Why you shouldn't think too much.

[mike777]

"do no harm" do no harm to what? I thought our very existance means we kill some gene that reproduces because we can?

[gwnn]

Harm might be defined as "human pain", which has biological definition, but this has two problems, one that pain can be stopped relatively easily and two it is not 100% clear why this should be a basic axiom. But I suppose that's what do no harm was meant to mean.

[mike777]

Human pain is more important in doing no harm,,,,:)

 

What an ego that species/virus/gene has. First that it thinks its' pain is most important in the Universe and secondly it thinks it can live, make extremely difficult choices, and produce no human pain simply by existing and making decisions.

[DrTodd13]

Harm might be defined as "human pain", which has biological definition, but this has two problems, one that pain can be stopped relatively easily and two it is not 100% clear why this should be a basic axiom. But I suppose that's what do no harm was meant to mean.

This just reinforces my point. I don't know what they meant to mean when they said "do not harm." I suspect they didn't think about this at the next level and assumed that harm is obvious when obviously it is not. :) If biological pain is what is meant by harm then stealing is okay unless you want to introduce another axiom or you want to include mental anguish as pain. This has its own problems.

[nige1]

An axiom is unprovable by definition, so I don't see the point in bringing that up.

Fair enough :) Admittedly an "unprovable axiom" seems tautologous. Although you could quibble that choice of axiom set is arbitrary: axioms in one set can be theorems in another.

 

Not sure how you're defining "religious belief", Nigel. I am pretty sure you're not defining it as I would.

Probably not :) I'm not sure either :( It's hard to define. Humpty Dumpty's first crude attempt:

Religious Belief is reliance on hypothetical entities that suggest what we ought to do.

[helene_t]

AFAIK, there are no universally agreed upon such axioms so I was just asking what other people use.

In mathematics, you don't believe in axioms, you just accept them for the sake of a particular argument, and you might accept the opposite axiom for the sake of the next argument.

 

Maybe more relevant to this thread I could mention Occam's Razor. And Popper's criterion. The two have somewhat different status I think. Popper's criterion reflects the "truth" in some sense, while Occam's Razor is more like an aesthetical preference.

[Al_U_Card]

Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible.

 

Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.

[luke warm]

Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible.

for whom? to what end? what about those for whom your endeavors cause harm?

Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.

why must i accept a duality of existence, much less a subjectivity of reality?

[Al_U_Card]

Well, Jimmy, other than being argumentative, what is the real nature of your questions (problem) with the statement?

 

Your subjective reality may not include any dualities..... B)

[luke warm]

i've tried to argue before re: subjectivity vs. objectivity but haven't gotten very far... it seems that a lot of people buy into subjectivity but run into philosophical brick walls somewhere along the way

 

besides, i was just asking questions... i can't go much farther without the answers

[kenberg]

Here's the Catch-22, how can a rational person try to get me to believe something for which (by definition) there is no proof?

There is no Catch here. The answer is simple. He cannot "get you" to believe it. He can't stop you, either.

 

 

This general question has been brought up many times. In, I believe, the The Brothers Karamazov it is argued that if there is no God then anything is possible. Rape, murder, what have you. Michael Gerson has recently been writing Op-Ed pieces and in one of them he made a similar argument which he felt that atheists have no answer to. But of course the answer is simple: If you can believe in God, without proof, surely I can believe that it is wrong to rape and murder, without proof. Neither belief can be forced with inexorable logic, but neither belief is precluded by logic. We might look to Lennon (not Lenin) here: You may say that I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

[helene_t]

the duality of existence

What's that?

 

the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view

I'll try to give you a counter-example: I firmly believe that my own (subjective) Weltanschauung is the only sensible one and that everyone who disagrees with me is nuts! Or at least that other Weltanschauungs wouldn't work for me. Of course this is just my personal subjective opinion but that doesn't make it any less firm.

 

I doubt that you can reduce social life into a few axioms.

But if you will ever try, try: Do to others like they should do to you.

That is my preferred guideline as well. Not that I can live up to it.

[mycroft]

There is no Catch here. The answer is simple. He cannot "get you" to believe it. He can't stop you, either.

 

...[T]he answer is simple: If you can believe in God, without proof, surely I can believe that it is wrong to rape and murder, without proof. Neither belief can be forced with inexorable logic, but neither belief is precluded by logic.

 

Sure. And I don't have a problem with that. It's just that many who make the "you're silly/deluded/insane to believe in a God" argument, make it with "it's not logical/rational/you can't prove existence." *Those people* don't get to make your argument, because then they are, by their own logic, silly/deluded/insane. If, however, they *want* a Gorian world, where might truly is the only Right, fine. I don't. Otherwise, I have yet to see an argument that can't be "why'd" into statements that are not provable by rational logic.

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

I prefer the alternate reading of the Golden Rule:

 

Do unto others as you would *wish them* to do unto you.

 

For many, there is a firm belief that others "should" them destructively, because "they deserve it". I was one, for many years. I would not have wanted, then or now, to be known as someone who treated others that way.

 

Michael.

[Al_U_Card]

i've tried to argue before re: subjectivity vs. objectivity but haven't gotten very far... it seems that a lot of people buy into subjectivity but run into philosophical brick walls somewhere along the way

 

besides, i was just asking questions... i can't go much farther without the answers

 

QUOTE (Al_U_Card @ Dec 13 2007, 12:00 PM)

Endeavor to create the greatest amount of well-being possible. 

 

 

for whom? to what end? what about those for whom your endeavors cause harm?

 

QUOTE 

Understand that the duality of existence and the subjectivity of reality requires being open to other points of view and that diametrically opposed positions can be intimately related.

 

 

why must i accept a duality of existence, much less a subjectivity of reality?

For everyone.

To enable the universe to continue it's evolution.

They will benefit by the eventual improvement to their overall condition.

 

You believe in a diety that teaches the difference between good and evil, you understand the above and you question duality? One man's truth....

 

What we perceive at the macroscopic level is more myopic than anything else. At the quantum level, intention is everything. The state depends on the observer, the ultimate subjectiveness of reality. More people are realizing this and science is backing it more and more as we understand which questions to ask.

 

Answers are what you need them to be. Evolution is the process of understanding the nature of your questions.