From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 07:10:53 BST
Hey Johnny,
JOHNNY
> This isn't actually tautological, but it is axiomatic. And this question
> gets at the heart of my understanding of the MoQ, so I'll veer off the
> current love and marriage subject for sec and try to explain what I mean
by
> that seeming tautology:
>
> What people should do is what people should do. It is not a tautology
> because the two instances of the word "should" are the same word, and have
> the same full meaning, but, as I use them in that sentence, are each only
> meaning half of that full meaning - I am trying to show how the two
meanings
> define each other and give the full meaning. The moral imperitive form of
> "should" derives from the form of "should" referring to the probility, and
> the probability meaning derives from the moral imperative. If it wasn't
> moral for something to happen, it wouldn't usually happen. If it didn't
> usually happen, it wouldn't be moral. Which of these came first? My
> understanding is that the word "should" (or expectation, or morality) came
> first, and it had both meanings undifferentiated at first.
RICK
Okay. So when you say "people should do what they should do"--- what you
mean is "people morally ought to do what they probably can be expected to
do". Is that about right?
JOHNNY
But its
> self-definition as expectation required it to realize itself in a yin-yang
> sort of oscillation of both meanings (the father and son), the son being
the
> empirical created reality that sets the expectation and the father being
the
> imperitive to actualize the expectation. We live in the Son (and eat the
> Son and drink the Son) and try to know and follow the Son, the
expectation.
> Our moral imperative is the same as Gods is.
RICK
But Johnny, you are a part of the empirically created reality the sets the
expectation. In fact, you are it (tat tvam asi - thou art that). Knowing
"the son", as you say, is knowing thyself and setting your own expectations.
Knowing "the father" is then striving to live up to them.
JOHNNY
> The central point is that we do pretty much know what we should do. It is
> what we usually do, what most of us do, what we expect people would do,
etc.
> The blasphemy comes in when we think that what we should do is different
> from what should do, ie, that what ought to be done is different from what
> we probably will do.
RICK
We "pretty much" know what we morally should do? All of us? It's what all
of us usually do? It's what most of us do? It's what we expect all/most
people would do? I'm sorry but that just doesn't ring true for me Johnny.
All of don't usually do the same things. We don't expect everyone to act
the same all of the time. And expectations about human behavior change only
slight less frequently than the tides. You think that it's always moral to
follow expectations, and that trying to change the expectation is immoral,
even if one thinks the expectation is immoral. In your last post you even
"confessed" that you were being immoral by trying to change what you
perceive to be the expectations about marriage and divorce. But I expect
that my expectations (and those of others) will change over the course of
time. I expect that others will try to change my expectations... Does that
mean that you are moral for fulfilling my expectations by trying to change
them? Or immoral for fulfilling my expectations by trying to change them?
Moreover, one of the things I expect is that people will behave immorally
(yes, even me). Does that mean that those immoral expectations are moral
when fulfilled solely by virtue of the fact that I expected them?
Ultimately, I just think that there's not much of a point to this sort of
jumbled double-talk. Some expectations are moral and some aren't. I expect
that some people will treat others as themselves and I consider it moral
when that expectation is fulfilled. I expect that some people will treat
others like sh*t and I consider it immoral when that expectation is
fulfilled. Nuff said on that I think.
JOHNNY
...It is fine to ask, "what should we do?" (we are
> expected to try and do what's right, after all) as long as we remain
> grounded in morality. But the blasphemy comes in when we hate the created
> world around us and think we have a better idea of how it should be, when
we
> reject emperical morality and say that it is unrelated to true morality,
and
> that our ethical morality is superior.
RICK
Trying to make the world better is blasphemy? I don't see much value in
that conclusion. Besides, why bother pointing it out if any betterness the
statement is aimed at generating is blasphemous?
JOHNNY
This assumes a direct line to a
> ahistorical verities...
RICK
You mean ones like "people should always do what they should do"?
JOHNNY
... it removes ourselves from common history.
RICK
Individuals that shape and change our expectations are a part of our common
history.
JOHNNY
> Many many people feel that static patterns should be thwarted because they
> are repressive, morality itself is a big drag that we don't need anymore,
> and has now been replaced by ethics. They celebrate change for its own
> sake.
RICK
If they thwart static patterns because they are repressive then they aren't
celebrating change for it's own sake!!! They are celebrating it because it
marks the end of repression.
JOHNNY
What is and isn't moral is indeed the question, but it has
emperical
> answers. I'm not saying it is easy to know what is moral, only that there
> IS something that is moral, and that we should respect that.
RICK
You're NOT saying it is easy to know what is moral??? Just a few paragraphs
ago you explicitly said: "The central point is that we do pretty much know
what we should do." You can't have it both ways J.
take care
rick
Never try to teach a hog to sing. It frustrates you and aggravates the
hog. - Unknown
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 07:09:58 BST