cultures is the reason why there is no hard and fast rule in ethics. The reason why not everyone feels the same about eating killing an animal. You see?
Sub2. And morals, how would you...
Sub1. Enough. Good night.
Sub2. Why? Why what?
Sub1. Why, you've forgotten haven't you? You asked me why we should think so hard instead of being barbaric and making sure only the fittest survive. And why ethics and morals exist.
Sub2. Yes, I remember now. Please, explain.
Sub1. Could we first presume that nature isn't God, as in, isn't the personal God that some people hold.
Sub2. You mean to say nature has no consciousness?
Sub1. Exactly! No ethics, no morals. Nature itself is not a being. There is no 'mother' nature. Instead, we must presume that life is a game of survival, with earth and perhaps the universe as the arena, every living organism the contestants. There are rules and goals.
Sub2. And what might these rules and goals be? And does every living thing have to follow these rules, or are they permitted to bend or break them to achieve their ends?
Sub1. You ask to many questions, boy. The goal would have to be, as we've discussed, survival of the fittest. And the rules are the same rules that we find in our sciences. As in rules of gravity apply to every creature, and so on. And I'm sorry, but we cannot allow God to be the overseer of this whole game. That would be giving nature a consciousness and every living being would have to play fair.
Sub2. But isn't that fair? As in, wouldn't it be fair if the creatures that break or bend these rules be punished or disqualified?
Sub1. And from your questions, we have inferred that life isn't fair.
Sub2. I do not understand.
Sub1. That's because you're slow. You see, in order for one species to flourish, sometimes another must perish, or at least degenerate. Say in the case of predator-prey relations.
Sub2. But surely the predator must strike a balance, or risk having overeaten and not left anything for its long term survival.
Sub1. Quite true, but we've not taken into consideration the fullness of my statement.
Sub2. Explain.
Sub1. If the predator can exploit the prey, and give the prey the illusion of luxury, as in having a rich supply of food, etc, then a balance is struck. Here we see that the predator has not been greedy by eating all its prey, instead farming it. You see where I am going?
Sub2. Almost, I still don't see how the prey is degenerated if it's survival is ensured in such a paradoxical way. As in, for the survival of the prey as a species, it must be killed for the predator.
Sub1. You see, although the prey has the advantage of surviving, so long as the predator survives, that is, it cannot develop and is therefore born to die and not born to live. Pardon the ambiguity of my words.
Sub2. So...
Sub1. My dear, the predator here is clearly the superior species. And here on earth we represent the predator. The superior species that holds the fate of every other animal.
Sub2. Oh. That would mean, we'd have to be extra careful. In fact, I should think our brains will set rules and lines to not cross so that we do not abuse this power. For our own good. As you say, if we get greedy and not think of the long term, we might swallow the prey whole.
Sub1. Precisely my point. Ethics. There isn't anything divine about not wanting to destroy every other species on the planet. Even if we could do without some. It has developed in our minds, and can sometimes be used as proof of evolution of the mind.
Sub2. How so?
Sub1. How differently cultured people treat animals. It shows the genetic instruction of 'don't be stupid, don't kill everything, your grandchildren might need this' from one generation to another. This sort of inconsistency between cultures is the reason why there is no hard and fast rule in ethics. The reason why not everyone feels the same about eating killing an animal. You see?
Sub2. And morals, how would you...
Sub1. Enough. Good night.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Talking to myself - Chapter 1
Subhash 1. Before diving into any other topics, can we first establish the most basic rule, and not simply ignore it?
Subhash 2. And what rule is that?
Subhash 1. That humans are animals.
Sub 2. But how do we prove this?
Sub 1. The only obvious way is by observation and comparison.
Sub 2. Why not any other way?
Sub 1. My dear Subhash, you are beginning to dive into an unrelated topic. However, I will answer. It's simply because by observation and comparison we eliminate the need for any extravagant theories.
Sub 2. Although I do not yet see your point, I beg you, continue.
Sub 1. I will. Firstly. An animal breaths, eats, drinks, sleeps, defecates and reproduces. Am I right in saying this?
Sub 2. Quite, but you have used the word 'animal' and not anything more specific. However, you are right in saying that.
Sub 1. And humans do the same things as an animal?
Sub 2. Almost, but not quite.
Sub 1. How so?
Sub 2. Animals have brains, but not minds.
Sub 1. That is to be inferred. However, humans do breathe, eat, sleep, defecate and reproduce. Am I right?
Sub 2. Yes. And sometimes we see a lot more similarities. This, however, does not change the fact that we are almost completely different from animals in the way we think.
Sub 1. I would like to clarify something then. Animals, as in most animals move. Am I right?
Sub 2. If you mean moving from one spot to another, then yes, you are right.
Sub 1. And birds and certain insects have very unique ways of moving. Birds hardly use their legs to move. In fact, birds move so differently from most animals, you'd not be terribly stupid to think it was more than an animal. In fact, some cultures don't clasify birds as animals. That is until further examination, birds were found to function, in most ways, like most animals.
Sub 2. I see where you are going with this. But please continue.
Sub 1. So I conclude that even though some animals might do things differently, sometimes so different, it would appear to be beyond most other animals, upon further investigation you will find that there isn't anything that would make them more than just animals. Now I must bring up another question. Most animals think.
Sub 2. If you mean think, as in make decisions, then I cannot agree with you until you have proof.
Sub 1. Have you not noticed hesitation in animals? The second before an animal strikes, or runs away from danger? Surely this whole process cannot be automatic. Decisions in animals might be basic, but they are decisions.
Sub 2. I see. Animals think. That is to be inferred.
Sub 1. And humans think very differently from most animals.
Sub 2. I see your point now. You have no need to end that statement.
Sub 1. But I want to. I conclude that, just because humans think in a totally different way, it doesn't mean we are anything beyond animal.
Sub 2. That must be inferred. Now please, tell me why SHOULD we think this way? As in, shouldn't there be a reason for all this thinking, when we could happily spend it being barbaric and unreasonable. That is, after all, the natural way of things.
Sub 1. Are you implying that we should be natures hand in it's scheme of 'survival of the fittest?'
Sub 2. Not exactly, but you are catching my drift. I am implying that there should be a reason for ethics and morals and advancement in technology.
Sub 1. That is a topic for another night Subhash. This is only chapter 1, and we have many nights ahead of us.
Sub 2. Goodnight then. And thank you for your company.
Sub 1. Goodnight. I hope I can go to sleep after eating all those peanuts.
Subhash 2. And what rule is that?
Subhash 1. That humans are animals.
Sub 2. But how do we prove this?
Sub 1. The only obvious way is by observation and comparison.
Sub 2. Why not any other way?
Sub 1. My dear Subhash, you are beginning to dive into an unrelated topic. However, I will answer. It's simply because by observation and comparison we eliminate the need for any extravagant theories.
Sub 2. Although I do not yet see your point, I beg you, continue.
Sub 1. I will. Firstly. An animal breaths, eats, drinks, sleeps, defecates and reproduces. Am I right in saying this?
Sub 2. Quite, but you have used the word 'animal' and not anything more specific. However, you are right in saying that.
Sub 1. And humans do the same things as an animal?
Sub 2. Almost, but not quite.
Sub 1. How so?
Sub 2. Animals have brains, but not minds.
Sub 1. That is to be inferred. However, humans do breathe, eat, sleep, defecate and reproduce. Am I right?
Sub 2. Yes. And sometimes we see a lot more similarities. This, however, does not change the fact that we are almost completely different from animals in the way we think.
Sub 1. I would like to clarify something then. Animals, as in most animals move. Am I right?
Sub 2. If you mean moving from one spot to another, then yes, you are right.
Sub 1. And birds and certain insects have very unique ways of moving. Birds hardly use their legs to move. In fact, birds move so differently from most animals, you'd not be terribly stupid to think it was more than an animal. In fact, some cultures don't clasify birds as animals. That is until further examination, birds were found to function, in most ways, like most animals.
Sub 2. I see where you are going with this. But please continue.
Sub 1. So I conclude that even though some animals might do things differently, sometimes so different, it would appear to be beyond most other animals, upon further investigation you will find that there isn't anything that would make them more than just animals. Now I must bring up another question. Most animals think.
Sub 2. If you mean think, as in make decisions, then I cannot agree with you until you have proof.
Sub 1. Have you not noticed hesitation in animals? The second before an animal strikes, or runs away from danger? Surely this whole process cannot be automatic. Decisions in animals might be basic, but they are decisions.
Sub 2. I see. Animals think. That is to be inferred.
Sub 1. And humans think very differently from most animals.
Sub 2. I see your point now. You have no need to end that statement.
Sub 1. But I want to. I conclude that, just because humans think in a totally different way, it doesn't mean we are anything beyond animal.
Sub 2. That must be inferred. Now please, tell me why SHOULD we think this way? As in, shouldn't there be a reason for all this thinking, when we could happily spend it being barbaric and unreasonable. That is, after all, the natural way of things.
Sub 1. Are you implying that we should be natures hand in it's scheme of 'survival of the fittest?'
Sub 2. Not exactly, but you are catching my drift. I am implying that there should be a reason for ethics and morals and advancement in technology.
Sub 1. That is a topic for another night Subhash. This is only chapter 1, and we have many nights ahead of us.
Sub 2. Goodnight then. And thank you for your company.
Sub 1. Goodnight. I hope I can go to sleep after eating all those peanuts.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
random rant
From what I can deduct, the reason why a God would want followers is because a God would want Its followers to be 'nudged' in the right direction. Most of us live with the illusion that God has allowed us freedom to choose. As in, we're given a choice between good and evil. With this illusion, the worthy are seen as the ones who choose good. Good, generally being harder to do, but with long term rewards and evil generally being the easy way out, with immediate rewards.
Breaking down greed is easy. Greed is natural selfishness with immediate rewards in mind. Hence,a larger profit margin is seen as greed, because the rewards are immediate, and unlike the not greedy(but not unselfish) smaller profit margin, does not yield the long term rewards like customer commitment.
However, long term or immediate, selfishness is present. Therefore selfishness cannot be ruled as an evil trait. Greed however can.
Back to the subject of God and his followers.
Before diving into the matters of a God, we must first be sure to NOT associate any human emotion, reaction, want, or instinct.
A God would want It's followers to be good. But I see no reason why it would want to be worshipped.
In my opinion, to worship is to limit human potential by conforming to the illusion that there is a conscious, and more powerful force out there. Obviously, there are many factors and oppurtunities out there beyond the control of one human and often beyond the control of all 6 billion of us.
In an alternate universe, where Gods, religions, and superstitions are cast aside, the human race would strive and likely be more in control of these currently beyond control forces.
If you still do not my drift, I will simply create another alternate universe where every human is commited to religion. And by this, I mean pure submission. Not questioning even the basics that most religions get wrong. This would be utter chaos. Natural disasters would be so beyond control that rescue efforts would be uncoordinated.
Now why would I say something like that if every human would be out to do good? And if everyone did good, then more people from this 2nd alternate universe would extend a helping hand than from my 1st alternate universe.
This is because in this 2nd alternate universe, there isn't any technology!
Just as Evil can exist so long as good men do nothing.
The limitlessness of technology can be left unexplored so long as smart men do nothing.
So I beg you all please. Most of you who read this have even more potential than me. Potential in mathematics and science and law. Don't leave oppurtunities behind. Every effort made makes us humans more in control of this universe.
We could barely predict weather a few centuries ago. Now we're always 2 steps ahead. People used to sacrifice goats and pray to the winds for rain. Now we have more control over the weather than ever before. Think about that.
Life is a game of survival. Instead of being the species that died off because we were too busy praying, we can be the species that conquers.
Breaking down greed is easy. Greed is natural selfishness with immediate rewards in mind. Hence,a larger profit margin is seen as greed, because the rewards are immediate, and unlike the not greedy(but not unselfish) smaller profit margin, does not yield the long term rewards like customer commitment.
However, long term or immediate, selfishness is present. Therefore selfishness cannot be ruled as an evil trait. Greed however can.
Back to the subject of God and his followers.
Before diving into the matters of a God, we must first be sure to NOT associate any human emotion, reaction, want, or instinct.
A God would want It's followers to be good. But I see no reason why it would want to be worshipped.
In my opinion, to worship is to limit human potential by conforming to the illusion that there is a conscious, and more powerful force out there. Obviously, there are many factors and oppurtunities out there beyond the control of one human and often beyond the control of all 6 billion of us.
In an alternate universe, where Gods, religions, and superstitions are cast aside, the human race would strive and likely be more in control of these currently beyond control forces.
If you still do not my drift, I will simply create another alternate universe where every human is commited to religion. And by this, I mean pure submission. Not questioning even the basics that most religions get wrong. This would be utter chaos. Natural disasters would be so beyond control that rescue efforts would be uncoordinated.
Now why would I say something like that if every human would be out to do good? And if everyone did good, then more people from this 2nd alternate universe would extend a helping hand than from my 1st alternate universe.
This is because in this 2nd alternate universe, there isn't any technology!
Just as Evil can exist so long as good men do nothing.
The limitlessness of technology can be left unexplored so long as smart men do nothing.
So I beg you all please. Most of you who read this have even more potential than me. Potential in mathematics and science and law. Don't leave oppurtunities behind. Every effort made makes us humans more in control of this universe.
We could barely predict weather a few centuries ago. Now we're always 2 steps ahead. People used to sacrifice goats and pray to the winds for rain. Now we have more control over the weather than ever before. Think about that.
Life is a game of survival. Instead of being the species that died off because we were too busy praying, we can be the species that conquers.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
thank you
I'm recovering from a lot now, so forgive to shortness and uncoolness of this post.
We've already established that 'thank you' and 'you're welcome' are ways of showing superiority, and the reasons behind them are never sincere. Though anyone can mean a 'thank you' and anyone can fake a 'thank you', it is almost always a way of getting even.
If you receive a gift that you really don't like or already have, and have no intention of using, you'd still be inclined to saying 'thank you'.
When you get something you truly want, 'thank you' is said but is thought to be meant sincerely.
This is of coarse a lie.
For, if YOU give a really good gift to someone, the least you want in return is a thank you. It is sort of a way of getting a person to show you they owe you something, but take this 'thank you' until I can repay in full.
Now, what I'm trying to show here is not that 'thank you' isn't right. I'm trying to show that there really isn't much divinity or sincerity in a 'thank you'. That shouldn't make you not want to say 'thank you', now at least we all know why and what use a 'thank you' has. It is an 'I owe you' card.
We've already established that 'thank you' and 'you're welcome' are ways of showing superiority, and the reasons behind them are never sincere. Though anyone can mean a 'thank you' and anyone can fake a 'thank you', it is almost always a way of getting even.
If you receive a gift that you really don't like or already have, and have no intention of using, you'd still be inclined to saying 'thank you'.
When you get something you truly want, 'thank you' is said but is thought to be meant sincerely.
This is of coarse a lie.
For, if YOU give a really good gift to someone, the least you want in return is a thank you. It is sort of a way of getting a person to show you they owe you something, but take this 'thank you' until I can repay in full.
Now, what I'm trying to show here is not that 'thank you' isn't right. I'm trying to show that there really isn't much divinity or sincerity in a 'thank you'. That shouldn't make you not want to say 'thank you', now at least we all know why and what use a 'thank you' has. It is an 'I owe you' card.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
